Plan that constrains budget is criticized

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 | 10:58 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A proposed constitutional amendment to limit state spending in Nevada would hurt the poor, the needy and families, lawmakers were told Monday.

Larry Struve, representing the Religious Alliance of Nevada, told the Senate Finance Committee that Senate Joint Resolution 5 was a "flawed proposal" and he urged its defeat.

But Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, the author of the proposed constitutional amendment, countered that it "would prove to be popular with the citizens."

The resolution would limit the Legislature to budget percentage increases every year based on population growth and inflation. To go above that would require approval of the voters.

This proposal is based on a similar constitutional amendment in Colorado.

Struve said there is a movement now in Colorado to suspend that constitutional amendment so it can "catch up" with the needs of that state.

He told the committee that the Colorado plan has been in effect since 1992. He said Colorado is now 50th in immunization of its citizens, 49th in providing substance abuse treatment; 48th in prenatal care and 48th in the country in per capita state funding for higher education.

Colorado is looking at major increases in tuition at its universities and there is talk about privatizing some of them, he said.

Struve said Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and top legislators, Democrats and Republicans, are asking the voters this November to suspend the operation of the spending limits for five years. He said Owens was once a supporter of the plan.

But Beers said Owens was in Las Vegas this month and the Colorado governor isn't opposed to the plan.

If a program needs more money, it can be submitted to the voters for their approval, said Beers.

The proposed constitutional amendment provides that if the voters approve an increase in spending and the revenue collected exceeds the projected revenue, the excess money must be refunded to the public.

The limits on SJR5 would also apply to local governments.

The committee did not take action on the resolution. It would have to pass this session and again in the 2007 Legislature and then be submitted to the voters for final approval.