Las Vegas Sun

September 14, 2014

Currently: 99° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

jon ralston:

Sandoval on right track, even if he won’t say what it is

Is Gov. Brian Sandoval a conservative?

Yes.

And no.

After an interview with Gov. Sunny last week on “Face to Face,” after listening to the bleating from both sides about whether he meets conservative litmus tests, I realize he is the perfect example of someone who demonstrates just how hollow, even misleading, political labels can be. It’s so facile and mindless to label someone — or yourself — as a conservative or liberal, as a pro-tax or no-tax actor. But as I pressed the governor on his right-wing critics pillorying him for extending expiring taxes and for striking a tax-collection deal with Amazon, he came forth with how he really thinks, which has nothing to do with the conservative/liberal or even Republican/Democrat divide:

“I’m the CEO of this state,” the governor said, thus providing a window into the real Brian Sandoval, not the one who foolishly adopted a “no new taxes” mantra to get to the right of a leviathan named Jim Gibbons in the 2010 gubernatorial primary and who has been parsing the meaning of what a “tax” is ever since.

If Sandoval were more earnest he would be Eddie Haskell — but in his case almost no one except nasty lefties doubt his sincerity, commitment and work ethic. But his insistence on his consistency, when such blind no-tax pledges invite inconsistency, and his adherence to the conservative label, when it has lost much meaning here and in D.C., is constricting to his long-term goal of making the state more vibrant and mature than it has ever been.

Like any politician, Sandoval wants to be seen as having hewed to the same positions throughout a career. But because of his genuflection to the no-taxes-no-how contingent in 2010, he has been unable to escape from a prison of his own making — and indeed he has rhetorically waterboarded himself with every decision. To wit:

• Sunsets in 2011: Sandoval made his box even smaller by saying he believed any move by lawmakers to extend expiring taxes was tantamount to a tax increase and thus would violate his pledge. But after a state Supreme Court decision jeopardized half a billion dollars in his budget, Sandoval agreed to what he had defined as a tax increase and extended those so-called sunsets.

• Sunsets in 2012: The governor announced last month that rather than face the prospect of education cuts, he would announce early that he planned to extend the sunsets again come 2013. Once again, by his previous definition, this is a tax increase, but Sandoval shifted his spin to say, as he did on “Face to Face” last week: “Nevadans are not going to pay one cent in tax more than the day I took office.”

• Amazon in 2012: Last week, Sandoval announced an agreement with the web retailer to collect sales taxes from Nevada buyers. The governor risibly argued on the program that is “not a new tax,” under the theory that people could have been paying it already by requesting a sales tax form from the state. Come on. And, it should be noted, this also renders obsolete the statement about no Nevadans paying more in taxes since he took office — perhaps he should start saying (once it takes effect), “No Nevadan who doesn’t use Amazon is paying the same in taxes as when I took office.”

I think Sandoval made the reasoned, correct call on all three of those decisions. But he was forced to explain them in the context of that pledge he took two years ago and against the backdrop of conservative wailers who demand Norquistian fealty, with deviations punished by banishment from the conservative club.

Sandoval’s explanations are so easily deconstructed. And on “Face to Face,” he even tried to suggest the court decision that started all of this unraveling would change “the way Legislatures have budgeted before,” knowing full well that the executive branch presents spending plans, often larded with gimmickry the high court has now outlawed.

This debate over pragmatism versus ideology reminds me of 1988, when Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis ran on the former and lost to George Bush, who ran on the latter. Once elected, Bush showed his supporters that their lip-reading skills were flawed as he raised taxes because, as so many before and since (including Sandoval) have discovered, circumstances change and often render silly campaign pledges inoperative.

On the program, Sandoval repeated one of his favorite aphorisms: “If I’m pleasing everybody, I’m lying to somebody.” True enough. But he’s not following his own advice.

If he would start listening to himself and stop trying to please everybody by squeezing everything he has done into a framework that simply doesn’t hold up, he can start telling the truth about what he has done and what he knows he must do.

That would be quite conservative.

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: 6 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. I think Gov. Sandoval is doing a fine job. But fyi Mr Ralston, extending taxes that are due to expire is a tax increase.

  2. He's been a very good governor so far. Labels don't matter to me. Effectiveness does. And he has been very effective. I would like to see Romney consider him for VP.

  3. We wouldn't need the tax revenue and sunsets would be fine if we'd follow Arizona. Reports say Arizona crime is way down after passing SB1070 regarding illegal immigrants. If we start expelling illegal students, about 100,000 in Nevada, we'd have another $100 million to work with. And UMC wouldn't be broke. The Governor said something about Arizona's law is fine for Arizona but what is Nevada going to do when the illegals that won't go home keep coming here?

  4. Regarding illegals, it is the Federal Government that denies us the right to "remove" them from schools. And take a look at Massachusetts, where "Auntie Zeituni" lives and collects welfare and lives in subsidized housing. Obama's aunt, totally illegal. Her brother lives in another part of town, totally illegal, and just got arrested for DUI. I voted for Obama once, but never again. What a mistake...

  5. Once someone is elected to office, they should not be labeled as Democrat or Republican; Conservative or Liberal, to the Left or to the Right. They should all be together as one doing what is best for the people.
    The people look for accomplishments and results, not labels. He's been doing good so far and I think he will go far.

  6. doogie: Not directly the federal gov. Courts have ruled, if they are here, you must educate them. The 14th amendment allows the feds to "regulate" immigration and the feds can promulgate regulations regarding K-12--such as reimbursing states for "federally protected children" just like they do for kids of diplomats. And I note that media has been interviewing illegals who "had to" come here for medical care--they're not paying for it. They are using our emergency rooms and claiming Medicaid--by claiming birth-rite citizenship when the kids were NOT born here. But the original thought was that if we FOLLOW ARIZONA and make it more difficult for illegals to pretend to be citizens, more of them will leave and others will not come here and thus we won't have to pay for their K-12....