Fact:  Due to the 2/3 super-majority rule, Nevada Democrats cannot pass a tax increase without the votes of (at least) two Republican senators.

Fact:  No Republican senator would dare to vote for a tax hike without the blessing of Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio (R-Reno).

Conclusion:  Whether or not Nevada’s citizens, businesses and/or tourists get socked with a huge new tax hike in 2009 pretty much depends on Sen. Bill Raggio.

Action Item:  Call, fax, or email Sen. Raggio and respectfully urge him to oppose tax increases in these, the final days of the 2009 legislative session.

Toll-free Phone: 1-800-992-0973  or  1-800-995-9080
Fax: 1-775-786-1177
Email: wraggio@sen.state.nv.us

Action Item 2:  Forward this post to your friends!

Steve Wynn on Jon Ralston’s Face to Face:  “Anybody who raises taxes now is psychotic.”

How so?

He went through the state ledgers line by line and, applying some basic principles and setting a few reasonable priorities, came up with a proposed budget of $5.1 billion.  Which, unlike the budget proposed by the Nevada legislature, stays within our current revenue projections. 

Oh, wait, that’s right:  the state legislature still has not released their budget for public discussion.  Even though they’ve been meeting up in Carson City for months.

Said a legislator who asked not to be named, “I mean, come ON, guys.  This stuff is, like, really hard.”

Says Geoffrey Lawrence, the fiscal expert at NPRI who put the proposed budget together, ”The reason the legislature and governor haven’t been able to balance the budget is that they’ve been unable or unwilling to set priorities.”

Now we wait to hear what the Economic Forum has to say.  We expect they will project lower tax-revenue than previously anticipated.  And that lawmakers will then propose record or near-record tax increases.

If they do, remind them of the four basic principles that provided the basis for NPRI’s budget:  sensible prioritizing, consistent application of government rules and taxes, agency thrift, and “last in, first out” (the elimination of some programs created and funded by Nevada’s record 2003 tax increases – which never should have happened).

Sen. Reid       202-224-3542

Sen. Ensign     202-224-6244

Rep. Heller     202-225-6155

Numbers for the “Mod Squad” in the Senate:

Evan Bayh (IN): 202-224-5623
Mark Begich (AK): 202-224-3004
Michael Bennet (CO): 202-224-5852
Thomas Carper (DE): 202-224-2441
Kay Hagan (NC): 202-224-6342
Claire McCaskill (MO): 202-224-6154
Mary Landrieu (LA): 202-224-5824
Joe Lieberman (CT): 202-224-4041
Ben Nelson (NE): 202-224-6551
Jeanne Shaheen (NH): 202-224-2841

Also… these Republicans are on the fence:

Arlen Specter (PA): 202-224-4254
Olympia Snowe (ME): 202-224-5344

There is no denying that this budget contains enormous spending increases and will lead to unprecedented levels of national debt.  And Obama’s ”spending cuts” are nowhere to be found.  (Where is the promised scalpel, sir?!)  For example: 

– Obama proposes to move some items from the “discretionary” to “mandatory” spending category, but that is just re-arranging chairs.

– About half the total “savings” come from tax increases.

– Another large chunk of “savings” is really just money ($170 billion a year) that won’t be spent in Iraq after 2012.  But the Bush administration never planned to extend anything like the current levels of spending beyond 2012.  It’s not “saving” to not spend money that was NEVER going to be spent.

Fake savings and tax increases aside, this budget is scary because it is a permanent expansion of the federal government as a percent of GDP.  The simple chart on page 12 sums it up very nicely.  De Rugy, an expert in her field, predicts “slower growth rates, higher unemployment rates, lower standards of living, and higher levels of poverty.”

Change is definitely on the way, folks.  And you better hope your family is spared.

He yells it at a KFC colonel look-alike professor who is trying to convince him that contrary to what his back woods Mama Says – “alligators are angry because they have all them teeth and no toothbrush” - alligators are ornery because they have an enlarged medula oblangata.

“So you see, Bobby Bouche, your mama is just wrong.”

-

And on the subject of being wrong, Max Schultz claims Yucca Mountain is not dead.  Enough money to keep the project alive (see Obama’s budget) is all the proof we need.  No matter what Harry Reid says.

Anyone waiting for actual state business to be done will have to wait (at least) until Tuesday.  Longer, probably, since the the Dems still have not put forth a comprehensive budget proposal, and it’s going to be more than a 5 minute job to solve our $600 million budget shortfall.

Even then, with the Dem super-majority in the Assembly, the best that minority leader Heidi Gansert will be able to do is convince her team that supporting tax-and-spend policies is bad for their electoral futures.  And if they don’t believe her and choose to join the Dems in a “bi-partisan” action, I’m guessing it’ll be D-Day for them in 2010.

Update: Steve Sebellius has the Democrat “plan” – all two vague-sounding, double-spaced, extra large font pages of it – here.

Nevada’s most incorrigible tax hater, Chuck Muth, penned a pretty good one today.  Read it for yourself, but here’s a sum-up with a little E!! on the side:

The Silver State’s usual tax-and-spend suspects are crying a river over what amounts to a 10% budget cut (not 15%, not 22%, and not 34%, as has been reported by various hysterical persons who shall go unnamed).

Yes indeedy, 10% is the official figure that Andrew Clinger, the state’s official Budget Director, is officially using in his official correspondence with people.  According to Clinger, Gov. Gibbons’ proposed general fund budget this year “is $632.9 million smaller than last biennium,” a reduction of 9.3 percent. 

So why all the discrepancies, disparities, and dispepsia over huge budget cuts?  Let’s have a little history (and MATH) lesson and see:

2003:  The Legislature increased taxes by more than 3/4 of a billion dollars.  And there were no spending cuts.  Then-REPRESENTATIVE Jim Gibbons criticized then-Governor Kenny Guinn for not cutting 3/4 of a billion dollars from the budget rather than raising taxes. 

2005:  Wonder of wonders, Nevada had a budget surplus of about 3/4 of a billion dollars.  Gov. Guinn put some of the surplus into the Rainy Day Fund and rebated $300 million back to the taxpayers.  The general fund budget was around $6 billion.

2007:  Gov. Guinn is out; Gov. Gibbons is IN.  Gibbons SHOULD HAVE proposed a budget which included the 3/4 of a billion in cuts he’d suggested to Guinn back in 2003, which is to say he should have proposed a budget of around $5.5 billion (allowing for inflation and giving a little leeway and such).  But instead Gibbons suffered from sudden budget amnesia (SBA) and proposed about a billion dollars MORE in state spending.  So the Gibbons budget was nearly $7 billion.

2008:  Astonishingly enough, The Economic Forum projects actual revenues coming into the state coffers at around $5.5 billion.

SO, here we are, 2009:  Looking at the insufficient funds left over from 2007’s budget and faced with having to roll back spending to 2005 levels based on current state revenues.

AND the big-government gurus want the 2009 Legislature to spend NOT ONLY the $7 billion the government already can’t afford, but ANOTHER $1 billion on top of that!   Yes, it’s true:  the spendy spenders are demanding $8 billion in government spending while the state is only taking in $5.5 billion.

AND – here’s the big finish, folks! – the Spenders are calling any talk like the Talk I just talked (i.e. only spending what we are actually taking in), an “irresponsible $2.5 BILLION BUDGET CUT.”

.

Any questions?!

(yawn)

The thing about these kinds of stories is that most people don’t dare criticize them because then you’re called a supporter of “unconscionable” acts and a heartless hating hater of autistic kids.

Unless you’re me, and then you dare.

As a general rule, large government bureaucracies run so inefficiently and are guilty of so much over-spending and waste that any run-of-the-mill efficiency auditor could find ways to shave 5 to 10% without much of an impact on anyone.

If you doubt me, check out some of the information on the new Transparent Nevada website.

Like the sum total of the astronomical above-market salaries, overtime, and benfits packages being paid to some state employees.  A few reasonable adjustments and everyone could keep their jobs while the state saves about $100 million.

Or the astoundingly large vendor contracts that exist just here in Clark County.  You cannot convince me that out of the six $100,000,000 – ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR – contracts, there are no reasonable cost reductions that could be made while still maintaining adequate service levels.

It’s all about identifying and reducing inefficiency and waste - not cheating the poor kids out of their speech therapy classes.

It’s worth the read if you want to (1) understand where Nevada REALLY is with its budget issues, (2) be informed about the questions that remain unanswered, and (C) be reminded that when it comes to politics and money, the devil is always in the details.

Gibbons points out that depending on which newspaper, pundit or politician you believe, you might think Nevada has a budget shortfall of $5.6 billion, $4.5 billion, $2.5 billion, $1.2 billion – or no real shortfall at all. And so you might think we need to cut between 34% and 0% of the budget in order to cover the shortfall.

The questions are: Who is right, and what accounts for the differences in math? And how can the public (or our elected officials) have intelligent policy discussions if we can’t even agree on the basis basics?

In order to wade through it all, one first needs to understand that the General Fund (GF) is not the same as the total state budget. In fact, the GF makes up only 37.5% of the overall budget. The recommendation for the General Fund for the current biennium (FYI: we do our state budgets two years at a time, if you didn’t know that) was $5.8 billion, but the overall recommendation for the state budget was $18 billion.

The other thing to know (ask!) when talking about either the General Fund or the overall state budget is whether people are extrapolating their numbers from (1) the originally projected and appropriated sums or or the currently projected sums, and (2) ditto on the revenue.

Read the NPRI piece and see for yourself!

(And if you have any questions, submit them here and we’ll see if we can get Patrick to stop by and explain things.)