Energy, budget on Gibbons’ mind despite divorce distraction

By Richard N. Velotta

Friday, May 30, 2008 | 2 a.m.

With Nevada’s economy sagging, Gov. Jim Gibbons agreed to an interview with In Business Las Vegas, a sister publication of the Las Vegas Sun. The interview took place at the Capitol in Carson City. This transcript has been condensed from the version that appears today in In Business.

What do you think has been your most significant contribution to the state so far?

Handling the budget is a vexatious problem. We can’t control the economy. We are working diligently to make Nevada energy-independent from much of the rest of the energy world. We’re trying to reverse this importation of electricity by developing Nevada’s own natural resources: solar, biomass, wind, geothermal — to replace a lot of the fossil-fuel-driven energies that we have in the state.

What do you think is the biggest problem or issue facing the state?

The downturn in the state economy, the lower revenues, the expectations that we’re going to have to reduce spending on a government level compared to most other administrations before mine that looked at it and said the answer was to raise taxes to meet those spending expectations. My goal is to lower spending expectations to meet the tax revenues that we have.

Some say the solution is to change the tax structure, not necessarily raise taxes, but to change some of the allocations. Would you concur?

Our tax structure was built for a government with about 1 million people, and that was about 20 years ago. Now we’re approaching 3 million people. Whether or not our tax structure and the distribution of those taxes meet the current needs is something that I think the Legislature wants to look at. It doesn’t mean we’re going to do a tax shift, nor does it mean we’re going to propose more taxes. There are some that want to look at the reallocation of those existing taxes and perhaps divide them up differently so they meet those critical and urgent service expectations in a more efficient manner.

You’re driving critics crazy by sticking to your pledge of not raising taxes at a time when higher taxes would seem to help solve many of the state’s problems. Are there any circumstances that would warrant your support of an increase?

I’d love to say a flat no. But I don’t have a crystal ball. My goal is to make government accountable. I believe that when revenues are lower, spending has to be lower. This is not an issue about raising taxes, especially in a downturn economy when families are paying more for gasoline, for heating, for food, for health care — just anything in the economy that impacts their lives. Why should we go back to that same taxpayer — while they’re making tough choices — and expect them to keep us from having to make tough choices? I won’t do that. My pledge is that if the working family is making a tough choice, the government of those working families is going to make tough choices about spending as well.

What do you think it’s going to take to turn the economy around?

First, we’re going to have lower energy costs in the United States. I don’t know what we’re shipping overseas in terms of petrodollars leaving our economy. That’s got to change. Second, we’re going to have to get the housing market back so that we’re building homes, which will fuel our construction industry. We have transportation issues as well. We’ve got to make sure that we’re able to move goods and services along the stream of commerce without interruption.

What are your thoughts on term limits? Would you support a legal challenge to term limits?

There are pros and cons on term limits. Whenever you have a small-state, small-government entity, term limits hurt small governments. Like Nevada federally, or Winnemucca statewide, because you lose the institutional knowledge, you lose the seniority of those individuals who are being able to represent those rural areas. It’s tough to get good candidates to run. I think there’s a worry that term limits give lobbyists too much power. We need to educate legislators and government officials as to excesses, whether it’s undue influence or the educational requirement of their job in terms of learning about the issues, so that at every turn of the road you don’t have a lobbyist standing there handing something to you. There’s nothing wrong with lobbyists. Believe me, they’re a necessary ingredient in making sure that the panoply of issues are understood. Not every legislator is a multifaceted expert in everything from communication, transportation, banking, insurance — you name it — issues that come before them. They need help. Lobbyists are paid to be more educators than influence peddlers.

How are you able to maintain your focus on running the state with the distractions from your divorce?

Every leader has challenges. I am not letting my personal issues become center stage. That’s why I refuse to address those personal issues in the media. We have been able to handle the issues and crises that have arisen over the last year, I think, remarkably well. The number of things that have happened — fires, floods, earthquakes, health care, budget cuts — all have compounded to make a perfect storm. But when you have flown through much more difficult storms than this, it is no challenge to me to put my personal issues aside and focus solely on the operation of day-to-day maintenance of government.