STATE BUDGET:

Deep cuts, as promised

Higher education, state workers would take the biggest hits

AP Photo/Nevada Appeal, Cathleen Allison

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons delivers his State of the State address in Carson City.

Friday, Jan. 16, 2009 | 2 a.m.

State of the State 2009

The Nevada budget shortfall for the next biennium is $2.3 billion. Gov. Jim Gibbons plans to make that up, in part, by adjusting allocations in the following areas.

38.6% — Operating reductions such as limiting hours at state parks and museums, combining agencies and closing rural mental health clinics

18.4% — Pay cut of 6 percent for state employees, including Highway Patrol troopers, DMV workers and teachers

12.3% — Increase in hotel room tax in Clark and Washoe counties. The tax hike was approved by voters in November

8.7% — Suspend merit pay increases, annual raises built into the pay scale, for state employees and teachers

6.7% — Increase in the cost of health insurance for public employees including gaming regulators and university professors

Reader poll

Download Gov. Jim Gibbons' proposed budget

Live blog of the governor's speech Thursday night

Archive of Sun politics stories

Politics: The Early Line

There are no better punching bags for conservatives than government bureaucrats and pointy-headed professors. Thus, the budget of Gov. Jim Gibbons.

The Republican governor’s proposed $6.17 billion budget for the next two years has $2.3 billion in cuts and revenue enhancements compared with the spending plan he signed in 2007. The reductions in spending come largely on the backs of state workers, college and university employees and teachers, and in higher education.

State employees will be asked to take a 6 percent pay cut ($435 million); pay more in insurance benefit costs ($159 million); and forego scheduled merit and longevity pay increases ($213 million).

The higher education system, meanwhile, will get 36 percent less funding than was approved in 2007, a $472 million cut.

For a sense of how much bigger the hit to higher education is compared with other departments, public safety, which includes the Corrections Department, takes the next-largest hit. That agency will see a decrease of $70 million, or 11 percent less than approved in 2007.

Even if Gibbons didn’t give conservative Republicans everything they wanted in his budget — he included a room tax increase that was approved by voters — he came close. His approval rating might be dismal, but he still has his no-new-tax pledge to run on if he seeks reelection. And he took on Democratic sacred cows and fired a shot at his most consistent critic, higher education Chancellor Jim Rogers, who has repeatedly hammered the governor over his no-new-taxes stance.

With that level of cuts “we’ll have a community college system, and barely a community college system at that,” Rogers said.

At a briefing Thursday morning, Gibbons’ staff said the governor wouldn’t detail or provide a recommendation on how cuts in higher education should be carried out. His staff noted that higher education is governed by its own board, which can raise fees.

Josh Hicks, Gibbons’ chief of staff, said that as a percent of its general fund, even after the cuts, Nevada would still dedicate a larger share of its funding to higher education than the national average.

Andrew Clinger, Gibbons’ budget director, said that to save as much money as the 6 percent pay cuts will, the state would have had to lay off 9,000 to 11,000 of its 25,000 employees. That is largely because of the high cost of buying out laid-off workers.

The state would lay off 375 employees and eliminate 1,427 vacant positions under Gibbons’ spending plan.

The budget avoids some of the steepest cuts that had been discussed. When added caseload growth is factored in, Gibbons’ budget includes a 4.2 percent increase in the Health and Human Services Department. K-12 funding is reduced by only 2.6 percent, including the 6 percent salary reductions and insurance benefit changes for teachers.

Gibbons’ budget is now largely in the hands of Democrats, who control both the Assembly and Senate.

Proposed cuts in teacher and public employee pay are sure to become a lightning rod-issue as lawmakers pick apart the spending plan during committees hearings over the next two weeks leading up to the 2009 Legislature, which convenes Feb. 2.

Teachers unions, a formidable political force, will also be vocal opponents.

Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, who has sometimes stood with the governor, will likely oppose the biggest cut. Raggio has spent his entire career as a leading architect of the higher education system in Nevada. “He’s not going to spend his last term dismantling what he spent 35 years building up,” said one Republican with knowledge of the situation.

“I think the governor’s budget is irrelevant,” Rogers said. “I think the question is whether the Legislature will do something.”

With forces aligned against its no-new-taxes approach, Gibbons’ budget could be viewed as merely a hypothetical scenario.

Staff and a few outside advisers spent “hundreds of hours” putting together the spending plan.

Gibbons ordered it be done with no tax increase beyond the 3 percentage point room tax increase in Clark and Washoe counties approved by voters in November. And it includes the closure of Nevada State Prison and some conservation camps. Enrollment in Nevada Check-Up, which provides health care for children of working poor families, would be capped at 25,000, leaving 2,000 to 3,000 children on the waiting list. Eight of 20 rural mental health clinics would be closed.

The budget also makes some optimistic assumptions — that the federal government will increase Medicaid assistance by $107 million and that the room tax increase will bring in $300 million. More recent figures from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority put the room tax revenue closer to $240 million.

But in the end, the budget is balanced and there are few things the general public will scream about.

Former Gibbons campaign manager Robert Uithoven said that while some Republicans will be angry that the governor included the room tax in his budget, most will view the major test of Gibbons’ no-new-tax pledge as arriving when the Legislature sends a large tax increase for his signature in May or June.

“It’s a defensible budget to present,” Uithoven said. “The Legislature has every right to do what they want. Nobody likes to be in this situation today. But it does present an opportunity for needed reform of how government works, how it spends money, how it saves money.”

Discussion: 22 comments so far…

By gmag39

1/16/09 at 6:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gym Gibbens, as prommissed, is the egeyookation gubner.
Yoo R the Mann, Gym Gibbens!
Thank Ewe!
Know Knew Taxus!!!
Yesss!
Stoopid money wasting liburls. Y don't thay unnerstand wee R broke?
By vsestini

1/16/09 at 6:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

I noticed fat cat Republican Sue Lowden in the audience of Jim Gibbons' address last night. She was smiling like a Chesire cat whenever Jimbo mentioned 'no new taxes. Of course the fat cat doesn't want new taxes...she needs more jewelry, fancier cars, bigger and more expensive homes to live in...taxes would interfere with that.
By vilate

1/16/09 at 7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

The remedy is easy.

Scrap the pay cut.

Don't marginalize every agency or every univesity department by making across the board cuts.

Cut (1) athletics - not a necessity; (2) education colleges - teachers should and can obtain 4 year degrees in their field of teaching. (Why Johnny can't read or do math is the fact they dumb down education curriculum for teachers by giving them their own courses that are not demanding); (3) cut the community colleges completely. They are more of a convenience for the rural hayseeds than a necessity.

Such cuts would have no impact on the credibility or performance of 2 remaining universities. Athletics, educational colleges, are not a significant part of many very fine universities.

Pay me for my idea.
By Teaser

1/16/09 at 8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Only rural hayseeds go to community colleges? I'm sure the nearly 40,000 students who attend CSN appreciate the slur. And by the way, Einstein, the correct grammar is "Athletics and educational colleges are not a significant part of many very fine universities." If you'd gone to a community college, you would know that.
By Narcissa

1/16/09 at 8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Well, by all means, let's continue to spend the tens of millions that we do to support those illegals and all their high-achieving anchor babies.

After all, by continuing to have law enforcement officers, from the Attorney General on down, who either refuse to lift a finger or who don't do nearly as much as they could to make Nevada as unwelcoming place as possible for these people, we, the taxpayer, get to reap the enourmous benefit that comes with having to subsidizie all that "cheap" slave wages labor, that the libs love to point out will "save" us from paying an extra nickel to have our grass mowed.
By Future2012

1/16/09 at 8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Parsing through the budget numbers

Counting federal and other funds such as highway collections, Gibbons is presenting the 2009 Legislature with a $17.3 billion biennial budget or just 0.9 percent lower than the 2007-2009 fiscal year spending program.

Of the $17.3 million $6.17 million is for the Nevada executive budget.

The executive or general fund budget included $546 million in revenue increases like room taxes.

Gov. Kenny Guinn June 7, 2005, applauded the 121-day effort of the Nevada State Legislature, which approved the Governor's less than $6 billion executive budget and included passage of the Governor's $300 million rebate to the citizens of Nevada.

The 2007 Legislature approved a State General Fund operating budget for the 2007-2009 Biennium of approximately $6.8 billion. This was a huge 14% increase and was based on unsustainable revenue projections. Through a series of cuts the 2007-2009 has been reduced by more than $1 billion to less than $6 billion.

Thus the 2009-2010 $6.2 billion budget represents an increase from the current year working budget.

Nevada's population is static or declining so a growth in service is not needed.

Looks like the budget size is just right.
By LKM

1/16/09 at 9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Here's the letter I sent to the governor today:

Dear Governor Gibbons:

I am thinking of a 19-year-old student I will call Sarah, who graduated valedictorian from her CCSD high school with top scores on her college exams. Knowing that her single mother could not afford to send her to college, she had worked four years to earn her merit scholarship at UNR.

I am thinking of a 23-year-old student I will call Mitchell, recently back from Iraq, with a new wife and a baby on the way. He is paying his own way through CSN, with plans of becoming a college professor. He is one of the best writers I ever taught, and certainly has the brains and the determination to do it.

Of course, neither Sarah nor Mitchell, nor tens of thousands of other young Nevadans, will have any chance of achieving their dreams, of being trained for professional careers, or of supporting their own families, if you gut the higher education system at the level you have so wildly proposed.

How does any responsible adult, one having asked for and been given the responsibilities of governing a state, one whose decisions have dramatic and personal impacts on real people's lives, propose 34% cuts to the entire Nevada higher education system?

Whether you were playing some sort of political game, thumbing your nose at a chancellor you personally dislike, or appealing to the basest and meanest elements of our citizenry, your call for these cuts was beyond petty or foolish. It was cruel and irresponsible: an abdication of your duties as a public citizen.

No words could properly express my disdain - for you or for the advisors who helped you develop such a budget.

Sincerely,

Laura McBride
By LKM

1/16/09 at 9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

And for the record, here's the letter I sent him about the 6% salary cut as well:

Dear Governor Gibbons:

A 6% cut is an income tax waged solely on state workers. Everybody in Nevada needs state services, but only public employees are having their incomes taxed to pay for it.

If our tax structure were equitable, then the proper response to this crisis would be to cut the budget. But our tax structure is not equitable. Big companies are reaping profits in our state, and not contributing to the long-term health of our economy.

How could you ask state workers to absorb budget cuts, benefit cost increases, hiring freezes, AND the only income tax in the state, while allowing mining companies and places like Wal*Mart to get off without contributing fairly?

How could you let them get rich while Nevada children suffer without critical health and education services?

Your salary cut is an income tax, waged against middle and lower income state employees only.

Sincerely,

Laura McBride
By Fred_Flintstone

1/16/09 at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Vilate, your post sounds like typical elitist drivel. The community college system is conduit for generating skilled labor as well as a bridge for higher education. I personally know dozens of successful and talented professionals including physicians, attorneys, entreprenuers and business executives who got their start from the community college system. Not everybody can or should jump from High School to University.
By KDR81

1/16/09 at 12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Deep cuts = 0.9% reduction in expenditures over last budget.

Deep cuts = 8.9% increase in expenditures over 2005-2007 budget

Deep cuts = waa, we arent raising taxes to increase spending 20%
By cutthroat

1/16/09 at 12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

When you add up all of the numbers for salary and benefits cuts, State employees are shouldering more than 34% of the state budget cuts. Nevada's citizens, and the Governor, are forgetting that government is not business. I get it that when your hotel is empty, you don't need housekeepers, and when you are short on orders you don't need as many workers to make your product. But when the economy turns downward, citizens need and demand more government services, and responsive government needs to rise to the occasion. This budget reflects a major failure to lead.
By NevadaFive

1/16/09 at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Please do not blame Governor Giboons - as he is mentally challenged. His actions remind me of GW Bush running around the country in AF1 looking for a place to hide on Sept 11th. Giboons' budget is near irrelevant. Instead of being a leader and falling on his "no new taxes" sword - he wastes time and our money speeching-making about tough times. Oh, no new taxes!?!?! Of course there will be new taxes, higher government fee's that Giboons will "veto" fully knowing the legislature will override him. He is the poster child for (really) bad government.

Realistic solutions are needed ASAP. Destroying what little Nevada has for higher education is not the place to start. Taxing only state employees (proposed 6% reduction) is certainly not fair (possibly against current Nevada statute). Closing rural mental health clinics? Okay, although I feel sorry for the sheep.
By vilate

1/16/09 at 12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

So a community college in Las Vegas has 20 or 40 thousand students. The point is it duplicates what could be provided or is provided at UNLV. You don't need three colleges in LV. One will suffice.

Government is going to be reduced.

Cutting accross the board makes no sense.

In addition to closing all community colleges, eliminating university athletics and eliminating the college of education at both universities, you can add the department of agriculture, the Nevada Division of Investigation (counties can provide their own law enforcement and do), to the chopping block.

If that doesn't do the trick eliminate the department of parole and probation (or privitize) and roll the juvenile justice system into county law enforcement.

Putting more money into eliminating teen pregnancies is probably a expenditure that would reduce the need for cops and prisons in the future.

Vilate graduated from a community college. So back off.
By dbuss

1/16/09 at 2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

The process ahead to sort through the proposed budget will likely be very difficult and the more that we can deal with the discussion in a straight-forward, non-personal approach the better that it will all go. Naturally, those who see their family income's at risk (whether in the form of salary reductions or tax increases) will and should take the process very personal. All citizens need to be involved in the discussion and providing their input. The fundamental questions of what are we getting for the money being spent can't be lost in the uproar that will certainly come.
By NewToThis

1/16/09 at 3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Why couldn't community colleges be eliminated? What will an Associates degree get you? Nothing! I do know that 90% of state jobs require a Bachelors. My Associates hasn't helped me at all. If there were only universities, the quantity of registered students would be higher. With more people registering wouldn't it be possible for fees to be lowered, then even more people could register. An Associates is a waste of time and money.
By NoNevJim

1/16/09 at 9:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

S.A.G.E. = Screw All Government Employees
By uddeboda

1/17/09 at 2:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

This is all so confusing. Some of you are for the cuts and others are against the cuts.
The State of Nevada must have one of the lowest Tax burdens on their citizens, yet you are still wanting the services that the state cannot afford.
1. There is no STATE tax in Nevada.
2. Sales tax is only 6.5%.
3. Property tax is 5% of assessed value.

Regarding the federal Tax, I believe this has nothing to do with the states own finances.

Only when you have a serious tax on people, property and a serious sales tax, only then can you the citizens expect to get services from the state, to be adequate and proper.

I could think that a serious total tax on you the citizens would be in the order of about 30%, then you can expect the services you are all wanting.
By Teaser

1/17/09 at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wow, Vilate, way to dodge the fact that you insulted nearly 40,000 people with your "hick" slur. No explanations for that? Or are you actually guilty of the elitist attitude you were accused of by another? How about an explanation for your characterization? Because my CSN students are anything but "hayseeds." In fact, a lot of them are UNLV students who prefer to take classes from CSN precisely because we provide what they need.

As for your notion that UNLV can handle what CSN does now, what, exactly, do you propose? That we shut down all CSN campuses, fire all CSN faculty, and simply let the existing UNLV handle the workload? They can barely handle their own students. They could never handle the additional 20,000-30,000 students from CSN.

So, again, are you elitist and would argue that, oh well, they're just "hayseeds" and should be denied education?

Or are you presuming that UNLV would merely absorb the CSN campuses and faculty? Because then you have another problem. CSN is open enrollment; UNLV is not. CSN serves the community at large with its enrollment policy. We provide education to anyone who wants it.

UNLV necessarily has stringent admission requirements. Under your proposal, UNLV would either have to remove those requirements - thus abdicating its accreditation status - or it would have to turn away literally thousands of Vegas residents who currently benefit from CSN education.

So, are you saying that Las Vegas residents at large should be denied educational opportunities? How, specifically, does your plan reconcile the fundamental differences between the nature of a research institution and a teaching institution?

C'mon, put that community college degree of yours to work and lay out your specific plan, here and now. And don't forget to explain your "hayseed" remark this time.
By NOZZLE

1/17/09 at 8:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lets drop it with the educational opportunities nonsense, in most cases these students should be swabbing toilets because that is all they will ever be good for, unless they can get do nothing jobs in Illinois government.

At least your governor and legislators take a responsible approach to fiscal policy unlike Illinois ($5 Billion in the hole), California ($25 Billion in the hole), New York (who can count that high), Michigan (Being sold the to Chinese in foreclosure) all Blue states by the way, I wonder if there is a correlation. Nah.
By odessyus

1/20/09 at 2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

By all means cut out the community colleges and pour that money into UNR or UNLV. By all means support the two universities of the state over all else even though people in California nd New York ask such interesting questions about degrees from either such as "Are they even accredited?"

Hate the community colleges but remember that there is little to no respect for a degree from either Nevada university (exception in Hospitality) across the rest of the USA. Not like having a degree from USC, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Rice, SMU, Pepperdine, U. of Chicago...you know, the Private Universities. The ones we don't have in Nevada.

So really what we have is a collection of community colleges that are viewed outside Nevada as being equal in educational achievement. Some just put the word University in there name rather then delete Community.
By odessyus

1/20/09 at 2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

How about this for a partial remedy concern our "educational" needs:

Make a head tax of $20 for every child that is put into the K-12 system and allow the school to keep all the monies collected and have them used only for supplies and books. Only those who are using the K-12 system will pay as they should. Retired people and people who never had children would be spared the cost as they are now not allowed to use the system (observe how the basketball courts and practice fields are always locked when the school is closed). A school of 1000 students would bring in $20,000. a school of 2000 would bring in $40,000.

And what would be the cost to the poorest families? They would need to save $.06 per day per child. What would that be? One less beer per week? One less pack of cigarettes per week? One less trip to McDonalds per month? Stopping tithes to houses of mysticism? Nothing that logically can't be sacrificed "for the children".
After all, what is more important, creature comforts or their child? (The answer may scare the hell out of us)

Will that come about? Not with the spinless jellyfish who we have elected to inhabit our government. No way would they dare to tick off the underclass or the greedy upperclass. Votes and campaign contributions ya know....

As for roads....think toll roads to pay for the upkeep paid by the users of those roads. Kinda fair, isn't it.....