Commentary: As Legislature kicks off, GOP is a house divided

Michael Campbell

Friday, Jan. 24, 2003 | 4:56 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION: Jan. 26, 2003

Gov. Kenny Guinn, early in his State of the State speech last week, paused to note that he was standing in front of a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, who was president during our country's greatest crisis. Lincoln, Guinn said, was a man who was able to unite the nation.

Guinn, in turn, asked Republicans and Democrats to stand with him in creating a more prosperous Nevada. For the Republican governor, a better future means passage of his two-year budget that contains the largest tax increase in Nevada's history.

The proposal, however, already is creating a political war of sorts, producing dissension among many Republicans who shudder at the thought of being associated with nearly $1 billion in new taxes. So much for unity.

Left unmentioned by Guinn in the State of the State was that it took a bloody four-year struggle by Lincoln to put down the insurrection by the Southern states. Unity required that a terrible price had to be paid first.

In the campaign that Guinn will have to wage during the upcoming four-month legislative session, he will have to clash repeatedly with fellow Republicans lawmakers who want no part of raising taxes. And the anti-tax Republicans were given a boost last week when the Clark County Republican Party's Central Committee passed a resolution urging legislators to reject new taxes.

The governor did hold out an olive branch in the reference to Lincoln, but the speech mostly was combative. He contended that those who opposed an increase in taxes to pay for needed services would be guilty of "political cowardice." Guinn also said that he wouldn't balance the budget "on the backs of our children, senior citizens and the poor."

The tough talk is necessary. Guinn, who is known for his willingness to compromise and build coalitions, has to show that he is the boss, that he means business. But the directness also entails risks, especially the possibility of alienating some of the anti-tax Republicans he ultimately will need if his tax package is to pass.

If Guinn and anti-tax Republicans aren't able to come to terms, it could create a political civil war that could leave lasting wounds for the party. If that were to happen, it would be ironic, given the huge wins by Nevada Republicans in 2002 that were supposed to presage a rosy future for the GOP in this state.

The Republican whose imprint will aid anti-tax Republicans, giving them hope that they possibly could dash the governor's ambitious plans, wasn't in the Assembly chambers on Monday when Guinn delivered his State of the State address. But it is the legacy of U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons that will make it incredibly difficult for Guinn to get the Legislature to pass new taxes.

Gibbons is responsible for the requirement that any tax increase be passed by a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the Legislature, instead of a simple majority.

Gibbons, a little-known state assemblyman in the early 1990s, rose to prominence by getting his anti-tax initiative passed. It came about in the wake of his opposition to the 1991 Legislature's passage of Democratic Gov. Bob Miller's business-activity tax. While the attention he received was substantial, it still didn't help him enough in the 1994 governor's race, which he lost in a landslide to Miller.

Nevertheless, the popularity of his initiative helped him win a U.S. House seat in 1996. His success in passing the tax-restraint initiative also contributed significantly to the "no new taxes" philosophy that gripped Nevada politicians -- both Republicans and Democrats -- during the 1990s, so much so that there haven't been any new state taxes since 1991.

And in an eerie reprise, it now is another little-known Republican assemblyman -- this time Bob Beers of Las Vegas -- who poses the greatest threat to passage of new taxes. Beers has criticized Guinn's tax plan and has drawn up a list of state government programs that he believes should be considered for cuts or elimination.

Some other Republican lawmakers share Beers' beliefs, and he could give Guinn fits if he keeps pressing the issue. After all, it would take only 15 assemblymen in the 42-member chamber or eight people in the 21-member Senate to stop new taxes. That isn't out of the realm of possibility in light of this state's anti-tax history.

But the Republicans have shown that they are capable of overreaching in their desire to cut government. For instance, one program that GOP assemblymen have considered sending to the chopping block is a federal-state health insurance program for 25,000 needy children. The governor dubbed such a act "heartless" and vowed he would veto any effort to cut it.

It will also will be extraordinarily difficult for Republicans to resist funding politically popular programs such as public education. We can't turn away the 27,000 new students who will enter our public schools over the next two years. And because roughly half of the governor's budget is tied to education, that makes it almost impossible for Republicans to find other programs to cut that won't be painful or don't make them seem mean-spirited.

The key for Guinn is persuading reluctant Republicans -- and a number of Democrats, too -- that raising taxes won't be political suicide. The governor is popular and he's going to have to be willing to stand by those senators and assemblymen who vote for more taxes -- and pledge to not campaign against those who vote with him, including Democrats.

If Guinn is successful at fending off the attacks by the anti-tax Republicans, and passage of the legislation doesn't create a public backlash, in the long run it could have a secondary effect as well by pushing the party more to the center.

That prospect shouldn't be overstated too much, however, since the party likely would return to its more conservative leanings, especially if someone to Guinn's right captured the party's gubernatorial nomination in 2006.

It also will be telling to see how many of the Republicans considering a run for governor in 2006 -- Guinn can't run again because of term limits -- either support Guinn's taxes, remain noncommittal or outright oppose his plan.

It is fascinating to watch Guinn swim against the national Republican tide of "no new taxes" as he acts to balance the budget with new revenues in order not to jeopardize the fate of education and social services in this state.

It's early, and Guinn has a few months to get recalcitrant lawmakers on board, but the clock is ticking and this will be the defining test of his stewardship. The governor seems to embody the idea of "compassionate conservatism" that President Bush so frequently champions, but never quite seems to live up to.

It now will be interesting to see just how many Nevada lawmakers will follow the governor's lead as he tries to make "compassionate conservatism" a reality in Nevada government.

archive