Las Vegas Sun

March 29, 2024

Columnist Jon Ralston: Calm before spending storm

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the Ralston Report. He can be reached at (702) 870-7997 or at [email protected].

WEEKEND EDITION

April 23 - 24, 2005

As lobbyists compete in Carson City to see how successfully (and quietly) they can finagle special interest plums for their clients, the overarching question to be settled before the first week in June is a broader (and noisier) one: How much can the Gang of 63 spend and on what?

Every session -- whether it's about tax increases, workers' compensation reform or health care costs -- can be distilled to a debate over money. And the last time state lawmakers spent less than a governor asked them to was about the time Paris Hilton was inducted into Mensa.

It's not going to happen in 2005, either. But this year the Legislature will be presented with a record pot of money to spend. And with 126 hands grabbing for the largesse, the possibilities are endless.

Or close to endless -- $2 billion is a good ballpark figure, as I told you weeks ago. The actual numbers that will be revealed when the Economic Forum meets on May 2, reliable sources agree, are likely to reveal a current surplus that has increased by more than one and a half times what was first thought to be a half billion dollars, with three times that amount to spend in the coming biennium.

This unprecedented, incipient spending spree comes against a backdrop that features a Republican governor who proposed the largest tax increase in history pushing for the largest giveback in history, and two Republican legislators (State Sen. Bob Beers on capping expenditures and Assemblywoman Sharron Angle on capping property taxes) promoting initiatives that could forever change and restrict the way the state spends money.

Outside of the property tax debate that resulted in a slightly illegal solution, this has been the Session of Ennui in the capital, characterized by a collective snooze from lobbyists and lawmakers alike as they remain hung over from the taxing three sessions of 2003. But before sine die in June -- assuming they can avoid another special session or two -- the debate could be joined over how the state spends money, where it spends money and how much it should spend in the future.

Although my experience tells me that to expect an honest debate over these pressing issues is about as likely as Station Casinos losing a vote in front of a local government, I will make one more pitch. There are fundamental questions that lawmakers dodged two years ago as they pathetically argued over numbers -- should we raise $1 billion in taxes, or only $900 million or maybe just $836 million? -- instead of programs and philosophy.

The $2 billion question provides a perfect opportunity to force those who believe government spends too much and those who insist education and other areas need more money to flesh out their positions and make difficult choices. The overall problem can be broken down into two questions:

But what Guinn understood, especially after his pummeling two years ago, is that the public will never support spending all of the excess cash unless you give a substantial portion back. So there will have to be some kind of rebate -- the question is how much and how it will be done.

Temperatures will only rise as adjournment approaches, with many supplicants panting for part of the huge amount of cash. Many lawmakers see the governor's proposals as without coherence, just tossing money here and there, with no eye toward long-term goals.

Many -- all right, all -- members of the Gang of 63 have pet projects they want funded while the money is there and will not be as receptive as they normally might be to certain requests. Thus you see Interim Chancellor Jim Rogers last week asking for $200 million -- twice what the governor budgeted for higher education -- saying it is badly needed and would beget private sector donations.

It was almost comical to hear Democratic lawmakers question the wisdom of such a cash outlay, pointing out that such an increase would be the baseline for any future budgets and could cause tax increases if the state is not flush as it is now. This is just as hypocritical as Republicans who have session after session voted for program budgets but against the revenue to pay for them.

Lawmakers should debate whether Rogers is right. They should discuss whether all-day kindergarten is a necessity or a luxury. They should argue about whether it makes more sense to spend the excess funds on one-shot appropriations -- buildings, other capital projects -- rather than erecting an increased base for the future? Or is this just the fortuitous moment to build that base, to use the money to lock future lawmakers into funding education, health care and social programs where they should be funded.

Instead of quarreling about numbers, being guided by personality disputes and listening to lobbyists looking for an extra million or two for their clients, perhaps the Gang of 63 will, for a change, discard their bifocals and take out their binoculars.

archive