Is there information on when the health care plan, if passed would take effect? I've heard that it wouldn't go into effect for some time from now. If that is the case, why the hurry to ram it through the legislative process? Also, I'm not certain, but I've also heard that some Americans might not be covered by the plan (government employees and members of Congress to name a couple of groups). Is there something about this approach to health care that those who are supposed to be doing the hurry-up passage -- don't want to have to endure themselves or have their family members participate in as the rest of us would be required?

We should not be giving Congress a free pass in this. Those serving in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate are the ones who vote and decide what will be spent and on what it will be spent on. If we were to do some checking we might find that the leadership of the Congress (as well as being the same folks in charge of the majority party) has been the same for the past three years (including the last two years of the Bush Administration. Perhaps if we want to hold somebody accountable, we should consider the person who will be seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate from Nevada in 2010 -- he is after all one of the leaders involved in getting us to where we are.

It is good to read about the accomplishments of the more successful schools (at the end of this account). Sure wish there were concrete ideas on action steps to make the top portion (poor graduation rates) improve -- regardless of the measurement scale used.

Given Senator Hardy's action to remove himself from the process should prompt all the other legislators with conflicts to take the same action.

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.

From what I understood, the plan not that long ago was to set funding for Higher Education at the required 2006 level (to qualify for the stimulus money)and then add the stimulus money to the total. This would have achieved about a 19 percent "decrease" from the current biennium. So it would seem that getting down to the levels that are being considered are even better than that. I think the Higher Education people are upset that the "cuts" for K-12 will end up with more money authorized for spending than the current biennium. The real questions should be on what the extra funding is going to pay for. That way the private sector who are going to have to pay for the increases can understand whether they are getting their money's worth.

It's very troubling to keep reading about how the bureaucracy (and that includes the University System) believes that it is entitled to take whatever they think they need from the pockets of the private sector.

What "cuts" are being proposed for education? It seems that education is as safe as anything in Carson City. Is somebody trying to suggest that "cuts" are being considered to stir things up?

It is interesting how the majority leader is so critical of the Governor's budget, which currently will require another $900 million to achieve. The most recent update of the revenue forecast seems to demonstrate that the economy is so bad that no matter where you set tax levels, the incoming revenue might not be obtainable. It will be worth charting how tax increases that our legislature give us impact further the unemployment rates.

In trying to answer the question from the "reader poll" on whether we think things will be better or worse -- it depends greatly on whether the Legislature kills off what's left of business by taxes to take care of those who rely on money from government. If legislators keep working at sinking those who are keeping things as afloat as they are now...who is going to be there to pay to fund the government spending that they seem to think is required.