Special Session And Budget Cuts
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
There’s been no shortage of activity heading into the February 23, 2010 Special Nevada Legislative Session which will bring to the boiling point the variety of ideas aimed at closing the nearly $900 Million gap between what was authorized for spending and the shortage of tax revenues being received to cover the spending. It will be an interesting process to watch, given the significant differences of opinion over what would be the best set of solutions.
Some legislators believe that parts of the state budget shouldn’t be reduced to the extent that the Governor is recommending in his plan. These same legislators are scanning the budget paperwork and considering options that they think might be more appropriate for the budget cleaver than the sacred sections that they don’t think should be pinched.
Agriculture has some skin in this game as it has been considered by those in charge of the legislative process thinking that the Nevada Department of Agriculture doesn’t really need a plants industry division and the general fund dollars allotted to that division would be better spent by not cutting their favorite program areas. In conversations with the Governor’s office it was noted that this is not something that is being offered for a solution by Governor Gibbons, but that doesn’t mean that lawmakers won’t take that approach in putting their proposed solution into action.
Are their important reasons for keeping the plants industry division in operation? Yes! Not only are the programs and activities carried out by that division important to agriculture, the bulk of the costs are paid for through user fees and assessments not coming out of the general fund. The general fund dollars that are in the division’s operational scope are used to match with other sources to accomplish the work that’s being done.
Does this mean that the general fund dollars flowing into the plants industry division shouldn’t be touched – possibly even depleted entirely? No, it doesn’t mean that either. You can’t advocate that spending cuts be the solution and then not be willing to include cuts to your favorite programs as well. Depending on what does end up on the floor after the cutting is completed, the post legislative sessions needs to be oriented to restructuring programs and determining alternative funding methods for those critical things that need to be continued.
Is it fair that some areas might not be asked to contribute as much to the spending reductions as others? Actually, “fair” has very little to do with things in this regard. Across the board cuts with all taking the same degree of reductions has been part of the problems in past reducing efforts. There should be a sense of priority with funding geared to addressing the priorities that have been established. Instead of being all things to all people (and doing a poor job across the board in the process) a lean government should be operated with the walk-the-walk orientation of spending and doing what is identified as being the priorities. That also includes accountability and assurance that those critical dollars are being spent with taxpayers getting their money’s worth.
Education, in particular (being the biggest spenders on the block), is legitimately at the top of the list for warranting funding. This doesn’t mean that they should be off-limits for getting less of the dollars that legislators had planned for them to spend. It also doesn’t mean that Nevada taxpayers shouldn’t be expecting more from the educational bureaucracy and establishment in terms of performance. Reform efforts to institute meaningful competition into the monopoly of state-run educational programs are essential to getting us to a point where education is more about what students learn than how much is spent to deliver extremely poor results. Our current system is broke – and that is far more than an assessment of the status of the bank account.
There’s been no shortage of activity heading into the February 23, 2010 Special Nevada Legislative Session which will bring to the boiling point the variety of ideas aimed at closing the nearly $900 Million gap between what was authorized for spending and the shortage of tax revenues being received to cover the spending. It will be an interesting process to watch, given the significant differences of opinion over what would be the best set of solutions.
Some legislators believe that parts of the state budget shouldn’t be reduced to the extent that the Governor is recommending in his plan. These same legislators are scanning the budget paperwork and considering options that they think might be more appropriate for the budget cleaver than the sacred sections that they don’t think should be pinched.
Agriculture has some skin in this game as it has been considered by those in charge of the legislative process thinking that the Nevada Department of Agriculture doesn’t really need a plants industry division and the general fund dollars allotted to that division would be better spent by not cutting their favorite program areas. In conversations with the Governor’s office it was noted that this is not something that is being offered for a solution by Governor Gibbons, but that doesn’t mean that lawmakers won’t take that approach in putting their proposed solution into action.
Are their important reasons for keeping the plants industry division in operation? Yes! Not only are the programs and activities carried out by that division important to agriculture, the bulk of the costs are paid for through user fees and assessments not coming out of the general fund. The general fund dollars that are in the division’s operational scope are used to match with other sources to accomplish the work that’s being done.
Does this mean that the general fund dollars flowing into the plants industry division shouldn’t be touched – possibly even depleted entirely? No, it doesn’t mean that either. You can’t advocate that spending cuts be the solution and then not be willing to include cuts to your favorite programs as well. Depending on what does end up on the floor after the cutting is completed, the post legislative sessions needs to be oriented to restructuring programs and determining alternative funding methods for those critical things that need to be continued.
Is it fair that some areas might not be asked to contribute as much to the spending reductions as others? Actually, “fair” has very little to do with things in this regard. Across the board cuts with all taking the same degree of reductions has been part of the problems in past reducing efforts. There should be a sense of priority with funding geared to addressing the priorities that have been established. Instead of being all things to all people (and doing a poor job across the board in the process) a lean government should be operated with the walk-the-walk orientation of spending and doing what is identified as being the priorities. That also includes accountability and assurance that those critical dollars are being spent with taxpayers getting their money’s worth.
Education, in particular (being the biggest spenders on the block), is legitimately at the top of the list for warranting funding. This doesn’t mean that they should be off-limits for getting less of the dollars that legislators had planned for them to spend. It also doesn’t mean that Nevada taxpayers shouldn’t be expecting more from the educational bureaucracy and establishment in terms of performance. Reform efforts to institute meaningful competition into the monopoly of state-run educational programs are essential to getting us to a point where education is more about what students learn than how much is spent to deliver extremely poor results. Our current system is broke – and that is far more than an assessment of the status of the bank account.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 2/17/2010 6:37 AM 
Categories: Nevada
Tags: Nevada Budget Governor Jim Gibbons Nevada Special Legislative Session Nevada Agriculture Educational Funding
Categories: Nevada
Tags: Nevada Budget Governor Jim Gibbons Nevada Special Legislative Session Nevada Agriculture Educational Funding
Comments