Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterJim Gibbons is no governor
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.
The most important elected position in this state needs a name change: For the next two years, it shall be called “the job formerly known as governor.”
A governor governs. He (or she) leads. He or she has a vision. He or she inspires confidence. He or she understands that hollow slogans and repetitive rhetoric are not governing.
Dick Bryan governed. Bob Miller governed. Kenny Guinn governed. Jim Gibbons has not governed — by any definition of the word — and thus forfeits the title and should be known until he departs as having the job formerly known as governor.
Nowhere was that more evident than during the one-day special session, which was bookended by a speech delivered by the one person in the capital showing gubernatorial bearing and a media availability by the person who has the actual title but left the impression he lives in a fantasy world.
The session commenced with Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley giving a brief but compelling address that was more gubernatorial than anything Gibbons said all day. The speech was rhetoric bolstered by research, a justification for the latest round of cuts leavened by a sober look at what must be done in Session ’09. Madame Speaker talked about the balance needed between reductions and keeping the state performing its essential functions, especially because 93 percent of funding goes to education, health and human services and public safety.
She read off cuts made so no one forgets the 10-figure gutting that has occurred and includes $173.5 million in lower ed funding, $83.8 million in higher ed appropriations and $113 million in Health and Human Service cuts that have affected those who most need government services.
Don’t call Buckley a bleeding heart or simply take her at her word. Perhaps you should listen to Hugh Anderson, of the hardly bleeding heart Chamber of Commerce, who recently wrote to members, “With the cuts already made to the state budget, there will be a limit to the amount of spending that can be reduced without undermining the core services provided by the state.”
Buckley then went through the gimmicks approved Monday and said they were a lesser evil to even more cuts, saying, “Our work here today is to act as crisis managers. When we come back, there will be no Band-Aids left.”
Looking to Session ’09, Buckley articulated a balance that the man holding the job formerly known as governor has yet to do: “We need to develop solutions that balance two things. Education, health care and public safety cannot withstand a 34 percent cut. Our economy is fragile and many families and businesses are hanging on by a thread.”
Then she laid out the contours of her plan: Examine spending (smart political and policy move), creating a “forced savings account” and “ensuring adequate revenue is available” (yes, we know what she meant).
But before you call her a tax and spend liberal, listen to what Bill Raggio, the Senate minority leader, would say later in the day: “There are still people out there who say cut, cut, cut. They don’t have to come in here and vote.”
No, but they do have to submit an executive budget, and a few hours after Buckley spoke, Gibbons gave us the outline of his: Consolidate state agencies, make government smaller and somehow not eliminate any services.
Oh, and what else? It will come to me. Oh yes: NO NEW TAXES.
One fiscal expert e-mailed me after reading the astonishing idea that cuts can be made and services will not be affected and declared, “Nothing short of amazing.”
Actually, it’s nothing short of frightening. The numbers are stark: a 34 percent cut in the budget. In other words: To return services to the levels approved by the 2007 Legislature, it would take a little more than $8 billion. A no-new-taxes budget is $5.7 billion.
It is unsustainable. Hugh Anderson knows it. Bill Raggio knows it. Most lawmakers know it. But Gibbons doesn’t get it.
You know who really gets it? Buckley. She wants to be governor and she acted like a governor Monday.
Many people in the Insider Kingdom — aka, the malest place on Earth — think Buckley can’t win a statewide race against either Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid or a strong GOP contender. Maybe. But the contrast of her Monday performance, a rare combination of memorable eloquence and somber professionalism, with that of Gibbons, an even rarer combination of shocking delusion and stubborn confidence, showed just who was governor for a day and who holds the job formerly known as governor.
Discussion: 29 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Binion’s to close all 365 rooms, lay off 100 workers
- Ex-NBA star to pay $12,835 monthly in gambling debt case
- Report: 70 percent of homeowners underwater
- Scuffle in pub parking lot leads to attorney’s arrest
- Rebels enter hoops rankings at No. 24
- The ins and outs of CityCenter traffic
- Palin craze puzzling, given ’08 disaster
- Harrah’s moves ahead with Planet Hollywood deal
- Man arrested for DUI after crashing into high school’s wall
- MGM Mirage begins lifting veil on CityCenter today
Blogs
The Kats Report
Dissimilar landmarks -- Binion's and CityCenter -- reflect today's Las Vegas
High School Sports Scene
Prep Football: State Championship
Elsewhere
UFC debut in Boston likely July or August (1 Comment)
The Kats Report
Planet Hollywood's Thomas McCartney headed for Tropicana (14 Comments)
Elsewhere
LV woman robs Kentucky strip club, police say (4 Comments)
Las Vegas Sands' Hong Kong IPO flops (3 Comments)
The Kats Report
Monday List: Top 13 Moments and Observations From Thanksgiving Weekend (4 Comments)
Calendar »
- 2 Wed
- 3 Thu
- 4 Fri
- 5 Sat
- 6 Sun
-
Nic Faniciulli at Godskitchen
Body English | 10:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Mischieve Wednesdays at T&T
Tacos and Tequila
-
Ben Sherman gift bag giveaways at Wasted Space
Wasted Space | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Thanks Jon for this piercing analysis of our state's leadership and budget crisis. Only Barbara Buckley has had the courage to stand up and tell the truth directly to the people by holding town hall meetings. Insider Kingdom (ye bastards who anointed Gibbons) take note: We will work out tails off for her in the primary, where she will summarily trounce RR, and in the general election, where she will lay waste to the man formerly known as governor.
It is yet to be seen if Speaker Buckley will utilize any of the suggestions made in the town hall meetings, but for the first time in a long time the citizenry was allowed to be a part of the process.
It isn't enough to just elect someone to do a job. It is the duty of every citizen to monitor what their elected officials do, and call them out if they don't agree.
The only criteria that Jon Ralston has for a governor is that they must raise taxes during a depression.
Governor Jim Gibbons has maintained the same position as Barack Obama that you do not raise taxes during a recession let alone the depression that Nevada is in.
Infact Obama's plan will be to reduce taxes on 95% of the people, as part of his recovery plan.
Jon thinks Gibbons is not leading because the state has not laid off people, gave them their 4-10% raises, still is issuing driver Licenses, and there is not a massive outcry for missing services
Jon's hero Buckley is governor material because Buckley articulated a balance "We need to develop solutions that balance two things. Education, health care and public safety cannot withstand a 34 percent cut. Our economy is fragile and many families and businesses are hanging on by a thread.
Madame Speaker Barbara Buckley talked about the balance needed between reductions and keeping the state performing its essential functions then sign off on the all the additional cut (34%) with NO taxes increases.
Last I looked Gibbson and Buckley look like twins.
Future2012:
Gibbons has already said that state workers will get no raises at all, but that only saves $40 million.
We had to raid the Millennium Scholarship fund and get a line-of-credit from another source just to stay afloat, and Gibbons said point-blank that there will be no more asking for loans or lines of credit.
Gaming revenue dropped AGAIN in October, which means that hole in the budget is gonna get bigger. A 34% cut will DESTROY what's left of the state government - you want to shut down health facilities in rural Eastern Nevada? Close prisons like the main facility in Carson City? Because that's what will happen to hit that target.
If you believe that's a GOOD thing, then you are an idiot.
Clearly, the people of the State of Nevada are unwilling to meet their own responsibilities when it comes to state government. Like the mark who cruises into the casino, we hope for something for nothing, and are only now learning we get nothing for nothing. Nevadans could invest in Nevada if they were asked. It's not hard to do, and it's not unfair. Casino patrons alone cannot be the sole source of investment in Nevada. If we believe in our State, invest in it. So many other states are also suffering the burdens of this poor economy, but they will stand far ahead in the line for Federal infrastructure investments than Nevada, because Nevadans refuse to invest in their own state. That's right folks; we're talking about taxes. We're talking about an investment by those most able and by those most directly benefitting from the State's success to invest in the State, just like you would in a business. It's called responsibility. The rest of the country looks upon the whining of Nevada's government as that of a spoiled child. If we're unwilling to invest in Nevada, we'll get exactly what we pay for: the worst health care, the worst universities, the most fragile non-gaming business environment, and the least responsible government. We also get Unions who live in OZ and not only don't lead the Western labor movement, but are becoming the antithesis of core, values based labor. We also get municipal executives financially connected to the very interests they support with public funds. Nevada has quietly and yet quickly marginalized itself in the west and throughout the country as the Libertarian stronghold of nothingness.
Nevada invested into Jim Gibbons, for leadership, guidance, etc. The people of Nevada have not received back anything from Gibbons, but a arrogant selfless spoiled child man. That is what this Great State has received in return for a so called Governor.... It is to the point of pitiful...
People are living in LaLa land.
The state of Nevada economy has been reduced and people are getting laid-off left and right.
The government supposely have been making cuts left and right but no reducation in raises has occurred and no major layoffs has occurred.
In fact, the government employment has grown and employees have gotten higher raises than normal (COLA raises).
That makes no sense at all. Most entities that make large cuts result in layoffs.
Something is wrong.....very wrong. The government for all these years must have had tons of fat hanging off it.
It is time for the government to reduce its labor cost like a large chunck of private entities have.
It is time for the Sun, Ralston, Lord Rogers and the Democrats to stop living in LaLa land and start leaving in the real world.
If we place big tax increases on businesses that are just trying to survive then that could cause more harm than good. It might actually cause the economy to get weaker and the recession to last longer. It might actually reduce government revenue in the long term.
The population in Clark county has gotten smaller.
Prices for goods and services are dropping every day.
I guess the Democrats, Sun, Ralston (mouth piece for the Democratic party) and Lord Rogers perfer more layoffs in the private sector to save their big government dreams.
Jfnance32 thinks MORE UNEMPLOYMENT WILL HELP THE ECONOMY.
His big fix for the economy? Lay off state workers! Increase unemployment! Increase the burden on those state services that are already under siege.
That's the most brilliant idea for fixing the economy, ever!
Good post esquared. Its time to throw away the old suits Reid and Gibbons and start anew. Nevada has devolved into the most dysfunctional state in the Union.
ksand99 thinks more unemployment and higher taxes will help the economy.
Higher taxes in a down economy will result in more unemployment.
I guess that is your brillant idea for the day.
The government should reduce or freeze salaries like many private companies have done. Obviously, they should freeze hiring, too. They should also reduce contributions to the Platinum retirement program, too.
"The government should reduce or freeze salaries like many private companies have done."
He already did that, as I pointed out upthread.
"Gov. Jim Gibbons said Tuesday that, in addition to no cost of living raises, state workers will not be receiving step increases in the coming budget cycle.
Gibbons has said several times over the past few months there would be no cost of living raises for state workers in his proposed budget. Asked Tuesday if that included step increases, he said, 'Yes. An increase is an increase.'" - Nevada Appeal, December 10th, 2008
I said nothing of the sort.
You actively campaign for layoffs. "Reduce labor costs," your words, is clearly pointing to layoffs.
Get a clue, jfnance32 more unemployment will not help.
So, Mr. Genius...Ksand99, how will you solve the budget problem without raises taxes on struggling businesses that will result in more unemployment.
Also your logic makes no sense.
"Lay off state workers! Increase unemployment! Increase the burden on those state services that are already under siege"
Are you are saying that is more expensive to the state to provide services to an unemployed person and his family then it is to pay a state employee?
If that is true, then the state should immediately hire anybody that is not working. It would be cheaper to pay them a state salary than the cost of providing them state services.
Obviously, that is nonsense. If it is true that the cost of providing services to layoff persons is higher than the cost of providing a good salary with benefits then that would be biggest proof ever that government spending is out-of-control.
"Are you are saying that is more expensive to the state to provide services to an unemployed person and his family then it is to pay a state employee?"
Do you just pull this stuff out of thin air, Nance?
More unemployed people means more people relying on the social services provided by the state, i.e. unemployment benefits, food stamps, health services, etc... some services which have already seen cuts.
More unemployed people means less revenue for businesses. Those businesses may have to decrease wages or eliminate positions to make payroll with decreased revenue.
That, in turn, also increases the burden on government.
No one stated that the state should hire EVERYONE. That's, uh, moronic.
Still waiting to hear what you want to tax that will not drive Nevada's depression era economy further down
"Still waiting to hear what you want to tax that will not drive Nevada's depression era economy further down"
How about mining? In 2006, when gold wasn't even yet at $1,000 per ounce, the industry made $5 BILLION from extracting in Nevada...but only paid $30 MILLION in taxes. (For comparison, gaming reported $12.7 billion in winnings and paid $870 million in taxes.)
Reason? Mining interests can deduct almost all production costs from their extractions before having the tax levied. In 2006, the mining industry as a whole paid taxes on only a fraction of what they removed from the ground.
here are some facts about the Government of Nevada workforce. Try to deal with reality, you government-haters.
Based on a 2005 population of 2.4
million people, only 5.5 percent of Nevadans worked for state and local governments, which was
50th out of the 50 states, and significantly less than the national average of 7.5 percent.
By function, Nevada also has the smallest relative number of people in education and health.
Only 1.6 percent of Nevadans worked in K-12 education, which was 49th out of 50. Even lower,
only 0.4 percent of Nevadans worked in higher education, which was not only 50th out of 50, but
was also more than 40 percent below the national average. The combined number of government
employees in public welfare, health, hospitals, and highways, was 48th in the country as a share
of the population. By contrast, the combined proportion of employees in police, fire, corrections,
parks and recreation was 13th in the country, more than the national average, and the proportion
in government administration was 28th in the country, roughly equal to the national average.
Which will place a higher net burden financial on the state government?
A laid-off private person - All new cost to the state government in providing services
A laid-off government person - New cost to the state government in providing services minus the savings in salary and benefits paid to the government employee.
"Which will place a higher net burden financial on the state government?"
First, you might try reading your posts, this sentence structure makes no sense. Second, you missed the point (for the billionth time).
Thebs is right, layoffs, especially in a market with rising unemployment, only make the overall situation worse. Consider single-earner households; you may lay off one person, but several suffer. That unemployed person faces a lowered income, so their spending decreases. When spending decreases, business revenue falls, leading to more layoffs or stagnant wages. In turn, spending falls, so tax revenue declines, and more government employees are laid off. Wash, rinse, spin.
Your plan feeds that vicious cycle.
As for mining, it's a great place to start. Nevada mining taxes are limited to 5% (after voters passed a law increasing mining taxes in the late 80's) but the industry pays 1/10 of that rate after bizarre write-offs. In 2001, the gold mining industry deducted 86% of it's gross production ($2.2 billion) and reported 483 million in value.
http://tax.state.nv.us/DOAS_Archive_page...
In 2005, 11 gold mines, with gross production values totaling $802 million, reported NO taxable value after deductions. They removed $802 million in gold from Nevada and didn't pay a single cent in taxes.
A net tax rate of one-half of one percent is insane.
I am glad that you and theBS see that unemployment is bad.
So you will stand up to raising taxes on businesses that are struggling to stay alive because that will cause unemployment.
I have no problem with raising some taxes on mining.
You are not going to raise that much money (probably not more than $30 million). I would oppose radically raising taxes on mining if it causes unemployment in mining.
I guess that is all the taxes you want to raise otherwise it trigger what you hate which is unemployment.
Too bad I missed this whole debate.
1) Where is the 34% number coming from? How do they reach it?
2) The current general fund is down only 9.1% over last year. http://npri.org/blog/imaginary-budget-cu...
3) The current biennium general fund is up 63% over the pre MBT tax increase...even after these budget cuts. How are services really being hurt if they have 63% more money? http://npri.org/publications/legislature...
"Your plan feeds that vicious cycle."
--Only if you assume government spending is as productive as private spending.
If for example we fire 1,000 government workers and save $50 million instead of raising taxes to pay their salary then the private sector has $50 million it can spend.
Since most government workers produce nothing of value they are a net drain on the economic engine of society. Sure you can argue their work is needed. For example someone to work at the DMV to issue license plates, but the license plate itself and the issuance of one creates no value for society (only a small revenue stream for government itself by taking money away from people who would have spent it somewhere else).
Private spending, me buying whatever I want, produces jobs in those sectors. Those people work on providing me goods - they create value for me and society.
Thus spending to produce something is better than spending to produce nothing.
If it was true that government spending could reduce unemployment and at the same time increase economic growth then why doesn't the government just hire people to dig holes and fill them in again? That is a prime example of useless work (most government workers, working to fill some unnecessary state driven mandate that 9 times out of 10 inconveniences people and causes them to waste time or spend money in a way they otherwise would not have done.
So no, getting rid of workers who produce nothing so money is freed up to create jobs for people to create something does not create a vicious cycle. Far from it - instead increasing government expenditures and taxes robs the private sectors ability to create wealth and value and puts money to a lower valued use. Meaning we have fewer people creating wealth and more creating nothing of value at all. That is a vicious cycle...its also why communism fell and why poor socialist states never become wealthy.
The solution to the budget problem is not in lay-offs or tax increases.
It is in finally accepting that Yucca is happening, there is nothing we can do to stop it regardless of what Harry and the Sun will tell you, and get as much as we can from the Federal and State governments that will be sending us the waste. We ought to be able to get 2-3 billion a year for our troubles, direct that to the k-12, prisons, health/human services and Universities and we are golden...radioactive but golden.
Just laughable. First government jobs do create wealth, just not mainstream consumer wealth. Second, KDR just leave the country, because even as a liberal I don't bad mouth the military like that. Your claim that 90% of all government workers do nothing and inconvenience Americans is insulting. I guess all those policemen, firemen, teachers, professors, and not to mention the military inconvenience Americans. As for those above services not creating wealth, well that's dumb.
First except firemen, all those services listed above have private sector counterpart like private schools, private detectives, and private security companies. Additionally, stuff like say the military is a huge wealth maker. Someone has to make all those uniforms for our men. Someone has to make all those weapons. Someone has to create all those vehicles. And the same can be said for schools. Someone has to build and furnish those schools. There has to be a supply of books for the students. And the list goes on. While government is wasteful and needs reductions, it is not the chimera you make it out to be. Additionally, stuff like the DMV that "does nothing for society" is junk. They regulate who's on the road. While they are not perfect by any means, their efforts are a lot better than opening the flood gates to whomever can get behind the wheel. Jesus, when did you start being so unAmerican.
I agree that certain workers must be laid off.
jfnance32 and Jim Gibbons are the two fatheads that must be trimmed.
Jon is right on target. Gibbons is no leader. He is a failure.
As for tax increases, mining and gaming do not pay enough. Add to that higher grazing fees since our public lands are being over grazed for pennies by ranchers and add a bit higher fee for developing on land that is not located in an urban core (in-fill).
If we got rid of all the protection of special interests we might come up with a fair tax code in Nevada that would take this state out of the red.
KDR81 - What planet are you from?
Jon is on the Sig/Greenspun/Buckley/Horsford/Reid payroll. Keep that in mind whenever you read his cheerleading.