Columnist Jon Ralston: Guinn didn’t go far enough

Friday, Jan. 24, 2003 | 4:18 a.m.

The criticism from cranky codgers, clueless citizens and committed cutters is hardly surprising. But here's a brickbat Guinn didn't expect: I think he was too conservative.

Yes, you read that right. I don't think Guinn went nearly far enough. The governor's words Monday night spoke louder than his actions.

Anyone who thinks what Guinn proposed is excessive is reacting viscerally and hasn't looked at the numbers. He filled existing needs and added a pittance. But -- and this is the significance -- in so doing, the governor put in place a structure to stabilize the funding of state government for generations.

Yes, the figures sound gargantuan: A billion-dollar tax increase, almost a $5 billion general fund budget. But a closer look shows how little he really did:

Just to meet the so-called roll-up costs from expanding Medicaid and welfare caseloads, and new students, the state needs $705 million. That's a status quo budget.

Where does the other $300 million in the tax increase come from? A transfer of $100 million to make the Rainy Day Fund whole, $80 million to the university system to replace lost estate tax money and the rest is for a passel of enhancements, mostly to lower ed, including long overdue all-day kindergarten in at-risk schools.

So Guinn really didn't do much more than what he had to do to deal with a narrowly based economy. The most stark statistics: From fiscal '99 to fiscal '03, per capita general fund revenue declined by about 5 percent while Medicaid caseloads ballooned by 41 percent, welfare payments exploded by 28 percent and higher and lower education enrollments grew by about 10 percent. Hence the strain on the system, just to keep the status quo.

And, as the executive summary of the budget says: "Nevada does not strive to be a status quo state. We must move forward, despite the difficult economic conditions, and the associated fiscal impacts, that we face."

And yet a status quo budget (plus a penny or two) is exactly what Guinn proposed, the wailing of naysayers notwithstanding. The university system is now funded at only 86 percent of a complex formula devised to allow individual institutions to properly educate students. The state remains 50th in Medicaid spending as Nevada does as little as possible to remain within federal guidelines. And the Guinn budget does almost nothing to start Nevada on the path to respectability in per-pupil funding.

This is not the tax-and-spend governor; this is the just-trying-not-to-fall-further-behind governor.

Nevertheless, Guinn's State of the State was the most memorable of any I've witnessed in 15 years because he spoke with conviction, passion and honesty. He wasted no time on other subjects, no inane "I will keep fighting Yucca Mountain" section.

Guinn's laser-like focus reminds me of Paul Newman's retort in "The Verdict" when Jack Warden asked him about taking other cases: "This is the case. There are no other cases. This is the case."

So as Guinn meticulously laid out his case for tax increases, he was telling the Gang of 63 that this is the issue, that there is no other issue.

Guinn and his counselors could not have expected everyone to rush to embrace this speech. Yes, he could have mitigated the blizzard of negativity by using his noncampaign to bring the public along. But there is no time left for "I told you so's."

The debate begins now, under circumstances the governor created. He has opened the door for would-be budget-cutters such as Assemblyman Bob Beers and Sen. Ann O'Connell to pore over the line-items as never before. So let's have that discussion, let's cut where we can cut and then end the argument.

On the other hand, let's also debate whether businesses have been getting a free ride, whether they really will pass on these taxes in higher prices (they don't in other states) and whether a quarter-cent on their gross is really so onerous. As MGM MIRAGE President Jim Murren put it: "If your business is going to go out of business for a quarter percent of the revenue, you have a bad business or you're running it poorly."

It might be too much to ask to tone down the rhetoric after Guinn's laying down of the gauntlet. Beers is not heartless and has every right to raise questions, just as others are not profligate budget-busters.

I continue to fear that re-election imperatives will trump thoughtful debate, that others feel as Beers does that they are "merely the vehicles for the people to express their will. That is what legislatures do -- it's the way it works."

Unfortunately, too often it does. But we did not elect automatons; if they represent us, we invest them with the power to make decisions for us, not genuflect to our every whim.

And that includes the governor. For four years, Guinn has talked publicly, including his previous two State of the State addresses, about the need for a stable revenue base. This is the first time he actually put your money where his mouth is.

And when you take a closer look -- and I hope everyone does as the Gang of 63 does during the next few months -- you will see he really isn't taking a lot of it.