Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2015

Currently: 71° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


Warnings of drastic budget cuts fall on public’s deaf ears

With details of cuts proposed by departments kept secret, it’s easy to assume they won’t sting


Nevada’s budget director has put the two year shortfall at $3 billion, and that’s after several rounds of cuts in a state government that’s among the nation’s leanest by almost any measure. More cuts undoubtedly will be part of any budget-balancing package.


Gov. Jim Gibbons has asked department heads to propose 10 percent cuts in their budgets, though experts say that’s unlikely to be enough. The proposals have been submitted — agency heads call them “ugly” — but the public won’t get a look until Oct. 15.

Click to enlarge photo

Reporters question Rory Reid after his debate on education issues with Brian Sandoval Sunday, August 29, 2010.

Click to enlarge photo

Reporters question Brian Sandoval after his debate on education issues with Rory Reid Sunday, August 29, 2010.

Sun Coverage

The state budget director asked departments to prepare scenarios describing 10 percent spending cuts. And the state agency heads delivered their reports Sept. 1.

The governor’s office won’t release the documents, but agency heads describe the cuts as “ugly.” Programs for the elderly and disabled will be eliminated. Hundreds of public employees will be laid off. About 3,000 prisoners will be released. School districts will go bankrupt.

But let’s admit: You don’t believe it.

After three years of budget-cutting and belt-tightening and predictions of pending bureaucratic catastrophes, the warnings have almost lost meaning.

Residents have heard the dire predictions before — at least four times during the state’s previous rounds of budget cuts — and the doomsayers were wrong.

Until the cuts are detailed, the public will be skeptical.

According to the state budget director and legislators, these 10 percent cuts will be released Oct. 15. Then, perhaps, the real political debate — in races for the Legislature and Governor’s Mansion — will begin.

Are the proposed cuts acceptable? Are they misguided? Will new taxes be needed? Is there an alternative to balance the budget?

Ask the people, and they consistently say you can find the money by eliminating “fat,” waste and fraud. It’s not just conservatives or anti-government types saying this. Rory Reid, the Democrat running for governor, describes it as too many administrators shuffling papers, “thinking about the same things.”

He proposed a 50 percent reduction in administrative overhead.

Both Reid and Brian Sandoval, the Republican in the race, have vowed to protect classrooms, the elderly and disabled, and public safety. All without raising taxes.

Until the public can see their budgets, who’s to dispute that it can be done? (Reid has released a generic plan to balance the budget; Sandoval has so far refused to say even when he will release a plan.)

Budget experts and conservative and liberal partisans say privately the state can’t balance the budget without additional revenue. The cuts that would be required, they argue, are ones that only the hardest of hard-line libertarians would accept.

But Nevadans have heard that since the cutting began three years ago.

Government at all levels, in all places, is notorious for crying wolf — declaring the sky will fall if it loses a penny. Or doing the really disingenuous thing and threatening to make high-profile cuts to dramatically make its point.

(Conservatives call it the Washington Monument ploy — threaten to cut the most appreciated and visible services first to make the public feel the pain. The name comes from tactics the National Park Service is alleged to have used to protect its budget.)

For the most part, that doesn’t seem to be the case in Carson City. Instead, to balance the budget in prior rounds, the state has borrowed money, raided local governments and reserves built up from fees, and tried to stretch staff and dollars.

Programs have been eliminated. Waiting lists for services such as housing and public assistance have grown.

But agency heads, the governor’s senior staff and legislators have avoided truly gruesome cuts.

Call them victims of their own success. When they predict end-times, the public is now skeptical.

“There will be programs that we’ve operated for years that will be eliminated,” said Mike Willden, director of the Health and Human Services Department. Under a 10 percent cut, there will be staff reductions “in the hundreds.” Offices closed. Services not mandated by the federal government, such as dental or vision care for the poor and elderly, will be eliminated. “It’s ugly,” he said.

Howard Skolnik, head of the Corrections Department, told the budget office that a 10 percent cut would mean 3,000 inmates released. He and the budget office settled on a smaller number to cut, budget Director Andrew Clinger said. He said the percent cut has been lowered and maintains public safety.

Mike Fischer, director of the Cultural Affairs Department, also wouldn’t discuss specifics of his 10 percent recommendations.

“We were devastated prior to 10 percent,” he said. “We’ve cut through the fat a long time ago. We’re emaciated.”

But until he can point to a museum that will close, some might not be buying it.

During February’s special session, for example, when lawmakers turned from platitudes about belt-tightening to the fact that the state would begin eliminating dentures and hearing aids for the elderly and poor, even fiscally conservative Gov. Jim Gibbons compromised on some fee increases.

Here’s the other open secret: A 10 percent cut isn’t nearly enough to balance the state’s budget. A 10 percent cut in agency budgets would save about $660 million over the state’s two-year budget cycle.

The budget hole has been put at $3 billion by Clinger. Consider that some things, such as continuing to suspend longevity pay, step increases and furloughs, will save $480 million. And consider that the economy has yet to turn around. Consider that there have been round after round of cuts over the past three years.

Given all that, some agency directors say 10 percent seems rosy.

When the 10 percent cuts will become public is unsettled.

Under one reading of state law, the date will be Oct. 15, when the executive branch transmits the agencies’ recommendations to legislative staff.

But that hasn’t been the practice of past administrations. Historically, agencies’ recommended budgets have been released in the January before the legislative session begins — in this case, 2011. On the day the governor releases his budget, he gives the State of the State speech, and it goes to the Legislature for discussion.

Those who say that taxes will need to be raised say the public debate should begin now.

“The public and the Legislature absolutely need to know what’s being contemplated,” Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said. “I would love for one of Gov. Gibbons’ last acts as governor to be to foster transparency by releasing the information and engaging the public in a dialogue about impending cuts.”

She said, “You can only starve these institutions so long before they die. Death is imminent.”

But without any specifics to point to, it will just be rhetoric to propelling the state toward November.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 9 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Never mind the Uk. Send someone to New Jersey to see how it's done. The governor of NJ is successfully downsizing.

    From what we've seen on TV, New Jersey started with the public schools, downsizing the bloated administrative staffs and having the teachers agree to pay raises that are less than the negotoiated ones, and by trimming down the promises of ridiculously high pensions.

    Times are tough-- we can't be afraid to take on the unions who now operate in the public sector. Their salary & benefits demands are out of control, and it's the taxpayers and business in the private sector that have to support that.

    The ultimate solution to the high costs of K-12 education will be vouchers.

  2. JanK...
    You watch too much t.v.

    You want stinking VOUCHERS???
    So, your nieghbor, who pays 15 THOUSAND per-year to send EACH ONE of his kids to private school will get SIX THOUSAND BUCKS from your man Sandoval.
    That'll fix EVERYTHING!!!
    No doubt about it.
    Good plan.

    And Charter Schools are failing our kids at AT LEAST the same rate as our Public Schools.

    It's a fun sport, ain't it? And so EASY!!!

    The notion that you right-wingers have that ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES are still BLOATED WITH FAT is retarded. I don't know if you've noticed, but this is NOT THE FIRST ROUND of cuts, it's like the 3rd or 4th... they'll be cutting THE ACTUAL BONE now...

    You like Jersey, JanK?
    Yeah. It's nice there...
    I'd rather live in Fargo.

    I say, let's hear those budget numbers NOW.
    Why are we keeping them "secret" until Oct.15???
    I'm sure the GOOD NEWS will help us attract businesses to help us DIVERSIFY our economy!

  3. 1) People have been skeptical because the budget cuts have been smaller than what is reported
    2) People are starting to understand the $3 billion shortfall figure comes from backwards budgeting
    3) The government does threaten services rather than figuring out ways to streamline services or cut employees
    4) Gmag, in 2004 just 21 percent of students attended private schools that charged tuitions exceeding $10k a year.

  4. The value of comparisons between Nevada and New Jersey is miniamal. The taxes and spending are of a scale and magnitude that have never been seen in this state.

  5. David Schwartz McGrath:

    The tone of your article shows that you and The Sun's Editorial Board clearly do not understand the mood of Nevada voters. For that matter, neither does the Editorial Board of the LVRJ.

    In this time of huge cash flow shortfalls for state and local governments, voters are beyond outraged that public employees are still employed, and still receiving excellent benefits. There have been no material salary cuts and no material benefit cuts, for state and local employees.

    Instead, the decision makers (Governor, County Commissioners, City Council, School Board) have decided to cut programs entirely, such as your examples of cutting programs for the handicapped and the poor.

    Those voters and taxpayers are going to go absolutely nuts when these programs take effect because they will see that the public employees' pay and benefits have not been cut.

    Ultimately, in the post 2010 election cycle, you will see real blood letting, in terms of Nevada voters removing incumbents at all levels of government. Hell hath no fury like the response from voters seeing "pigs at the trough", in the form of the remaining public employees, still taking home fat pay checks, having employer paid health insurance and generous pensions.

    By 2014 the fury at loss of governmental services, plus intransigence on the part of public employee unions, will lead to a severe change of viewpoint by elected officials who will need to satisfy public anger to save their own skins.

    The bottom line is that it is Nevada's state and local public employees who are destroying the state's governmental services with their greed. If they took significant cuts in pay and benefits now, these programs would not have to be destroyed.

  6. "I didn't realize that so many teabaggers favored reading the liberal Sun over the conservative RJ."

    We normal citizens call it an opinion based upon multiple diverse sources. Some less scrupulous readers might refer to it as knowing what and how the enemy thinks.

  7. "Any citizen that allows the most vulnerable to be hurt while supporting the sociopathic wealthy in this country is despicable. Hyperbolic statements about waste in government come from those who have been propagandized by conservative media and reflect no actual knowledge of budgets, salaries, or costs for essential programs. But then it is always easier to whine about spending when you don't actually know anything."

    Mark communities used to help each other without the government getting involved. People from their church or fraternal organizations would learn someone needed help and mobilize resources to assist them in their times of need. Now churches and private social organizations have been largely marginalized by society, removed from public prominence and their influence has been replaced by faceless bureaucrats with petty fiefdoms doling out social services benefits and the existence of their jobs depends upon maintaining those caseloads (kind of like that gal that was busted a couple weeks ago giving benefits to her husband?). I can see how that works better than an actual community Mark. I really see your point now.

    And I like Mark how your first sentence claims irrational hyperbolic behavior by the opposition has caused fear and you immediately follow with your own hyperbole saying that the wealthy are "sociopaths." I'm sure Bill and Melinda Gates and those other billionaires that have pledged half their fortunes to charity will be glad to hear they're sociopaths. Good work Mark. You've certainly converted me....NOT. Mark I'll believe what you say when you post your estate documents on the Sun website showing that you're giving half your estate to charity when you pass.

  8. @johnmanrules:

    Your comments prove what I said. There have been no "material" public employee pay cuts. Material means meaningful.

    Your losing 5% of your pay check, and not getting your raises is not a material pay cut.

    A material pay cut is something like a 20% to 30% cut in pay and benefits, so that:

    (1) All state and local employees could keep their jobs, not just those who have seniority, and

    (2) Services to Nevadans, including the elderly, disabled and poor would not have to be cut.

    Johnmanrules' comment, as a public employee, simply proves how piggish and myopic public employees in Nevada are.

    Take a big pay cut jerk ashes, and join the real world in Nevada.

  9. Budget fatigue?