Gibbons’ budget nearsightedness may eventually harm us

By Jon Ralston (contact)

Friday, March 14, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.

It was known as Budget Account No. 3216.

And almost exactly a year ago, an internal state memo outlined severe cuts in that state account and others reductions that were mandated not because the wisdom of the original budget proposals had been reconsidered but to hew to Gov. Jim Gibbons’ no-new-taxes pledge.

“To adjust for the removal of fee increases, the fee revenue was reduced to a total amount required to find the budget after reductions,” read the March 12, 2007, memo that explained why $5.5 million had to be cut out of Account 3216. The budget account title: health facilities/hospital licensing.

Sometimes vacuous sound bites have consequences.

This memo came a few weeks after Gibbons, who apparently didn’t read his own budget, was shocked to discover that fees were in the two-year plan and he already had equated fees with taxes. So his counsel, Josh Hicks, had to write a memo Feb. 27, 2007, explaining to all department heads that “new fees would run afoul of the governor’s policy.” As if “no new taxes” is a policy.

I am confident that our lawyer/geologist/hydrologist/pilot governor knows better than his own experts in the Health Division whether they needed more inspectors. But even if that were true, he did not care about Budget Account No. 3216 or several others when he rushed budget amendments to stunned lawmakers of both parties. But some legislators did what the governor did not read his budget. So some of the health inspectors Gibbons cut so he could bask in applause at GOP functions were restored.

A year later, Gibbons is chafing at being blamed for the ongoing health scare. We have no way of knowing whether more inspectors would have caught unsafe practices earlier. But what we do know is that this Lack of Administration, led by a tone-deaf governor who called the notion of annual inspections “overkill” and who believes “no new taxes” is a philosophy, may have contributed to the problem and has no desire to be part of the solution.

The simplistic attitude in the fastest-growing state in the country that tax or fee increases might not be needed to fund infrastructure improvements and necessary government regulation is not just benighted. It may well be criminal.

The problem goes much deeper than one budget account. That March 12 memo a year ago outlined four other Health Division budgets that had to be cut “due to the removal of fee increases.” So Gibbons could make sure he received standing ovations in Fallon, cuts were made in the radiological health budget ($920,000), the cancer control registry budget ($430,000), the consumer health protection budget ($170,000) and the health administration budget ($591,000).

Does anyone believe that the governor considered the potential consequences of making these cuts, which surely hindered the Health Division’s ability to, well, keep people healthy? And now that this has come to light, do you see Gov. Overkill taking any responsibility or showing any sensitivity? Or perhaps rethinking his inflexible, narrow position?

This is not a pro-tax/fee manifesto, folks. This is a reality check.

This phenomenon is not contained to one budget account or one state division. It is an infection that spreads across the state and is beginning to affect every aspect of life in Nevada.

The health scare is an especially egregious example of what can happen when the Gibbons/chamber of commerce platitudes about keeping government out of business’s business become policy. But when you are stuck in traffic and wondering why the roads are so clogged, or when you listen to your child lament that he had to share a textbook with other kids, or if you hear a sorrowful tale of a mental patient who was not taken care of and committed a heinous crime, look to that thoughtful tax policy.

As one lawmaker put it succinctly about all of these infrastructure-buckling needs, “Somebody has to pay.”

The answer is not simple. Maybe it’s not raising gaming taxes or diverting room taxes or some other scheme that eventually will reach the ballot. But unless lawmakers decide to override a decision by a man who puts sound bites over sound policy, or unless Gibbons reconsiders a position that only recently hardened from “no” to “never” when it comes to taxes (and fees, we presume), this inaction will affect more than 40,000 people.

Someone will, eventually, pay. The question is whether the price will be your money or your life.