Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, May 27, 2011 | 11:21 a.m.
Brian Sandoval
Sun archives
- Court decision changes footing on state budget (5-27-2011)
- Sandoval adviser: Court ruling blows hole in budget 10 times larger than expected (5-27-2011)
- Teachers union wants more than extending taxes set to expire (5-26-2011)
- Timing of court ruling breaking budget stalemate no coincidence (5-26-2011)
- In a reversal, Sandoval to consider extending 2009 tax increases (5-26-2011)
- Oceguera: Sunsetting taxes the ‘best we’re going to do’(5-26-2011)
- Court rules Legislature’s $62 million grab unconstitutional (5-26-2011)
Sun Coverage
CARSON CITY – Gov. Brian Sandoval is considering asking the Nevada Supreme Court for a clarification of a Thursday ruling, and whether it means a $62 million or a $656 million hole in the state's budget.
Sen. Michael Roberson, R-Las Vegas, made the comment after emerging today from a caucus of Republican senators who were talking about the next step in the process.
Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Elko, said staff members are analyzing the magnitude of the problem “and then we are going to punt.”
Sandoval could ask the Supreme Court to clarify its ruling that the state in 2010 wrongfully took $62 million from the Clean Water Coalition in Clark County to balance the state budget.
The ruling opens the door on whether other actions by the Legislature involving local fund grabs were also invalid. That could mean the $62 million is only the tip of the iceberg.
Roberson, a Las Vegas lawyer, said the ruling “appears very broad.” He added, “I have not heard anybody say they can cut $650 million.” Asked if that means backtracking on the GOP pledge not to raise taxes, Roberson said “I’m for a balanced budget.”
Taxes imposed by the 2010 Legislature are due to expire on June 30. They total about $700 million.
Democrats have been pushing a bill to extend those taxes, but have faced opposition from the governor and Republican lawmakers.
Big business, including gaming, utilities and mining, testified earlier this week in favor of extending the taxes for two years. The Assembly Ways and Means Committee, on a party-line vote, approved the bill to let the taxes go forward.
If the Supreme Court ruling is broadened to affect other local money grabs, then the state must find $225 million from a room tax increase set aside for education and $247 million from the debt reserve funds of school districts. There is also $83.4 million in property tax diversions from Clark and Washoe counties.
And what about any funds diverted earlier? Would this ruling apply to those funds as well?
I don't understand why this matters. Gov. Sandoval clearly stated that any additional taxes would be devastating to our economy and all the Republican senators and assemblymen have followed this mantra lock step. What has changed since yesterday? The fact that the state can't take money from local jurisdictions shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not additional taxes will destroy our economy, as the Republicans have stated repeatedly. Or was all that rhetoric nothing more than political grandstanding?
Thats why he's asking tannker. The rulling right now aplies to the 62mill but it might set a precident for the earlier funds which would be the near 700mill.
The only thing they rulled on is the 62.
You have big business not being listened to by the republicans which usually support whatever big business wants. I think we might of elected ideologists that don't have a clue and will do anything to run with the thought that government can function without any money or at least their money.
Who do you think paid the taxes to put us adults through school when we were children? Our parents and grandparents are who. It is now our turn to be mature and responsible adults and support the next generation and not sabotage them and this country's future.
"Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Elko, said staff members are analyzing the magnitude of the problem "and then we are going to punt."
GOP leadership, at it's finest.
azbycx0918 is right: Governor Sandoval has given everyone the impression that extending the sunsetting taxes would harm the economy. But now, he claims he has to extend them because the state can't spend any LESS than his budget.
Poor, clueless NPRI must be red with rage right now.
The reason he has to now say that the sunsets are ok is that he knows if he makes anymore cuts, there will be a revolt and he and many other members of the legislature may be recalled.
look at this maggot...
he got caught trying to steal our taxpayer dollars...
and true to his little itty bitty child like form...
this maggot is gonna crawl back to the court and ask mommy and daddy if he can still steal the other pile of taxpayer dollars...
THE TIME TO IMPEACH BRIAN "MY KIDS DON'T LOOK HISPANIC" SANDOVAL IS RIGHT FRICKIN NOW!!!
all the other entities that brian "my kids don't look hispanic so i could frickin care less about racial profiling even though i am a mexican american" sandoval...
get ready to file your own law suits...
TODAY!!!
look at this little greasy slimy maggot...
gambling with the sate of nevada's future...
gambling with the future of the innocent kids of the state of nevada...
THE TIME TO RECALL BRIAN "MY KIDS DON'T LOOK HISPANIC" SANDOVAL IS RIGHT FRICKIN NOW!!!
hey horsford...
hey oceguera...
get off your fat @$$es and squash this greasy slimy maggot...
or you clowns are all done!!!
$500 million of the local money is from/for K-12 so leave it there and DECREASE STATE FUNDING BY $500 MILLION.
"$500 million of the local money is from/for K-12 so leave it there and DECREASE STATE FUNDING BY $500 MILLION."
Seriously, the ignorance on display here is staggering.
Sandoval was grabbing cash primarily from Washoe and Clark counties in order to fund the general fund. Maybe you don't know what that means, rose, but it means Washoe and Clark were subsidizing rural spending even more than they ever had before.
Property tax dollars collected in Clark County would have gone to the general fund and spent in White Pine county. But White Pine county? Their property tax revenue stayed local.
All those loony libertarians out in the boonies scream and rage against income redistribution... until the income is redistributed to them.
A clarification matters because the 62 mil was a complete reallocation of funds to the general fund for a completely different purpose than intended, which makes it an unauthorized tax increase.
Reallocating school funds from the bond money back to the schools and reallocating the room tax that was supposed to go to the schools is still allocating school money to the schools. The 62 mil and the 500 mil are completely different issues and thats why it needs clarification.
It is not improper to fund the school budget from the school budget, just in a different school budget bucket. It is improper to realocate a water pipeline money bucket to the general fund.
poor rosie.
It just goes to show what happens when feral children get old.
absolutely clueless, but screeching like a banshee and making as much sense.
to tbveags,
You say, "It is not improper to fund the school budget from the school budget..." But what if that $500 million from the Clark County school budget goes into the general fund and then funds schools not in Clark County? Is it improper then?
The 400 mil they found a few months ago in new revenue was the result of a renewed business faith that the government was gonna get out of their pocket a little. They invested a little more and hired a little more. Just a little.
If that faith is broken by not trusting the governor at his word, I bet you will see a new sense mistrust and the 400 mil they planned on won't materialize.
So here is the problem:
1) Raise the taxes and destroy the trust, and you have a new 400-500 million hole in budget as projections will go back down and businesses will keep failing at an increased rate.
2) Don't raise the taxes and you still have a 400-500 gap, but at least you keep the businesses that support the entire system on life support.
Businesses make decisions based on the predictability of the government. If the Governor wishy washes on his pledge, Hold on. The un-intended consequences of businesses moving, closing or not moving here will be far reaching. And the effect will be much greater than the .25%
FRM
Then dont give tho those counties school budgets - its a simple math computation.
Part 1 of 2:
This new Nevada Supreme Court opinion Clean Water Coalition v. The M Resort, decided on May 26, 2011, has some VERY interesting language in it referring to the rather obscure "equal protection" clause in the Nevada Constitution. Equal protection clause discussion is more commonly focused on the Federal equal protection clause, which says, in essence, that every citizen has the right to be treated equally by his/her government. In this new Clean Water Coalition v. The M Resort opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court says "Article 4, Section 21, [of the Nevada Constitution] requires laws to be "general and of uniform operation throughout the State" in all cases "where a general law can be made applicable."
"Laws", as referred to in that section, apparently include the state's budget, based on what the Nevada Supreme Court has just said in its new opinion in Clean Water Coalition v. The M Resort.
That phrase in the new Nevada Supreme Court decision reminded me of an important California school funding case which was decided under the "equal protection" clause of that state's constitution.
In 1971, the California Supreme Court ruled education a fundamental constitutional right in Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241, and returned the case for trial, in what is generally regarded as the first of the modern-era education finance litigation decisions. In 1976, in Serrano v. Priest (Serrano II ), 557 P.2d 929, the same court affirmed the trial court's finding that the wealth-related disparities in per-pupil spending generated by the state's education finance system violated the equal protection clause of the California constitution.
The ultimate result of the Serrano v. Priest litigation was that by and large school funding came from the state, not from local real estate taxes. More important as an "equal protection" constitutional principle, for a long time, by law each California school district would receive the same "per head" funding for each student, with no extra funds for any school district for any reason.
When those Serrano related changes were challenged in 1986, 93% of California students were in school districts whose per-pupil spending was within $100 of each other. California's intermediate appelate court (which Nevada doesn't have) held, in Serrano v. Priest, 226 Cal. Rptr. 584 (Court of Appeal, 2d District 1986), that this level of disparity satisfied California's equal protection requirements.
"Sandoval was grabbing cash primarily from Washoe and Clark counties in order to fund the general fund. Maybe you don't know what that means, rose, but it means Washoe and Clark were subsidizing rural spending even more than they ever had before."
Its actually even more sinister than that. Sandoval is passing on the need to raise revenue to the local governments. He knows the local governments cannot get by on what they will be left once the raiders from Carson City take everything. He knows they will have to raise property taxes to balance budgets. So he gets to look like the Golden Boy to people like Rose and the far right king makers in the Republican Party, while the local governments and their residents get to bare the burden of the State's failure to have a rainy day fund.
He's just passing the revenue increases to the locals while looking like some great conservative. Its a complete shell game. And its amazing that people like Rose fall for it.
Stealing money from local governments to avoid raising taxes is not fiscal responsibility, or conservatism. Its childish, irresponsible, and shows a complete lack of leadership. Hopefully the Court ruling will stop this charade and force Carson City to make real decisions.
Part 2:
That basic Serrano v. Priest principle, of equalized "per head" funding of Nevada's school districts, has been in my thoughts, for quite a while, with respect to the Legislature's funding of Clark County School District.
Both Las Vegas newspapers have reported that the "rural" school districts in Nevada receive far more state money, on a "per head basis", than the school districts in Clark and Washoe Counties. If I were young, energetic, and a member of the Nevada Bar, I probably would sue the State of Nevada on behalf of my grand children, under the equal protection language in this new Clean Water Coalition v. The M Resort Nevada Supreme Court case. My hypothetical lawsuit would demand an equalization of "per head" elementary and secondary school funding, either by the cutting of the rural counties' school funding or an increase in the two urban counties school funding. To me, the school children of Nevada are entitled to "equal protection of the law" regardless of where they live.
And while I was at it, I might be tempted to attack the disparity between the "per head" or "per credit hour" funding of UNLV versus CSN. I frankly cannot understand how, under Nevada's equal protection clause, each student at UNLV is entitled to a bigger state subsidy than each student CSN.
I wish there were some young and feisty "public interest lawyers" in Las Vegas who would do what education activists in other states do.
If your for or against a tax increase, I happen to be for a modest tax increase, then the outcome of what happens here in the State as far as services, and education go rests with this Govenor. If he does us right, we re-elect him, if not we boot him from office. I don't think taking money from other sources that impedes their ability to perform services solves the problem. If the State cannot afford it's services, then we will have to pay a little more. A good education system and our nice weather and communities will assist us in bringing people to the area, hopefully more affordably than what happened in the past. Unfortunately, the United States is in deeper trouble and we are giving monies away to other countries; after we borrow it that is! It's not right!
The bottom line is that the current budget that was submitted to the legislature by the governor is not balanced as of yesterday. The governor has not submitted a revised budget in time for the legislature to make changed and override his possible veto. That does not mean that the legislature loses their constitutional right to override his veto-it means that a possible court fight over that right is possible if the governor decides not to extend the session long enough to give them that time.
Call your legislator at 1-800-978-2878 and tell them to end the tax breaks for foreign mining corporations and spend that tax money gathered from Nevada's working families ON Nevada's working families.
We have already seen in recent days businesses testifying in support of extending the sunsets on certain taxes. The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of a broad based business tax that is linked to education reform. However, there is still an area that needs to be addressed. The Constitutional protection for the mining industry and the state laws that allow huge deductions need to undergo changes. I am not advocating the Alaska solution of a 25% royalty on oil companies, although based on recent earnings reports, that doesn't seem to have had a negative effect on their profits.
The issue was highlighted in a recent power point presentation at the Barrick Mining annual meeting. One of the mines highlighted in the power point was the Cortez Hills Mine in Northern Nevada. According to the power point, in 2010, the mine produced 114,000,000 ounces of gold (over 35 TONS) at a production cost of $312 per ounce. During the first quarter of 2011, the mine produced 366,000 ounces (over 11 TONS) of gold at a production cost of $220 per ounce. If you project a sale price of $1000 over cost of production,that results in a profit of over $1,500,000,000. Based on what the mining industry paid in taxes in 2009, the tax payment to the state of Nevada will probably be less than 50,000,000. The power point goes on to point out that the projected production from Cortez Hills for 2011 will be between 1.30 to 1.45 MILLION ounces (40-45 TONS)at a production cost of $235-245 per ounce. This is natural resource that should provide significant benefits to the citizens of Nevada. Unless the Legislature acts quickly, another two years will pass without any significant action to change the tax structure of the state.