Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion
Oct. 21, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Another budget crisis?

And the chancellor wants higher taxes

Lower-than-expected tax revenue growth. State agency chiefs declaring targeted reductions in their increasing budgets impossible. Solemn public officials and special interests claiming tax increases are the only solution. Where have we heard all this before?

It's starting to sound a lot like 2002. If you've lived in Nevada more than four years, you remember what happened during the 2003 Legislature: lawmakers' insistence that the state's tax structure was broken and outdated, the constitutional crisis, the record tax increases. And you remember what followed: the unprecedented growth of the state bureaucracy, the economic recovery that produced more than $600 million in surplus tax revenues -- and the specter of having to repeat the entire drama at the next economic slowdown.

It hasn't even been five months since the Nevada Legislature wrapped up business on the current, two-year budget cycle, and state government is sounding the alarm of a fiscal crisis.

The problem: Lawmakers, following the binding recommendation of the Economic Forum, counted on 5 percent overall revenue growth this year and 6 percent growth on top of that next year to fund $6.8 billion in state expenses through June 30, 2009. Revenues are still flowing into the treasury faster than last year's levels, but not at the rate lawmakers had planned.

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: School administrators immune from cuts
  • LETTERS: Power bills high enough? Not for Harry
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Inching back up the path toward freedom
  • ERIN NEFF: A depressing spectacle in Carson City
  • LETTERS: All kids should be able to bring books home
  • EDITORIAL: Jobs for life?
  • LETTERS: Blame social promotion, grade inflation
  • EDITORIAL: Schools need reform -- but not my school
  • EDITORIAL: Where's the crisis?
  • ERIN NEFF: Snippets from the special session



    • Through the first quarter of the current fiscal year, gaming tax collections were flat, about $15 million below projections. Sales tax receipts have actually dipped when compared with the prior year's collections. Property tax receipts and other levies are up, however.

    The hiccup in two of the state's biggest, most important revenue streams compelled Gov. Jim Gibbons to ask most agency heads to formulate contingency plans for spending reductions. In the event that the tax slump continues into the new year, he's seeking 5 percent reductions this year and next -- essentially warning agencies that they might need to shed the budget increases passed by the 2007 Legislature and return their operations to last year's spending levels.

    Many state governments dealing with longtime economic woes would kill for Nevada's prospects: flat or slightly increased revenues amid a sagging housing market, billions of dollars in private construction projects nearing completion, the promise of tens of thousands of new jobs being created in the years ahead.

    Of course, one reason Nevada's long-term outlook is so bright is its relatively low taxes. And one reason states such as Michigan, California, New Jersey, Illinois and Massachusetts are in perpetual crisis is their increasingly high tax burden.

    Why are their taxes so high? Because at the slightest hint of economic trouble, they raise taxes so governments won't be subjected to the same belt-tightening that households and businesses endure in lean times. When the public sector continues to grow amid unfavorable fiscal conditions, new programs and personnel boost the baseline, making them harder and harder to cut, setting up taxpayers for ever-bigger bills down the line.

    Many in Nevada still choose to ignore the struggles of these states and the lessons of 2003. Chancellor Jim Rogers, the chief executive of the state's public higher education system, has defiantly told Gov. Gibbons that he won't comply with the request.

    Mr. Rogers, who wants the state constitution amended to impose individual and corporate income taxes, went so far as to suggest that the governor call a special session of the Legislature to enact immediate tax increases. The governor refused.

    Said Mr. Rogers: "You just can't say to somebody, 'You've got ten dollars today. How would you do with seven?' "

    Mr. Rogers might want to consider taking a remedial math class at the Community College of ... er, the College of Southern Nevada. Gov. Gibbons isn't asking state agencies to absorb a 30 percent budget cut. Rather, after bumping the system's allowance from $9.20 to $10, he wants them to figure out how to make do with $9.50. And that's only hypothetical at this point.

    That said, Gov. Gibbons' suggestion is a bit too broad. Making blanket, equal cuts across the board in any operation, especially one as large and complex as the state government, ignores the fact that some offices are more important than others. Yes, the governor has exempted public schools, prisons and the Department of Public Safety from his request, but his administration can do more to prioritize cuts if they become necessary.

    That's what chief executives do.



    Leave Your Comment 7 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    cas127 wrote on October 22, 2007 01:25 PM: How many people do you think Diamond Jim (Rogers) canned when he was building his media oligopoly empire?

    *Then* he told them "You're getting ten - nope, now you are getting *zero* - and hit the bricks, buddy."

    So I suggest we take away aspiring tyrant Rogers' erector set (hmm...I wonder if taxpayer funded "philanthropy" is overcompensation for some, er, "shortcoming" Rogers may have...Viagra is cheaper, Diamond Jim) and then smash his grasping little fingers by throwing him out of office.

    Oh, dear me, perhaps he might quit in spite (good).

    We are utterly sick of of this Mr. Rogers' neighborhood - take your millions and shove them.

    We'll be looking into the tax practices of his "foundations" as well.


    huh wrote on October 21, 2007 11:42 AM: remember when guinn raised taxes illegaly.so what did he do,he hired over 1000 govt workers and gave them all raises.


    Eric wrote on October 21, 2007 09:12 AM: Rogers is right about the need for a corporate income tax. This editorial doesn't present any of his argument, only his refusal to comply with Gibbons's request. The Sun has covered this issue much better.

    I'm surprised at the animosity people on these comment pages have for Rogers. Why are they so afraid of a corporate income tax? Why shouldn't companies such as the R-J pay corporate taxes before sending their profits to corporate headquarters such as the R-J's in Arkansas?

    And how can anyone call higher education a "pet project"? Sounds downright uneducated of them.


    Helen wrote on October 21, 2007 08:49 AM: Here's the first cut, Rogers head. Everything else will be easier once that happens. Then cut ALL the funds for higher education. It's time the taxpayers stopped funding multi-millionaires pet projects. Meanwhile


    Jim can WILL all of his income to


    Private education. NOW, THAT'S A LEGACY!


    Helen wrote on October 21, 2007 08:49 AM: Here's the first cut, Rogers head. Everything else will be easier once that happens. Then cut ALL the funds for higher education. It's time the taxpayers stopped funding multi-millionaires pet projects. Meanwhile

    Jim can WILL all of his income to

    Private education. NOW, THAT'S A LEGACY!


    Mark wrote on October 21, 2007 08:17 AM: We don't need government at all. All they do is take and take.


    John F wrote on October 21, 2007 08:02 AM: Jim Rogers sounds a lot like the people in the mining editorisl (next story) who are crying that an 8% royalty on new mines will put them out of business. But in that story the editors are on the side of the miners. They're all going to plead poverty when someone threatens their money; it's natural. So why are the editors on the side of the miners, but not on the side of higher education?