Columnist Jon Ralston: Session spawns early intrigue

Friday, Feb. 11, 2005 | 4:02 a.m.

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 ralston@vegas.com.

WEEKEND EDITION

February 12 - 13, 2005

CARSON CITY -- Applying conventional wisdom to a process that is hardly conventional and rarely wise often leads to erroneous conclusions.

Before Legislature '05 commenced last week, the feeling seemed universal: The still-painful detritus from Sessions '03, which featured the largest tax increase in Nevada history and bitter personal and partisan warfare, would ensure that this would be The Session Where Nothing Happens.

But after a sojourn in the capital, I now fear it's possible this could be The Session Where Too Much Happens. At a time when you might think -- here comes the conventional wisdom -- they would be only too happy to quickly solve the property tax crisis and give back a whole bunch of money, the Gang of 63 seems paralyzed on the former and opposed to the latter. Add in the overlay of the two Democratic leaders running for governor and trying to run over each other, and the prospects for a quiet session are evanescent. Here's why:

Too often lawmakers opt for pettiness over pragmatism, and this is an exemplary case. On the one hand, I feel their pain -- the barbarians are at the gates. But does that mean they should engage in buck-passing and pandering?

Many in the Gang of 63 are whispering or yelling that this is a local government problem and that counties and cities should simply reduce their tax rates. Sounds appealing, but it's impractical. The locals have very little flexibility thanks to voter-approved issues or legislatively imposed (sound the irony alarm!) measures.

So they have to act decisively, a skill at which they do not excel. Nevada Taxpayers Association boss Carole Vilardo has the best idea, which is to ensure the severe economic hardship exemption in the law can be invoked by those who need it. Help those who are really suffering, let the inevitable initiative to roll back rates come and hope to defeat it at the ballot in '06 as the populist fires die down.

That would be statesmanlike and thoughtful, so figure the odds. If it doesn't say "cap" or "rollback," the Lowest Common Denominators may not be placated. And outside of a few forward-thinking lawmakers, pleasing the LCDs is always the preferred path.

It's different in that no taxes are needed; it's similar in that the Gang of 63 has a lot of money to spend. It's different in that the governor didn't plop a billion-dollar baby on their door step, leaving 63 ill-suited, bickering parents to care for the orphaned child; it's similar in that the governor's early-session surprise this year is a $300 million giveback plan that is supported by almost no one but Kenny Guinn's nemesis of Session '03, state Sen. Bob Beers. Lawmakers don't like the method, don't understand why the amount was chosen and see all manner of problems in administering it.

But there's more -- a lot more. Money, that is. The governor essentially has told lawmakers they have an incredible $2 billion to spend. The math is easy to understand: Take the $300 million surplus they have declared for the current biennium and understand that is a lowball estimate.

Add in $1.4 billion in new money and additional funds from county sales collections that will revert to the general fund and you get to that $2 billion figure. Even if you subtract the costs of paying for more students in the education system and more social service cases projected for the next biennium, you still will have close to $1.5 billion to spend.

Question: What do politicians do when they have a gigantic pot of money? Answer: The same thing they do with a small pot of money: fight over it.

With more cash to grab, and more ideas than ever of what to grab it for, the battle of erecting new buildings versus creating new programs will dominate the session.

This will be fascinating to watch and excruciating for those who have to suck up to both of them and stay out of the crossfire. The Perkins folks still believe that once Titus sees all the support he has, she will fade away. But nothing is so dangerous as a woman with nothing to lose: Titus knows that if she can emerge from the session unscathed -- a large "if" with her incendiary personality -- she will be able to tell donors that while Perkins will not return if he loses, she will be atop her upper house perch in Session '07.

So will it be the stolid, reliable Perkins or the fiery, mercurial Titus who looks better come June? Or will they slice each other up so that Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson decides to run or Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman talks himself into the race? And do any of them have any chance against the unblemished frontrunner, Rep. Jim Gibbons?

The answer to the last question, many Democrats hope, could prove once again that sometimes conventional wisdom is not always so prescient.