Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterThe Legislature:
As budget clock ticks, easy part still isn’t done
Higher ed delays agreement on spending side of equation
Tuesday, May 12, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
Sun Coverage
Sun Blogs
Carson City — This was supposed to be the easy part: figuring out how much the state would spend over the next two years.
Legislators were unable Monday to reach an agreement on funding higher education, even as a deadline fast approached that could see the entire process wrenched from their control.
They still have the harder task in front of them: developing a plan to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to meet the spending levels they have and are approving.
Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, acknowledged Monday that negotiations over which taxes to raise “will be even harder” than agreeing on how much to spend.
Only nine days remain until legislators’ self-imposed deadline to pass a budget.
In the past, governors would call special sessions to allow more time to finalize budgets and other legislation after the constitutionally mandated 120-day legislative session ended. This year is different because Gov. Jim Gibbons has no intention of giving the Legislature time beyond the June 1 deadline to do anything other than pass his budget.
He has said he will veto the Legislature’s budget if it includes any tax increases, which the lawmakers’ budget will.
To pass a budget and allow time to override a Gibbons veto, the Legislature must pass a spending and tax plan by May 21, legislative leaders say.
Earlier in the day, Buckley said that if lawmakers don’t soon pass a budget, they will be forced to pass Gibbons’ budget.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said lawmakers must reach a deal on the spending portion by today, “otherwise it’s 50-50 if we can get the budget done on time,” she said.
Democrats chose early on to set up the budget process like this: First come up with a spending plan. Then talk about which taxes to raise.
But it has taken months of hearings and hours of closed-door negotiations to come close to a consensus on spending. A deal remained elusive late Monday. Standing in the way is $14 million in spending out of a budget of more than $6 billion.
All that is left to decide on the spending side is higher education and a small K-12 fund. Leslie said Assembly Democrats have offered to cut that K-12 fund — used for grants to public schools — to reduce the cuts to higher education.
Gov. Jim Gibbons had proposed a 36 percent cut to higher education from spending levels approved by the 2007 Legislature.
Assembly Democrats and Republicans have both signed off on a 13 percent cut to higher education, according to Leslie. Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford wants to go to 12 percent, she said.
Horsford wouldn’t confirm any number but said he has drawn a line in the sand.
“It’s such a small difference it’s pretty silly ... At some point you have to draw the line.”
Senate Republicans — two of which are needed to pass a tax increase — have drawn their own line. Republican sources say they are resisting adding money to higher education to avoid increasing the size of a tax increase. The highest tax increase they could support is about $800 million, the sources said.
Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, wouldn’t confirm any numbers but said, “There are limits to what caucuses are going to support. I’m not just going to throw that out.”
The failure to reach an agreement has added tension to the atmosphere.
Earlier in the day, Horsford emerged from the closed meeting with a scowl on his face.
“There are at least four or five blowups a session,” said one veteran lobbyist. “I think they’re only on two.”
Discussion: 33 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Big fight headed for a New Frontier?
- Las Vegas condo hotels remain a tough sell — just ask Trump
- $60 million to stabilize neighborhoods buys five homes
- Hotels rein in risque advertising campaigns
- LV companies in denial about problem gambling
- Funny Face: Carrot Top’s stage act a mask of contradictions
- Reserve Rebels didn’t have time to panic
- Hospital privacy leak could harm patients
- Breaking down UFC 106: Tito Ortiz v. Forrest Griffin
Blogs
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (1 Comment)
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 21 Sat
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
-
UFC 106 at Mandalay Bay Events Center
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Julio Iglesias at the Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Natasha Wicks hosts at Hawaiian Tropic Zone
Hawaiian Tropic Zone | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Tito Ortiz hosts at Tao
Tao | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Hiroshima at Santa Fe Station
Santa Fe Station
-
Frank Mir hosts at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Amir Sadollah hosts at Prive
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
The building drama is probably all part of the game to make it seem like there is a decision process with "hard choices" instead of doing what's going to be done anyway and increasing state government at the expense of those in the private sector who have to pay.
Oh dbuss, that's just wishful thinking on your part.
An $800 million tax increase would be pretty bad for the economy. It also happens to be the amount Horsford wants, so that wouldn't be much of a negotiation. That would put spending at $7 billion, and would be more than the spending approved during our current biennium.
Nevada has the fastest growing government in the nation and we are still trying to grow it.
Funney, when I make a household budget I first see what income I have then tailor my spending to fit that amount. Why can't our elected officials do the same thing, trim back in the bad years and spend a little more in the good years and sock a large amount in savings for the down times? Spend and tax is nonscense and the price will be paid in the next election!
It's a nice catch phrase, P_R_G. "Nevada has the fastest growing government in the nation and we are still trying to grow it."
But Nevada was also the fastest or second fastest growing state in the nation (population) for the past 14 years (maybe not this past year). And basic services have never caught up.
That's why our roads and highways are always considerably behind capacity and dangerous in many parts of the valley. That's why there are 42 kids in some elementary classrooms sharing textbooks because there are not enough for each kid to have their own. That's why whole prisons are being closed.
Government should be as lean and efficient as it possibly can while providing the basics of transportation, eduction and public safety at outstanding levels.
Why does per pupil expenditures have to continually grow? Shouldn't governments be able to take advantage of economies of scale? (No, actually they are too inefficient and wasteful which is why we shouldn't encourage more government spending).
All states have roads behind capacity, we're no exception. Still, we've done nothing innovative like create toll roads managed by private companies.
On the education front, why not have more privately managed schools earning tuition from the state?
Nevada is providing more than "basic" services, but it provides all of it poorly. Its not because of insufficient revenue, its because government is a monopoly and monopolies rarely, if ever, provide a quality service at a reasonable price.
Boy, if there were 42 kids in a classroom that classroom would have $299,250 in revenue (at CCSD official per pupil figures).
You've got to ask yourself, "what on earth are they doing with all that money?"
When a Roman military unit performed poorly or without honor on the battlefield the leadership practiced a tradition called decimation. The infantry from the dishonored cohort would line up and their commanding officer would draw a straw to determine a number between one and ten. Starting at that number every tenth man would be slain by their centurion, the equivalent of our modern non-commissioned officers.
The Clark County School District graduates 61% of incoming freshmen and our legislature is preparing to raise taxes during a severe recession. Both entities are failing us miserably. While I'm not for the slaughter of our teachers or legislators, I would like to propose terminating the employment of teachers, administrators and legislatures in the manner the Romans used so effectively to secure the superior performance of their military unites. Maybe we could even convince Gov. DummyMcSkankTard to do the honorable thing himself. Although upon further reflection the latter would probably more accurately be described as Seppuku.
legislatures = legislators
unites = units
Wow... should have had that second cup of coffee before proofing my rant. :-)
Patrick, tell the truth please.
The economic forum says revenues will be $5.5 Billion without a tax increase.
There is a $400 million gap in the K12 education fund that the state has to fill.
$800 million in new taxes means:
$5.5B - $400 million + $800 million = $5.9 billion
Still a lot, but not $7 billion. Even with the stimulus, you are exaggerating by hundreds of millions of dollars.
The 2005 legislature spent $6.2B, which is where we will be with the stimulus money. (And which, by the way, was the governor's original budget for 2009-11, so the legislature, with an $800 million tax increase, will roughly be where the governor started if we include the stimulus money).
These figures are based on the questionable assumptions that 2009-10 revenue will only fall 1.2% and 2010-11 will *increase* 2.4%. This fiscal year revenues are down 9.1%.
Bill, if NPRI told the truth, it would have no reason to exist.
<<Nevada has the fastest growing government in the nation and we are still trying to grow it.>> What matters is that Nevada has the worst public services in the nation, mostly because they're grossly UNDERFUNDED. The private sector needs to pay more if we ever want to live in a civilized state. Period.
Mike, that comment is unbecoming of someone who holds the profession of an academic. Prove your point don't create fallacies. You know better than this. If you don't, relinquish your job so a professional can take it.
Bill,
$5.5 billion, plus federal stimulus money (a number that varies from source to source) Some say $400 million some go up to $700 million. I've even heard $1.2 billion but I was told not all of that can go toward the General Fund. The $400 million gap in the K-12 funding stems from lower than expected revenues at the local level. The DSA requires a basic per pupil support that the state fills in case local revenues do not meet that level (so perhaps not restoring funding to some other programs would have been prudent -- ironically the state legislature also wants to sweep local funds and then give it back to them in the form of education money, forcing local governments to increase sales taxes to make up the difference -- or heaven forbid cut spending that the state government refused to do).
But lets assume that is correct and that they plan on restoring the DSA through the general fund. We still have $5.5 billion plus $700 million, plus lets pretend its $800 million in more taxes. That equals $7 billion.
How they spend it merely reflects their priorities. You can't just select one expenditure and subtract it from revenues and say, well we need more revenues and act as if that $400 million never existed That isn't logical. You look at how much revenues are available and set your spending priorities accordingly.
Morgen,
Prove the point don't just make the claim. You believe that the state is underfunded then automatically assume services must be bad. This belief is based on the fallacy that government services will improve if they simply get more money.
If Wal-Mart was the only store in town, do you think its services would suddenly improve if they told you prices were increasing 17% and there was nothing you could do about it?
Patrick:
The only confirmed general fund stimulus money that goes to the general fund is about $350 million. All other stimulus money we've gotten to date (more than $200 million) is not general fund.
If the state takes money from the county to cover the $400 in the school fund, there is no net increase in fuding, so somebody still has to cut $400 million.
And, before you insult someone else's professionalism, go back to the discussion we had about K12 results and spending. You kept inventing things I "said," and never apologized, despite my repeated requests that you do so.
Is that for a single year or for the biennium. Because I've heard $1.2 billion total. $700 million of that for the general fund.
Other sources have said $700 million total with $400 million for the general fund.
And no Bill, you did in fact say some incorrect things. I pointed them out to you and you're circular logic somehow manage to disregard that too.
"If the state takes money from the county to cover the $400 in the school fund, there is no net increase in [funding], so somebody still has to cut $400 million."
This expenditure comes from revenue (obviously). You don't just exclude an expenditure and pretend that money disappears and claim the revenue is even lower. This is, what you have in fact done in your calculation above.
Now to pay for it. Does it mean we have to cut spending? Only if our legislature is such poor planners they didn't realize this expenditure would be necessary after 5 months of projecting lower revenues at the state and local levels.
By the way, do you think its better to decide how much to spend before you spend it or do you think its better to decide how much you have to spend before you spend it?
Amen Patrick! I don't understand this budget creation before knowing how much you have to spend. It is idiotic!
Patrick, I merely stated a fact that your posts and NPRI's "studies" have repeatedly proven to be correct. I'm sorry if the truth offends you.
Answering in reverse order:
Many people in Vegas got their hours lowered. Some cut their spending to match, some got second jobs to cover all or part of the decline, and some borrowed to cover. People consider both their income and their spending together.
The reason every "tax study" Nevada does is useless is because the right taxes depend on knowing what you are going to spend, and vice versa.
You have to do the two things together. You find ways to keep quality where you think its important, and eliminate things that are luxuries. You don't just whack parts of everything to get down to some spending level, or raise revenue to keep things you don't really need. If you say, our governor and legislature didn't do it right, then for once, I agree with you.
Part 2:
Untruthful statements by you, quoted by me:
You wrote, about me: "You said you believed increased funds to K-12 education would improve education"
You wrote about me: "This limitation is solved by comparing TOTAL SPENDING, which you object to because of differences in the population growth rates in states."
I never said either that increased funds improve K12 or that population growth rates had anything to do with anything. You just made those up. I requested you document where I said them or apologize. You did neither.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/apr...
"Patrick, I merely stated a fact that your posts and NPRI's "studies" have repeatedly proven to be correct. I'm sorry if the truth offends you."
I wasn't aware that you had taken the time to prove them correct. Thanks for taking the time though. I'm glad to hear we have been correct.
Bill,
I'd rather not get into a circular argument with you. I did show that you said or implied everything I said you said. No reasons to apologize.
Nevertheless, how would we solve this difference. You can come up with any excuse in the world to justify your statements and beliefs and I'm sure I can come up with plenty of counter arguments and facts that suggest you're wrong.
Only one of us can be right? How do we solve this dilemma? Would you recommend a scientific experiment to model our respective theories and test them to see which theory produces the hypothesized results?
Fun information on UNLV's poor graduation rates: http://collegeresults.org/search1a.aspx?...
39% after 6 years of study. Just 11 percent after 4 years of study. There is a 70% rention rate among first year full time students.
Bill, prove that "far more" students graduate.
Patrick,
There is no dilemma. You and I both have philosophies. I am willing to state what I believe, and then use facts to back it up. I tell the truth, including the limits on what I know.
You are unwilling to come out with your philosophy up front. Instead, you think that facts and arguments can prove the philosophy, even if you have to make them up. You lack respect for the truth, and the limitations of statistics as voices of truth.
You misrepresent Mr. Green, and disrespect him. He stated a fact -- that you are proven wrong -- and your studies confirm the fact that you are proven wrong. Instead of simply saying that you believe in something, you try to play on a mis-interpretation of his grammar.
The statistics you used when you made the education arguments are flawed. I admitted that none of these studies tells us anything useful, and support neither position. You kept defending something you obviously did not understand.
In my view, you really have no faith in your alleged positions, so you must attempt to sound scientific. Your "science" is flawed. You would be better served by living your beliefs, not trying to "prove" them.
Many folks on this site simple react emotionally to what they read. I have more respect for their honest emotion than I do for your dishonest "science."
Oh Patrick, give it up.
Average time for an ENGINEERING student to graduate from UNLV = 6.5 Years. Most engineering students graduate AFTER the 6 year cut off and are not counted as graduating from UNLV.
No reported major at UNLV graduates in fewer than 5.5 years on average. You still don't understand what a mean is, when you think that a 5.5 year average means that no one takes more than 6 years. Thousands of students graduate in more than 6 years, but are not counted as graduating because of it.
Average age of a UNLV graduate is 26. UNLV is not populated with 18 year old full time students. A couple thousand students graduate a year with 6 years or more in school.
If UNLV and CSN don't shut down, I would strongly recommend you sign up for a beginning research methods class.
UNLV is a drive up school. Mostly adults continuing their education.
Patrick, You prove that services will get BETTER if you cut the funding. Do you have any common sense left?
morgen:
PATRICK didn't had any common sense to begin with.
It is one of 2 HUGE holes in his arguments.
#1) any "statistical analysis" referred to by Patrick through the NPRI website is going to be SLANTED.
#2) PATRICK and his NPRI inspired rants invariably lack a common-sense component.
Typically based on the skewed survey, the "that's what my book here tells me" line of thought.
Nothing based on practical experience, personal observation, or thoughtful insight.
Every time I read his stuff I think of the old saying;
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The per pupil funding number isn't cut and dry, kids in wealthy areas get way less money per kids than rural or urban schools. As a teacher, giving me 200 more bucks per kid doesn't do jack. If a kid has a solid homelife with parents who care, they will be fine. Kids in at risk troubled homes, are often going to struggle no matter how much money we get for them.
I take issue with the idea "an $800 million tax increase would be pretty bad for the economy."
It's irelevant. A dollar a day is chump change. Plus, all taxes must be spent, so you would see $800 million spin it's way into the local economies. People would have some money to buy things they need and the velocity of the money would increase - creating a base to grow from.
Guys like Gibbons are seriously math challenged. On a per capita basis $800 million comes to approximately $360 per year or $30 a month.
But the budget has a $1.2 BILLION dollar hole in it, so other than to pull an ENRON and cook the books ("Mein Kampf" Gibbons ideological bible was proven to be not very good fodder in the past) where are they going to get the money unless they raise taxes.
We all have this silly idea that Corporations are to be treated as if they are REAL people, that they are entitled to make a profit and it's Governments job to subsisize them with tax breaks.
Obviously, if you over do the corporate tax, or any tax you have a problem, but people in Nevada pay as close to NO tax as you can possible get away with. I have yet to see any Gibbonite, break down any tax and prove it is detrimental or positive. The problem is taxes and spending are all part of the same network of connections with many externalities and benefits.
Gibbons is economically challenged. His kind fail to realize that STATE TAXES paid by everyone get subsidized by being able to write them off their federal income tax.
The mining industry pays 2/10 of 1% of their revenue in state taxes. Walmat and every other major corporation pays even less than that amount.
You cannot run even a third world government with no money. And for sure Nevada is third world by any metric.
So I would suggest that all the NO TAX morons move to Somalia where they don't have any taxes and they can get their wish of limited government.
Problem: nobody wants to pay taxes, but everyone wants services.
Solution: tax vices.
We did that, but nobody comes here like they used to.
New solution: legalize pot, or at least see the wisdom of the Austrian fella across the border and have the debate.
We can't do that because the voters will know where we stand on the issue.
History of Nevada from 1931 to 2009: chumming for chumps. (For you non-fishing readers, "chumming" is the act of tossing something that fish like into the water to get them looking and feeding.)
Nevada regularly entices folks with money to come here with legalized sex, get-rich-quick gambling, gluttony (buffets) and gobs of booze.
Not considering the weed option seems a little un-Nevadan to me.
Bill,
Would it make you feel better if state's per pupil spending was calculated by totaling up the budgets of each school district then dividing by the total enrollment for the entire state?
PS, don't lecture me on what classes to take after you calculated the per pupil percentage increase by multiplying the percentage increase by the nominal dollar value.
Bill,
I don't think you get it. I'm not talking about the average student. I'm talking about the graduation rate. 39% of students graduate UNLV after 6 years.
I didn't choose 6 years. That is the gold standard for college graduation rates. Why? Because they thought 4 years was unfair.
Lets assume the average kid takes 5.5 years. But of all kids, only 39% graduate in 6 years (six is more than 5.5 if you weren't aware). That is not very promising.