Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, from left, Sen. Warren Hardy, Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford and Assemblyman Joe Hardy discuss the state budget and other issues the Legislature will take up starting Monday.
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
, Mary Manning
Sunday, Feb. 1, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Legislative Leadership Roundtable
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Four state lawmakers discuss the looming budget crisis and other issues on the agenda ahead of the start of the next session of the Nevada Legislature.
Sun archives
Sun Blogs
Sun Archives
- Top Democrats’ wait-and-see on budget: Savvy or spineless? (1-30-2009)
- Dems mum on remedy for budget shortfall (1-29-2009)
- Gibbons defends cuts, says critics have no alternatives (1-27-2009)
- Gibbons’ staffers face barrage of budget questions (1-25-2009)
No Nevada Legislature in recent memory has confronted the dire financial situation that faces state lawmakers as they convene Monday: a $2.3 billion budget shortfall, an unprecedented foreclosure crisis and a state economy in freefall.
The Sun brought together four lawmakers — two Democrats and two Republicans — during a break from committee hearings last week to discuss the 75th session of the Legislature. (Gov. Jim Gibbons was invited to participate or send a representative. He declined.)
The panel was asked about the proposed 6 percent cuts to teacher and state worker salaries, how they plan to balance the budget and whether Nevada’s money troubles will leave time for them to deal with other important issues.
The participants:
• Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, a Democrat;
• Sen. Warren Hardy, a Republican;
• Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, a Democrat;
• Assemblyman Joe Hardy, a Republican
Sun reporter J. Patrick Coolican guided the discussion. Sun reporter Mary Manning transcribed it.
The conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Do you favor the budget cuts proposed by the governor? If not, specify what you would do?
Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley: We’ll do our best to stabilize the economy and look at issues — the foreclosure crisis, jobs, examining the federal stimulus package and figuring out a way to fix our financial problems. Also, we need to learn from these experiences and restructure our state for the long term.
Sen. Warren Hardy: A lot of what we are experiencing is beyond our control. It’s national and now international. We do have some control over how we deal with it, however.
We need to spend a lot of time focusing on the policy. We never seem to get around to the policy. We’re forever trying to fill holes in the budget. If you look at Nevada history, that’s the way things go, peaks and valleys.
That will be the challenge this session. Many of us have suggested a budget stabilization fund that’s a little different from the rainy day fund. It has triggers associated with it, both what you put in and how you take it out to help us deal with the peaks and valleys.
Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford: These are extraordinary times and it’s going to take an extraordinary effort to change our approach to the budget process. Yes, we have a budget crisis, but we also need to discuss our education system. We have an enormous opportunity to position Nevada as a leader in renewable energy that is going to require a lot of collaboration and consensus building.
Most important we need to focus on economic recovery efforts. The people we represent are hurting and want to know that we have a plan.
Assemblyman Joe Hardy: We find ourselves in a hole and the first rule of holes is to stop digging.
We’re going to have to look at this as a two-pronged event. How do you save money and how do you spend money. The state needs to work with the entities with which it shares responsibility. I’m uncomfortable taking resources away from sister agencies or municipalities or counties.
Horsford: When it comes to teachers, if we try to save $300 million by cutting teacher salaries by 6 percent, that impacts our ability to recruit and retain quality teachers, many of whom are spending their own money to equip their classrooms with supplies. That is the governor’s approach — balance this budget on the backs of teachers.
The alternative is to figure out ways to support education, not dismantle it.
We have to determine what the priorities are. I believe one should be education, and one should be some critical health care services.
We can balance this budget. It will be difficult. It will require leveraging resources from the federal government, it will require us to be smarter with the dollars we have available. It will require stakeholders coming to the table to help.
It’s a bipartisan discussion.
Warren Hardy: We will talk about additional revenue, but before we do we’ve got to make cuts and they’re going to be painful.
The good news is that the political parties or houses of the Legislature don’t seem to disagree that education, mental health and public safety need proper funding.
I’m not going to participate in dismantling higher education, but that’s an individual priority. Again, we’ve got to make significant cuts before we can even talk about additional revenue.
Buckley: Education, higher education, K-12, health and human services and public safety constitute 93 percent of what we spend, so that is where the deepest cuts are being proposed by the governor. Those are the areas that we’re going to need to restore.
We cannot cut higher education by 36 percent, as the governor proposes. We cannot cut UNR and UNLV by almost 50 percent each. If that is the proposal, they might as well be shut down.
It’s a bad idea to balance the budget on the backs of teachers and state employees.
Warren Hardy: It’s a little unfair to criticize the governor for the budget he submitted because he has to fit that budget into that box. He is required to submit a budget that meets the Economic Forum numbers. That’s what he did.
If he’s susceptible to any criticism maybe it’s for his stance on not wanting to raise taxes. But a lot of us have said the same thing. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
Buckley: But it’s interesting, Warren, that last night we were with a group of Republican and Democratic business leaders, public interest groups — at a round table with 30 folks to solicit their opinions. One conservative leader asked: Has anyone talked to one person who supports the governor’s budget? Not one person had.
Warren Hardy: My point is that we shouldn’t spend too much time wringing our hands over his budget. The governor went by the process. It’s not helpful to the process to criticize him. He presented it and now it’s our turn.
We’re not inconsequential in the process unless he makes us inconsequential by vetoing things we do. So we’re certainly not going to alienate him, and I think that needs to be recognized by everybody.
What about the Chamber of Commerce’s call to make certain reforms to public employee compensation before enacting a tax on business?
Buckley: Some of the proposals are problematic. Cutting current retirees? Teachers who have given us 40 years of service? Changing rules in the middle of the game, saying, “Hey, we told you we would provide health insurance, but surprise! We’re kicking you off your health insurance.”
I think we would end up being sued and I think they would prevail.
Now, can you examine the system and say, “Times are different”? Can you look at cost-saving reforms? Absolutely.
I think you can look at reforms without kicking people off health insurance. I’m more interested in reforms as we have an aging workforce.
Warren Hardy: We’ve got to start moving down that row toward health care subsidies to retirees.
Horsford: I think there’s a lot of middle ground. We’re going to have a good debate for people divided on the issues. We should expect results, more out of education, better graduation rates. It’s real easy to tear down. It’s real hard to build back up.
Warren Hardy: We tend to implement programs, then never go back to see if they work. Like President Obama says, we need to see results.
Joe Hardy: We take every program, literally, and dissect it. Did it work or did it not work? This is a good opportunity.
Warren Hardy: The margin of error is very, very slim. I’ve heard people suggest to solve the higher ed problem that we eliminate the state college. That would be the worst thing we could do for higher ed, but until you understand the role that the state college plays, it seems like an easy answer. We must look at where the cuts are — and whether we’re making things worse.
Horsford: I know we don’t want to talk about the governor’s budget, but, unfortunately, that’s the document we’re going to have to start from. My question is: If you cut so much out of a program that it doesn’t provide a needed service or you have kids on a waiting list who otherwise are entitled to health care, what’s the point?
The safety net we build needs to provide essential services for people until the economy rebounds and people are able to go back to work and have health insurance and all the other things people want for a good quality of life.
What about the state taking tax money that now goes to local governments? Can local governments do more with less?
Buckley: I think they can do more with less. We’re all going to have to do more with less. It’s legitimate to talk about funding sources for local governments and state government. It’s time to talk about whether the state takes a portion of the property tax from local governments.
We also should talk to the counties and cities about how they would make up the difference. You can’t just consider that without consulting them, planning with them.
Should counties and cities have home rule?
Buckley: It can always be discussed, but what does that mean? Does that mean that counties and cities can raise taxes anytime they want?
Could you have a situation where one county would raise taxes so much it could trigger a tax revolt statewide that could cause us to have to defund schools?
We have to be very thoughtful about what we’re doing and unintended consequences of what we may do.
Warren Hardy: I’ve always been an advocate of home rule. The problem is, it’s just not workable in Nevada because we have two large counties at either end of the state and the small counties depend on us, the state.
It’s time that local governments go through the kind of intense effort the Legislature has done over the last several sessions. Local government needs to look at their fundamental services. I don’t think they’re there yet.
Local governments are tight, they’re tough, but are they offering programs that are not core essential functions of government?
On my side of the table, Republicans talk a lot about the need for a spending cap. Well, the state has a cap and we’re far below it.
In 1978 the Legislature developed a spending cap that was very responsible and would guarantee that government wouldn’t grow out of control. We are $1.7 billion below that cap. So the notion that state government has spent out of control is inaccurate.
I do think there’s justifiable criticism of local governments. They need to take a look at the same thing we’ve done and distill it down to the core functions of government.
Horsford: Local government should be at the table in the discussion of revenue and distribution of revenue. It should not be a process whereby we dictate or they refuse to be at the table.
I don’t think we should shift our budget problem to local government. They’re our constituents, they’re the same people that county commissions and city council and school board members represent. Shifting that problem is going to create a kind of unintended consequence at a different level.
We need a robust discussion on consolidation, particularly here in Southern Nevada. We have duplication in areas that is inefficient.
For example, the public doesn’t understand the Las Vegas Housing Authority, North Las Vegas Housing Authority, Clark County Housing Authority. The question is: Is there affordable housing? That’s what we need to focus on — whatever structure works best to get us to the best policy.
Joe Hardy: The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, a group of elected officials from every local entity, has come together and tried to do that type of consolidation. It has worked in some ways.
On home rule, we do give a county or a city home rule up to the level we think they should have and we do that almost every session. But it’s not everything that the people in favor of home rule want.
So much of where you stand on issues depends on where you sit. We sit in legislative bodies and they sit in city councils and county commissions.
Local government is doing more with less, often without credit. They’ve gone through the same exercise as we have. In fact they’ve done it sooner than we have because we don’t go into session until February.
What are issues that will come up in the Legislature beyond the budget?
Buckley: Overhaul of our financial structure: the budget stabilization accounts, spending priorities.
There are also issues on workers’ safety, the hepatitis C outbreak. The interim committee has some very good recommendations to prevent that sort of tragedy from ever happening again.
Warren Hardy: Some issues will be driven by the debate. We need broad discussion and the budget crisis is going to allow us to have that debate.
We’re going to have to work together. I don’t think this will be a partisan session because as I’ve said many, many times, a failure of the Legislature is going to be seen as a failure of the Legislature, not of the Democrats, not of the Republicans, not of the Senate, not of the Assembly, but a failure of the Legislature, and the stakes are just too high for the people of Nevada for us not to get it right.
Horsford: Beyond what the speaker mentioned, renewable energy is huge. You will see innovative approaches to position Nevada to be at the forefront of a policy nationwide.
We can create 15,000 jobs in renewables just based on existing projects being talked about, and that’s everything from the manufacturing to the construction to the maintaining of the operations. The state needs to create an infrastructure to sustain this.
The federal stimulus is great. The president’s vision is the right move. But it’s a one-time stimulus and we have an obligation as a state that we’re building an infrastructure that works for us, in education, in health care.
We also need to make some better decisions in public safety and the investments that are being made there. We have a proposal from the governor to close one prison — the Nevada State Prison in Carson City — and open a new one. And yet the best practices are not building new prisons, but using intermediate facilities and improving reentry programs and mental health, alcohol and drug treatment facilities and services. Those things need to be at the forefront of our discussion at the Legislature and it will be.
I want people to feel that even though this is the worst economy we’ve ever been faced with, we have an opportunity to get it right, to get the government working again on their behalf and to make sure it’s meeting their needs.
Joe Hardy: When we walk out of the Capitol, we will have solved this problem.
To the teachers, I say: We will solve this. You will still be paid, you will still have benefits. People who want to go to college will still have a college, a community college and a state college to go to. They will still exist and they will have teachers to teach. That is the most important message today.
Also, there is more to the session than the budget. We have 900 some bills. We have to make sure we do it all.
The most important message to Nevadans is that we will get it done.
Nobody stated that over a billion in new taxes be raised.
Even the Democrats, especially Buckley, seemed to show no back bone when talking about raising taxes.
I guess that they all realized that hundreds in millions of dollars in budget cuts are needed.
Interesting that only Horsford brings up the waste of tax dollars in our prison system. It is the second largest budget in our state. He is right on saying that things need to be different. We taxpayers are growing increasingly tired of paying for the revenge of others who don't understand that prison is supposed to return criminals to society better than they went in, and ready to become decent citizens. If we aren't doing that, and if we continue to incarcerate everyone for long periods of time without trying different approaches we can all expect that the prison/public safety budget will soon overtake the education budget.
Statistcally only 15% are violent offenders. The other 85% are people who are mentally ill, or have substance abuse problems, or don't pay their child support. There has to be a better and less expensive way to treat these problems without paying 25K a year to incarcerate them.
If they are working, they are paying taxes, not depleting the tax base.
Dear Geezelouise,
As a former Corrections officer with the NDOC there are some problems in the NDOC. Most of which are administrative. I need some help to understand your two quotes that are below.
"We taxpayers are growing increasingly tired of paying for the revenge of others who don't understand that prison is supposed to return criminals to society better than they went in, and ready to become decent citizens."
Can you tell me anywhere that happens. Having people return to the free world better then they went in? When I was in the NDOC there were many people that would come back to the NDOC. All for different reason of course.
Lastly the following what you wrote was disturbing.
"Statistically only 15% are violent offenders. The other 85% are people who are mentally ill, or have substance abuse problems, or don't pay their child support. There has to be a better and less expensive way to treat these problems without paying 25K a year to incarcerate them."
Where did you get the 85%. How many are mentally ill? What of the rest? I can tell you that in all my dealing with inmates/prisoners on the mental issue it may hover about 35%.
1. tax casinos more
2. parole non-violent first offenders
3. parole first offenders after 3 years
4. discharge all parolees after 5 years
5. as so brilliantly suggested by another, divide bailout money among the populous
My son has been in Nevada State prison for possessing 7 ounces of marijuana. I urged the judge to order him to get a college degree within five years. Instead the judge in Ely, Nv sentenced him to 3-6 in Nevada State Prison. How many others are in the prison system at $25,000 a year for similar crimes. Talk about waste. Each prisoner like that is one teacher less hired.
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto stated in a Las Vegas Sun article on prison overcrowding SUN 25 Feb 07:
"Eighty-one percent of the state's 12,800 inmates has a substance abuse problem, she said. And 40 percent of the men and 70 percent of the women , in the state's prisons said methamphetamine was a factor in their crimes."
Drug abuse is a medical problem that when cured can avoid the disaster of criminal behavior.
More drug programs, not more prisons.
Dalecummings... Your story is tragic. That judge needs to be replaced, don't you think? You had a wonderful idea for your son that would have been implemented by a compassionate judge, in my opinion. Write your legislator to change the law.
Locking people in cages for pre-determined amounts of time is an antiquated way of dealing with crime & punishment in today's society.
For many, perhaps the majority, it is actually counter-productive to any rehabilitation process we may hope to accomplish. I'm not talking about the rapists and murderers here.
Take dalecummingsallnets son for example. Do we expect him to come out of the prison system a better citizen? How about criminals like Martha Stewart? What did society accomplish by locking her in a cage for a couple of years?
Revenge? Some sense of satisfaction? Certainly not as a deterrent to others; Wall St. is obviously rife with cheaters. Drug addicts? Hookers? Tax cheats? Deadbeats?
Lock em up! That'll learn em.
Yep, lets keep locking them up and depleting the tax base at the same time.
They don't pay taxes while they are in there, but our tax dollars are spent keeping them there when they would be much better served on re-programming and educating these people. If you can get them walking on their own two feet, they add to the tax base, not deplete it.
William Clarke
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm...
This gives all the statistics on criminals. What I read in this is that
Conviction Offense
Half of jail inmates in 2002 were held for a violent or drug offense, almost unchanged from 1996.
Drug offenders, up 37%, represented the largest source of jail population growth between 1996 and 2002.
More than two-thirds of the growth in inmates held in local jails for drug law violations was due to an increase in persons charged with drug trafficking.
So if half of the prisoners were considered violent, but 37% of them were drug offenses, than to my way of thinking only 13% were violent crimes without drugs. So, if you treat the drug problem, does that negate the violenc? Was the violence caused by the drugs? I would have to think that those considered violent while on drugs may have and probably would have made better choices had they not been on drugs. So are these people violent or is the violence drug induced?
The Parole Board needs to stop trumping (over-riding) elected judge's sentences. Judge's sentence people for a 'range' of time.. say 5-10 years. That is to mean that if they are 'good', they should be paroled at 5 years.. if they are bad.. they stay the whole 10. Just about everyone gets at least one parole denial no matter how GOOD they are... there is no reward for doing good in prison. For every 3 year parole denial it costs the state more than one year of a teachers salary. Close schools, cut teacher's salaries, and build more prisons... what are we setting our kids up for if we keep showing them what we are 'investing' in..? The prison system does not rehabilitate.. most come out worse, not better.. and you and I pay for that? How stupid!!!
Folks what I have just read from the mouths of our legislators is pure junk and no real substance. Just what is it that they said? Does anyone understand them except to their own kind?
Buckley is part of the problem as she has been in the legislature for a good number of years. Exactly what has she done to make the poor better off. She didn't get this state on track. Some leader. Never saw anything coming down the track to throw a monkey wrench in the works--that got us to where we are today. She knows the need to curb the prison complex, but she still thinks the rich won't support her effort to be governor if she gives the taxpayers the needed relief from this disgenerate prison system.
Warren Hardy is just another rich kid elected because he could raise money. He has absolutely no compassion for the poor or incarcerated. He is clueless to the needs of this state.
Just another leader whose time has passed. What has he done for the seniors of this state, or the children that needs mental or physical care, or understands that the corruption of our judicial system is out of control. If it were up to him--he'd bury our prison population, even the drug smokers, to keep his idea of fair play in bounds for his prison administrator friends.
He must idolize Judges Donald Mosley, Jackie Glass, Valarie Vega and Michelle Leavitt. These judges are a blight on the state of Nevada.
But, hey citizens--"you keep electing them. Do you have any idea who and what you're voting for when you push the buttons of the voting booth?"
Horsford knows the need to reform the prison system and quit building prisons, but he can't stand up to the Old-Time-Legislators, he'll shrink to the tough old timer's of stupidity. You know, the ones who closed their eyes to the obvious signals that disaster was coming, but their friends needed their plush prison administrator's jobs. Yeah, that's him!
Don't expect much from Horsford. Seniors, and children can do for themselves. Families of the incarcerated--don't need their loved ones to take care of the needs of their families.
Nah! Let's build more prisons and grow the Prison Industrial Complex to even greater heights
and maybe even give this putrid system more than the requested $486,000,000.00 for the coming two years. Maybe only a few children will die!
Come on Horsford, Man up, and curb this prison nonsense and get rid of the parole board. You should know by now that it needs to go. Don't you?
Comes to this: "The Nevada Prison System Vs. The State of Nevada Taxpayers." Which one do you believe needs to the a winner?
Folks:
Having re-read the comments of our best legislators
has me remembering the book from the 1940"s called: "BEYOND THE GLIMMERING LIGHTS", by Trish Geran. She called the State of Nevada, "The Mississippi of the West." So what's changed? Nothing!
These legislators give us lots of words, but no soup.
Yes, I'm still speaking out for prison reform. Where is the plan to get Nevada's Prison Complex in compliance with the Standards of Prison Operations.
Nevada's Prison Complex needs to expand. "Baloney!"
However, this prison expansion is robbing the needy citizen of life saving programs. Education? My kids are gone and grown, why would I care about another person's education? "BECAUSE IT IS THE FUTURE OF THIS STATE"!
What I have seen of the leadership in this State--I don't see much of a future for Nevada. Police murdering defenseless citizens. Police beatings of senior citizens, (84 year old man in Henderson and the murder of a woman in front of her children, again--in Henderson.) and a clear picture of an already police formed state.
Forget illegal detention, think about the persons doing the most time that can be squeezed out of them and the harm being done to their families. Parasites have no compassion. This argument may not move many rich people, but the poor should take particular attention because you're next. Demand of your legislators to make prison's more compassionate--or No One may be around when you need help for what may happened to you.
You lose many needed programs keeping prison administrator's and parole board members with employment-- no real benefit to our needy and the taxpayer.
Allowing two departments that are beholding to keeping men & women locked down--for their enrichment by job security--is something that belongs in the 16th. century.
Legislators to get rid of Howard Skolnick, director of prisons, and the swift kick in the ass to Dorla Salling and her ilk at the Parole Board. This group of parasites is foul.
Here I am again Folks:
Have you ever heard of truth being an advantage in Nevada's courtrooms? I haven't. I've heard legaleze being used extensively by prosecutors--to their benefit.
But, truth, that's what lacking in Nevada's judicial system. Something that simple is harming every citizen in Nevada's courtrooms.
I'd like to hear what others think on this word.
If you haven't had a Nevada courtroom experience
you may have it hard to understand.
I'm not talking about the loud-mouthed judges, who think their very words are those Of a deity, but general courtroom conduct of the Nevada courts. Look at the thugs that abuse the public with threats and an even louder mouth.
Yeah, the bailiffs. Aren't they wonderful and full of themselves, and yet, as citizens--we allow this behavior to continue, BY PAYING THEIR SALARIES.
Let me get back to the subject I brought up a minute ago: "TRUTH." What place does truth have in a criminal courtroom in Nevada?
However, what does truth have in meaning to our legislators? Have they ever told the truth to the taxpaying public on how they vote, and why they voted the way they did?
Personally, I think not, but then, I'm not everyone. Am I?
Have a nice day...
To the following:
IRY, dalecommingsallnet, jfinance, geezelouise, filmmaker, GMAG39, Halfner, and uddaboda.
You guys really know this business from in to out,
now to get some one to respond that has the ability to make change, but that's a pipe dream in Nevada's legislature.
Have a nice day...