Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
AP Photo/Cathleen Allison
Gov. Brian Sandoval waves to the crowd following Monday’s inauguration ceremony, Jan. 3, 2011 at the Capitol in Carson City.
Friday, Jan. 7, 2011 | 2 a.m.
Tuition hikes
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of Gov. Brian Sandoval's proposal to raise tuition at Nevada colleges and universities, Jan. 6, 2011.
Heidi Gansert
Steven Horsford
Sun coverage
Sun archives
- Sandoval suggests ‘significantly higher’ fees for higher ed students (1-5-2011)
- Sandoval increasingly isolated in his anti-tax stance (12-29-2010)
- State has upper hand in budget turf war (12-27-2010)
- Sandoval to build own budget (12-22-2010)
- Panels propose ideas to squeeze state budget (12-4-2010)
- Sandoval budget assumes 10 percent cut to state, higher ed and furloughs (12-2-2010)
- Polished knife still cuts deep into state’s budget (11-28-2010)
- Expect Sandoval to flex his newfound political capital on his anti-tax pledge (11-10-2010)
- Let Sandoval take heat for budget, Democrats say (11-5-2010)
Gov. Brian Sandoval’s guiding philosophy in building a state budget has been his promise not to raise taxes or fees.
In this economy, he argues, businesses and families just can’t afford to pay more to fund their government. Except, that is, for students.
Sandoval this week suggested to higher education officials that they could “significantly” increase tuition to colleges and universities to offset his proposed cuts in state funding, according to higher education officials.
They were unhappy, wondering why they appeared to be exempt from Sandoval’s viewpoint on the budget and economy.
“The statement that Nevada can’t afford higher taxes, but (higher education) can afford higher fees is hard to understand,” said Gregory Brown, a professor at UNLV and vice president of the Nevada Faculty Alliance. “It runs counter to principles he seems committed to.”
It’s not the first inconsistency in Sandoval’s ideology, which he has embraced with surprising gusto since entering the race for governor in September 2009.
Before the election, Sandoval said he would support passing state services on to local governments. In exchange, he said, he would allow cities and counties to raise taxes and fees.
Sandoval’s chief of staff, Heidi Gansert, said there have been no recent discussions about giving local governments the power to raise taxes. Cities and counties need approval from the Legislature to raise money.
But, she noted, the Nevada System of Higher Education has the option of raising fees and tuition to offset cuts. Sandoval supports giving the universities and colleges the power to keep those increased fees, which return to the state’s general fund.
“They’re going to have to decide, when looking at their budget, if they can live with the cuts,” Gansert said. “They’re one of the unique areas where they can raise fees.”
She said Nevada’s colleges and universities charge low tuition compared with similar institutions in other states. That means taxpayers subsidize the institutions more than in other places.
“This governor has been clear he will not raise any fees or new taxes, to make sure the economy recovers as quickly as possible,” Gansert said.
Asked if Sandoval would consider raising other fees or taxes if Nevada’s are low compared with other states, Gansert said, “I haven’t seen those charts.”
Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, said Sandoval’s suggestion that the university raise tuition “is shifting the problem to others, rather than owning it and dealing with it straight on.”
Horsford, who put himself through UNR, said, “I’m concerned that for every percent tuition is increased, a middle-income family or students putting themselves through college won’t be able to attend.”
Fees have become a sticky wicket for Nevada’s conservative politicians, as they try to find what sources of revenue are acceptable to the vocal budget hawks.
In February’s special session to balance the budget, legislators — including then-Minority Leader Assemblywoman Gansert — signed off on a combination of cuts and fee increases to close an $830 million budget gap.
Sandoval attacked then-Gov. Jim Gibbons for agreeing to raise those fees.
At other times, industries have volunteered to pay higher fees to cover the cost of regulation. Sandoval has promised not to raise those fees, either.
At the tail end of the Gibbons administration, it was working closely with Sandoval’s staff. Gibbons’ former chief of staff, Robin Reedy, made plain her disagreement with Sandoval’s staff over fees.
“If a fee is for a service that is basically helping a segment of either society or business, capitalism means they should pay that cost of doing business,” Reedy told the television show “Nevada NewsMakers,” according to the Nevada News Bureau.
The conservative Nevada Taxpayers Association supports fees “where a fee charged provides a specific service to a specific group of individuals, and is not used to support the general fund,” said Carole Vilardo, the group’s president.
Conservative groups have generally supported increasing higher education tuitions, because it is akin to paying for a service, such as fees charged to hold a party at a park.
But Brown said that approach ignores the broader benefits of higher education to the state.
“Higher education is demonstrably a public good,” he said. “It brings a benefit to the economy, to the society, to the well-being — physically, culturally — of the whole far beyond one individual.”
Nevada has a poor ranking nationally on indicators for higher education. Some business and community leaders have said that hurts the state’s chances at economic diversification.
The state is 46th nationwide in higher education funding per capita; 45th in residents with a bachelor’s degree; and 41st in the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who enroll in state universities.
Jim Richardson, a UNR professor and longtime lobbyist for the Nevada Faculty Alliance, said the size of any tuition increase needed to make a dent in the state’s budget deficit would be too great.
“This would be a heavy hit and a shift of burden to parents and sons and daughters of Nevadans,” Richardson said. “It’s too much. It would drive people away, discourage them from attending higher education institutions in the state.”
Average in-state tuition is about $5,600 per year at UNLV and UNR. That figure excludes books, room and board, lab fees and other costs, according to a higher education spokesman. Average yearly tuition for the College of Southern Nevada is $2,243.
But that represents a large increase from where it was a few years ago. Tuition for university undergraduates has increased 50 percent since the 2006-07 school year; for graduate students, it has increased 60 percent; for community colleges the fees have increased 32 percent.
Chancellor Dan Klaich and regents Chairman James Dean Leavitt met Wednesday with Sandoval and his senior staff in Carson City.
“The reality we’re facing as a state and a system of higher education is bleak,” Leavitt said. “We told him further cuts would cause irreparable damage to the system.”
Leavitt said students “should expect significantly higher fees.” He wouldn’t be more specific, saying “ ‘significant’ is scary enough.”
Sandoval has not said how he plans to balance the budget without new or higher taxes and is not required to until Jan. 24.
Sandoval thinks any increase in tuition should be coupled with scholarship programs or increased student access to federal aid, Gansert said.
I figured that you were going to quietly sit at your desk and smile, collecting paychecks...doing nothing...
...as you projected in your "promise little and reveal nothing" award-winning, campaign strategy.
Making higher education less accessible by increasing its costs is an "education tax" in disguise.
"Doing nothing" was a better idea, Brian,
Why not have a State Lottery? Lotteries have raised Millions of Dollars for States but Nevada doesn't have one. Why?
It is truly IRONIC, and beyond belief, that NEVADA of all States does not have a lottery.
greasy brian is a coward...
first thing this maggot does is pick on the kids...
damage education...
hurt those kids that are trying to better themselves...
trying to become productive members of society...
in a state that ranks near the bottom of nearly everything related to education...
what a joke...
and what is off limits for this maggot...
raising taxes on mining...
why...
because they give this maggot money...
lots and lots of money...
and greasy brian loves that money more than the children of nevada...
can you image...
the complete and total lack of character...
mining...
companies that strip the land...
and ship the profits out of the country...
wake the f up nevada...
greasy brain is going to hurt this state very very badly...
RAISE TAXES ON MINING!!!
Did the Chancellor and Regents get the memo? There is a substantial shortfall in revenue. The Chancellor and the Regents then passed a budget requesting increases this past fall. Every other agency was asked to come up with budgets to reflect 10 percent cut, but higher education said no.
Their argument was the Economic Forum hadn't weighed in on revenues.
Fast forward: January 2011 and the Forum made its projects in December. The Chancellor and Regents still haven't got the message. Their jobs are to guide the system through this mess and at the present they just whine. Time to pony up and propose some long-term solutions that acknowledge the revenue constraints. People can make up their minds. They have had 3 months since their last budget.
I believe the University system has to come up with a serious plan of partnership with the taxpayers. This is the money it is going to take over a period of time and this is what Nevada gets in return in terms of education opportunities and at cost that can be absorbed by students, parents and the taxpayer. This recession isn't a short-term deal, this is a structural change in the state's fortunes. I haven't seen this plan.
I have serious doubts about the competence of Chancellor Klaich.
I think California just had a bunch of protests because of raised tuition, and so did London I believe.
Small world.
The student loan industry preyed on kids and its absolutely horrible. Banks preyed on kids that had no idea what kind of debt they were getting into.
And now a days most jobs are service based that really dont require degrees. We don't have enough real jobs to use these kids to their potential.
100k debt working at a call center. Thats the majority of these kids future reality.
If you haven't gone to college, don't. Get a job for now and just save your money, it will be the best decision you ever made. If in the future things pick up, go back to school. Wait until the country figures out what direction its headed so you can tailor your major.
Also don't discount the internet, there is free MIT course online now a days, tons of tutorials, and all sorts of people willing to teach.
For those caught in the Sallie Mae or Private Student loan blackhole of death, I feel ya...
The biggest pig at the trough feeds off students instead of corporations. Go figure.
Lotteries traditionally raise money in general from the poor and middle class who don't see them for the sucker bet they are (remind me again what the odds were in that mega millionare thing?).
Gambling interests are completely against what they see as poaching on their customer base. Therefore a lottery is a bad idea as it is a form of regressive taxation (one reason conservatives love it is the shift from requiring more from the middle and upper class taxpayers who benefit the most from higher ed) and that it takes money from gambling interests. Those gambling interests then pay less tax on profit, reducing money coming into state coffers.
If we want services in a time of economic dispair, then we will have to pay for them. Raise taxes, get us out of this mess and formulate a way not to over extend ourselves once our budget is stable. Again, we need to look into a State Lottery to GENERATE REVENUE to supplement education and prisons, since nobody has the ba**s to go after the casinos!
I forgot to mention that I think Steven Horsford is correct. Sandoval is just shifting burdends from one place to another and not dealing with the problem. "lets give local gov't some of our burden so we can balance the state budget" What does that do to that particular local gov't then?
I know that when I checked tuition rates for colleges a few years ago for my son's education, Nevada had an astonishing low cost compared to other state universities. After living in LV these past two years I can see the education is wasted unless the graduate is involved in a gaming related profession. Very sad!
Governor Sandoval is to be commended for religiously following the Republican Party rule of taking out and and all shortfalls on the middle class. And even the poor. While pandering to corporations, the rich and anyone else who will listen to his malarkey.
Making the entirety of Nevada dumber by taking it out on students to pay higher tuition fees, thereby making them not able to even attend higher education classes to receive much needed degrees, rather than making the filthy rich and the corporations who prey on us pay, those that can easily afford it without any break in their excesses and livelihoods, follows along with the Republican Party policies...which are set in stone. And this policy will prove to be their downfall.
I already see Governor Sandoval as a one term Governor (if he even reaches that pinnacle) due to early rhetoric and hair brained ideas he throws out there.
This is Nevada. The poor and the middle class run this State. These people are his constituents. They own this State. And they surely outnumber the rich in this State. They WILL, in the end, have a say and WILL be paid attention to.
If Governor Sandoval believes he has the power to do what he wants and hide behind the stupid saying "doing the will of the people," he will definitely have a rude awakening when he finds himself bounced out of power.
It happened with Gibbons.
And it can easily happen again.
There's only so much Nevada taxpayers can put up with.
Let me get this straight, the Republicans now think a less educated public creates additional and better paying jobs? Asia and India are laughing, the GOP's plan will insure future American workers won't be viable competitors.
All I see from the Governors plan is educated middle class American's strapped down paying much bigger student loans to Wall Street banks and crooks. It's a tax increase, plain and simple. Instead of this money going to the government, it'll go to Wall Street. Another example of a sneaky tax increase trickling more middle class income, to the 'Fat Cats'.
Maybe the hidden agenda here is to make subprime school loan sharks more profit. Raising tuition and fees will do little to lessen our "Dumbest City in the US" status. Did you ever wonder why some of the best places in the US to raise kids are in cities with more colleges and universities?
If a lottery is bad because it is "regressive taxation", then so are slot machines. Ever see all those poor people smoking cheap cigarettes in the 7-Elevens and Am/Pm markets at 2am, perched on a stool and poring money into the machines that they don't have?
That's because slot machines, as you said, "traditionally raise money in general from the poor and middle class" - right, and you can see it from 12am-8am all over Las Vegas.
Gov B.S.
If you cut education, and charge more for it at the same time, you are defying logical economics. Surely, a UNR english major like you would know that. At some point you will loose a significant portion of students to outside institutions were costs are more in line with the quality of education. But, you don't care, your just trying to get to the next job. You're half right, students don't vote but their parents sure do.
"...increased student access to federal aid..."
Does that mean that the 'liar loans' have moved from housing to students?
SunJon and others...the reason there is no lottery in Nevada is that they are specifically prohibited in the Nevada Constitution.
Rowdy
TWICE in the last decade, Nevada voters OVERWHELMINGLY by a 2 to 1 margin supported amending the constitution and creating a lottery (on nonbinding ballot initiative questions)
the powers that really control the state (big gaming) insured that they put a stop to it, as they didn't want any competition for people's pocket money.
A per-capita higher ed spending figure is misleading. Per capita means per person in the entire state. Few college students but lots of residents can have a low per capita spending. The appropriate figure to look at is per-pupil spending - which Nevada ranked 15th in the nation.
http://www.deltacostproject.org/resource...
see figure 13 on page 33
In 95% of the complaints that I continually see on the Sun about raising the cost of tuition, everyone suggests that with a higher tax payer burden students have a higher rate of completion of a Bachelor's program. Based on a study completed by The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, Nevada had a 37.1 % (1,975 of 5,324) completion rate for students that began college in 2000 and completed within 6 years. We landed in 49th place on the rankings but at a cost to the student of approximately $3,600 per year. Compared to the number one during the same time frame, Massachusetts had a 68.1% (30,879 of 45,342) completion rate with a cost to the student at approximately $8,858 per year. I have not found a case study to prove that these numbers have a relation to each other, but it does show that by raising or decreasing the student's responsibility for tuition does not necessarily effect the achievement of the student.
The public need to understand that by going to college does not ensure the success of the individual and that all degree programs have a positive impact on society. It seems to be these days that you have to pay a tremendous amount of money on an education to obtain an entry level job. You almost need to be attending UNLV's Hotel Management program just to obtain a position of a front desk agent at Caesars Palace to only make 40k a year. What benefit is that to the tax payer? Do positions like that help better our society? Do they provide a service that the tax payers of Nevada can enjoy?
In my opinion, an individual that goes to the library and picks up books to learn a subject of interest to them has a higher level of intelligence than someone that sat through classes in a university just because it is the status quo. But don't get me wrong, there are some professions that need the highest and most sophisticated learning environments such as Medical Doctors, Engineers, Chemist, Attorneys (but not the ambulance chasing attorneys) and some few others that I may have forgotten.
To sum it all up, I agree with Brian Sandoval on this decision.
The state is 46th nationwide in higher education funding per capita; 45th in residents with a bachelor's degree; and 41st in the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who enroll in state universities.
Why can't we go whole-hog and beat out Mississippi (or is it Texas or Arkansas)for the 50th spot in all these categories?
Yes, the more I look at the picture at the top, the more I see an Alfred E. Newman smile, with the caption, "What, me worry?"
Dollars in, Dollars out, not hard to figure. That is the way family have to do it, unless they use plastic. It dosen't take a lot of education to understand the math, JUST COMMON SENSE. We have pushed education since the early 60's to the point that common sense is gone. Now we have a lot of liberal educated fools.
I also disagree somewhat with Dr. Brown that higher education is a public good. The biggest beneficiary of the education is the individual, by far. And with UNLV's Van Wilder graduation rate below 50 percent you can hardly call it a public good at all.
Correction to one of the sentences in my comment above:
"The public need to understand that by going to college does not ensure the success of the individual and that not all degree programs have a positive impact on society."
Joe, I am aware of that.
That's one of the big reasons the item was placed into the constitution to begin with as gaming feels a lottery would compete with their business.
They played it well putting it there as it is notoriously difficult to change a constitution.
The key is non-binding resolutions mean just that-nothing more than a barometer, not a mandate and they have no teeth.
Speaking of teeth, the continuous gnashing of them is what I was addressing when people come on here with simplistic answers (usually because they are relatively recently arrived carpetbaggers) that know nothing of the state laws or constitution when they are commenting on how to address certain complex issues.
As a Californian, I recently visited the campus of UNLV as it is at the top of my son's short list of universities that he wants to attend. I would be a liar if I told you the price tag wasn't a big incentive to let my son go there. To be completely honest I have said this to many people. The price tag for UNLV is like going to a UC school here in California for Cal State University prices.
All that being said, Nevadans have to be honest with themselves UNR and UNLV are great schools but they are 2nd tier schools. As it currently stands, neither university it running at maximum student capacity. Keep in mind that this is with a great tuition rate. Will raising tuition rates make those schools a tier 1 school or increase the number of students on campus? The obvious answer is no. The simple fact of the matter is that raising tuition rates could do irreparable damage to Nevada's University system. With the limited University choices for Nevada's high school kids now if you raise tuition high enough they will leave Nevada for states with a better college buy for their dollars.
Although I agree that students should carry a significant portion of the costs of attending an institution of higher education, we can't ignore the fact that strong higher education and a diverse economy are inextricably linked. Southern Nevada's economy will continue to be gaming and mining centered until the state (and the citizens) decide to invest in top-notch education in areas like engineering, business, science, etc. When our schools produce top-caliber skilled workers for employers to hire, then businesses will settle down here and improve our economy. -- Investing in higher education - particularly those majors that are needed for economic prowess - will help bring employers and jobs to our valley. Continuing to cut back on higher education ensures a continued shortage of skilled workers and a continued dearth of sophisticated manufacturing, engineering, and other value-adding jobs.
If we cut NSHE's budget by 25-45% (over a 3-5 year period), we'd have to pass on at least 50-75% tuition increases to students to make up for the shortfall. I'm all for raising the fees and tuition, but the state needs to have a vision of what a strong system of higher education can do for our overall economy. If we want a strong economy, we have to invest more in a strong educational system.
The university crowd's response to this crisis reveals the cause of the crisis: both the customers of the good (the students) and the sellers of the good (the professors) want someone else to pay for the sales transaction. The universities do not charge enough to cover their ever-rising costs. That is indisputable. To cover the shortfall, the sellers refuse to lower the price by cutting costs such as wages and benefits (and other things). "No way," they say. Doing so would irreparably harm the system. In the real world that would mean the only other option is to raise the price by charging the consumer more. "Not a chance," they howl. That would destroy the system as we know it.
What is left to do? Do what the government always does: pass the costs on to someone. Call it a public good, demean your opponents, cling to empty euphemisms, and move on. A free lunch for everyone. Perfect! To make it even better, the consumer and the seller will fight like hell to make sure that that paying someone else has no say in the operation. Of course, when someone else ( a muzzled partner no less) is picking up the tab, the all-important relationship between cost and benefit goes out the door. That is always a recipe for disaster (pick your analogy: health care, home buying, pollution, pensions, Europe), and at some point the house of cards will fall.
Me thinks that what really animates these professors and administrators is the bone-jarring fear that should the customers become fully aware of the price of the good by bearing the full cost of the good, there may be a lot less demand for the good--at current prices.
If these students want the good, they should pay for the good, with financing if they must. If the benefits that UNR and UNLV are offering are worth the expense, it will be a sound investment. If not, the customer should take his or her business elsewhere, or take up his or her complaints with the school itself.
There is absolutely no need to be subjective here. If the benefits of the product are as good as the university folks argue, there is no need to fear the market.
SunJon must not live here anymore. Considering you haven't been able to smoke inside a 7-11 or am/pm in over 2-3 years.
and PatrickRGibbons - The biggest benefit to higher education will always be to the individual, it is in turn that individual that contributes to the public good. Don't you think that having quality education may bring companies to Nevada that would hire these well educated folks rather than them dropping out to work the Hotel/Gaming/Club industries?
Patrick Gibbons is not only correct when he dismisses the "public good" education argument; indeed, he understates the case.
Too many UNLV students drop out due to low admission standards. One can make the comparison between predatory subprime lenders and college admissions - both are encouraging Americans to take on debt to pursue the American dream when it is so clear that certain homeowners/students have a terribly low PROBABILITY of making their commitments.
Given that a college dropout earns little more than a high school, saddling a dropout with college debt is arguably a "public bad." It's bad for Nevada taxpayers, bad for students (at least mortgage debt can be discharged in bankruptcy) and bad for the university because resources are being wasted on future dropouts.
A smaller university system focused on four year students with high probabilities of graduation, plus a CSN community college designed for real-world, practical knowledge learners is the way to go!
One more time people!!!!!
Education is not just the job you get, but the contribution to society you make. After WWII this country decided to lead the world rather than shrink from it, using things like the GI bill and better access to regional universities and by God we did it. Leading still in manufactured good, high tech, and finance. If you don't understand the investment in human capital don't be discouraged, because education is a lifetime endeavor.
Gov. B.S. "IT'S WHAT YOU LEARN AFTER YOU KNOW IT ALL THAT COUNTS"
PatrickRGibbons, please see:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jan...
There are many studies out there that a person can cherry pick to support their position on this I am sure. But it all really comes down to one question: Do you want to make higher education more accessible in Nevada? Well you don't do that by continuing to raise tuition for an already marginal student pool.
Look, I understand that if a motivated student really wants an education, he or she is willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to make it happen: student, loans, part-time jobs, grants, money from mom and dad. And you know what, they just might be motivated to go to another school, somewhere out of state to boot.
I don't think you can compare a UNLV to a UMASS. Further, the median family income in many other states is higher than in NV, so you'll see higher tuition rates there along with higher cost of living, etc. So a state by state comparison isn't point blank evidence for justifying increases here.
Also, you have high unemployment in Vegas. Do you want more unemployment? You want to send those kids out to try and find jobs because they can't afford school? Weren't we also just here a week ago discussing how companies did not want to come to Nevada (Las Vegas particularly) because we don't have enough college graduates? Weren't stores not wanting to set up shop because we didn't have enough graduates for them to market to? How many other companies have thought the same thing? ... but you just never heard about it because they did not want to say why they "really" didn't want to come here. Hey, where are all those other companies that are expanding; where are they setting up shop?
The bottom line. The kids in Nevada can't afford higher tuition. They are trying to pay for things like car insurance, gasoline and all the other day to day expenses that can bury a person. The parents of Nevada can't afford higher tuition; they can hardly afford to stay in their houses. The kids and parents of Nevada can't afford more debt. Don't take away or make harder for them the one thing that every parent sees as a beacon of light in an otherwise demoralizing state of affairs that we call the modern American economy: getting an education.
For God's sake, address the budget shortfall some other way. Don't use the guilt a parent feels for not being able to help his or her child better his or herself, or the hopes and dreams of a young student, as the hedge against the State's budget deficit. You know that guilt is a formidable motivator and a salesman's best friend. Cheap shot. Very cheap shot.
But what's worse about all of this, raising tuition to offset the budget shortfall is a short term fix for a long term problem. Alternatively, invest in education and many of the State's budget problems have the potential to right themselves: as we graduate more students more companies may set up shop here as a result = more jobs, more revenue for the state.
Sandoval has no worries about his own children's ability to afford college. Mr. Sandoval, step outside your comfort zone and look around. Please.
Welcome to California! The colleges and universities here have been raising fees for years, and every time they do, the highest paid people at the university get huge raises, therefore sucking away a large chunk of the money gained by fee increases. The university President here has a $350k salary here (2008 figures), along with a very substantial housing allowance (enough to pay for a place in any of the most exclusive neighborhoods in town) and "entertainment" allowance. He's a good guy, but couldn't a good guy live just fine on 250k and no "entertainment" allowance? Many administrators (who'se numbers have increased) also draw huge sums. Time to get real with the high administrative salaries. Of course the brunt of these costs are absorbed by people who can't get a scholarship because their parents made $45k last year (before taxes), and are considered "rich". (try living "rich" on $45k with no housing allowance or entertainment allowance).
Political party has little to do with it, our last 2 governors (Davis and Arnold) were both terrible in the taxes and fees department, and in the "appoint my friends to cushy $100k+ jobs on state committees" department too. Meanwhile our taxes and fees have gone way up and the state is still deeper in debt, screaming for more.
The lottery here was promoted as a way to "save the schools". Well, the lottery has been here for 20 years and the schools have just gotten worse every year since, and still demand more and more $$.
We have Moonbeam II now for governor......Things can only get worse from here. He's already talking on a vote for another sales and income tax increase. I only see it getting worse from here.
As California goes....so goes Nevada.
@jazzy13: Because in Las Vegas, boob jobs have a much higher ROI than higher education or vocational training. :D
There is only one reason Nevada won't develop a lottery or join the mega lottery. That is because the casino's feel it would cut into their winnings from the citizenry. The yoke the casino industry holds on Nevada needs to be broken. If nothing else, the current economic crisis should provide bold evidence of a need for diversification in Nevada's industries.
will Sandoval's "budget" be balanced? Will it not raise any taxes/fees? will it sunset the "temporary taxes"? Very likely not.
Hi goal: have the legislature raise taxes, veto it, then have it pass on override. Like Gibbons. Then he is a "hero."
A better idea: Democrats: refuse to raise taxes unless Sandoval signs the bill. Let him cut the state budget 50%. He can always call you back into special session when it goes into effect. Or better yet, if tax increases occur over his veto, he is a failed governor and should resign. After all, it means that he couldn't balance the budget with cuts only.
[BTW Brian, a 4.2% salary cut is not the 19-50% across the board cut needed to balance the budget. Time to tell us the truth.}
BTW, closing UNLV, UNR will increase the deficit because the students/faculty won't be paying sales taxes and will just leave the state. Same with ElHi teachers, state workers, police, etc.
The key here is that spending $ on college is like flushing money down the toilet because the job market is dry in Nevada.
California Colleges are much less expensive so if you want to go to school don't do it here.
Sure the job market is not much better in Ca. but you can then re-locate to Washington where it is booming compared to here..Sure the cost of living is higher but with that degree you should be able to afford it.
Going to college in Nevada is worst then putting money in a slot machine. At least the slot machine will give you a chance to get something back in return.
The problem with young people today, is that they are to smart, board up all the schools, save us money. Yes you have guessed right I am a proud republican, Palin type.
Sandoval... like Obama... is not the answer for the citizens of the state of Nevada's woes. He is perfect for protecting the purses of the businesses in Nevada. Besides the businesses in Nevada don't need citizens to work for them. there are billions of unemployed people who would love to come work in the USA for peanuts, insteads of beans or rice.
Very Disappointing to see that Higher Education is taking another hit. As a Grad Student I see more and more issues occurring especially in the Sciences areas. We don't have enough teachers nor space for the current students. Students are going to CSN or UNLV just to squeeze in classes. OChem had to turn away hundreds of students (a required class for Biology and Chem Majors) due to the lack of funding. Perhaps one day this state will stop being scared of the Casinos and the Mining Industry in order to make this state more appealing to other industry's.
It's hard to believe that so many people in this state refuse to pay for education and prefer to live in ignorance. The simple idea of well go out of state is simple enough except that tuition then skyrockets to 10's of thousands of dollars. Students are still taking out student loans and starting behind the 8 ball just going to the ever so affordable schools in Nevada. So not only are today's youth having to pay student loans, they have to pay into 401k's and other retirement investments because there are no pensions or social security to depend on. The youth of today need bachelor's degrees just to get to the point of what a job at a utility company of the 70's would have provided.
Wake up Nevada and everyone with an agenda put them aside and promote education, promote a great community , promote pride in Nevada.
If we are willing to tax an area to put up an Arena for Harrah's why aren't we willing to tax an area that will actually benefit more people going through our education system.