Columnist Erin Neff: Balancing budget on backs of less fortunate

Erin Neff

Friday, March 28, 2003 | 4:34 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- This is what we were waiting for?

On Wednesday, after months of speculation about program "enhancements" that could be cut from the governor's proposed budget, the Assembly Republicans finally came with their idea.

And despite their argument that the plan doesn't cut human services, the Assembly GOP clearly balances the budget on the backs of Nevada's weakest -- our kids, elderly and the most needy.

While the GOP said the move was designed to reduce government spending, the late entry into the tax debate actually shows us the effect of service cuts when the opposite -- revenue for services -- is what's needed.

On Friday Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick jokingly proclaimed himself the "original king of slash and burn."

That's precisely what Nevadans don't want their lawmakers to be.

Rational budget proposals aren't slash and burn. They are laid out in bills that offer specific changes to the law and present clear-cut financial calculations that all can see.

There's no doubt Hettrick's plan has good elements, including a real property transfer tax and some necessary cuts.

But as the Legislature nears the halfway point of the session slashing and burning through what should be a deliberative process is pure folly.

Hettrick puts a line in the sand that no economist in Nevada accepts -- a budget shortfall of $600 million. That's how much new revenue Hettrick's plan would raise, ignoring the $704 million deficit which grows higher in projections.

The GOP plan takes the tax debate backward by saying a broad-based business tax is not needed.

The best part of the plan is that it cements the choices by which Nevadans will live:

On paper Hettrick's $4.9 million cut to Senior Rx seems doable. But it creates a longer waiting list for the program that has been called a national model and it provides no eligibility for elderly couples.

You have to wonder what kind of accountant would project flat caseloads in welfare for the next two years to save $28 million.

We're at war and the economy still stinks. The GOP plan suggests that neither of those truths will affect the number of people needing welfare, and it means nobody requiring services will be moving into the state.

Nevada is already last in the nation in welfare spending.

It's one thing on paper to cut $5.2 million for uninsured children. It's another to see how the loss of $9.7 million in federal matching funds, which the proposed cuts would kiss goodbye, will affect what Nevada can provide.

If the state can't fund some of the federally mandated programs or those aimed at the needy, it could face costly federal lawsuits over the lack of needed services.

Nevada can pay for the relatively small line items Hettrick slashes now or pay much more later.

If the Legislature chooses to balance the budget on the backs of the least fortunate instead of the businesses that can afford to pay a bit more, it deserves to be at the bottom of every social index in the nation.