What Have We Learned?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Having just wrapped up Week 13 of the 2011 Nevada Legislature and witnessed the legislative process of using Committee’s of the Whole (both Assembly and Senate) as the venues for attempting to inflict public disgrace on anyone willing to stand up for the Governor’s proposed budget – we can sit back and reflect on observations and things we have learned.
First, in spite of the pressure to cave over the prospects of being further demonized by the visceral public lambasting (and Twitter traffic assaults) – the minority party is holding firm in their contention that Nevada government should be authorized to spend within the means of the current flow of revenue. Secondly, we’ve also learned that the majority party leadership and their minions in the educational community (both K-12 and Higher Education) are convinced that they are entitled to receive whatever amount of funding they deem as necessary (probably in the form of a blank check, since no specifics are yet available).
While we’re still too early in the drama-to-be-played out operational strategy to know the exact details of targeted revenue enhancement plans it is easy to see that the mythical “broad-based business tax” still is a key component. During the Senate and Assembly Committee’s of the Whole “hearings” on Friday, April 22nd, the selected “business leaders”, called on to perform by the majority leadership, fulfilled their assigned tasks of standing up for the importance of increased funding for Higher Education and putting it out there that they would be willing to submit to a “broad-based business tax”.
The odds are still pretty good that the proposal for a Texas-Franchise type of tax will surface at the appropriate time for consideration. This tax type (actually a Gross Receipts tax in a cloaked disguise) fits the model of going after the revenue stream that the private sector generates, skimming off the top in a fashion that Government gets theirs’ first. For those who believe that serving government is the purpose any of us existing in the first place (a perfect description of those who were on center stage this past week) – such a “broad-based business tax” would be the answer to their every aspiration. It doesn’t matter that business enterprises and the private sector employees who earn their income from producing goods and services will be harmed…see rule number 1: Government and those who feast at the public trough must be served.
During the Senate Committee of the Whole session Regent Ron Knecht put “on the record” the facts of what was reported in this Nevada Policy Research Institute blog…
drawing attention the inconvenient details of the way that Higher Education resources and spending have been going up in spite of the assertions of their general fund budgets being “slashed and devastated by cuts”.
To their credit, the officials of the state’s Higher Education system did come forward with a proposal embodied in a four-point plan:
Having just wrapped up Week 13 of the 2011 Nevada Legislature and witnessed the legislative process of using Committee’s of the Whole (both Assembly and Senate) as the venues for attempting to inflict public disgrace on anyone willing to stand up for the Governor’s proposed budget – we can sit back and reflect on observations and things we have learned.
First, in spite of the pressure to cave over the prospects of being further demonized by the visceral public lambasting (and Twitter traffic assaults) – the minority party is holding firm in their contention that Nevada government should be authorized to spend within the means of the current flow of revenue. Secondly, we’ve also learned that the majority party leadership and their minions in the educational community (both K-12 and Higher Education) are convinced that they are entitled to receive whatever amount of funding they deem as necessary (probably in the form of a blank check, since no specifics are yet available).
While we’re still too early in the drama-to-be-played out operational strategy to know the exact details of targeted revenue enhancement plans it is easy to see that the mythical “broad-based business tax” still is a key component. During the Senate and Assembly Committee’s of the Whole “hearings” on Friday, April 22nd, the selected “business leaders”, called on to perform by the majority leadership, fulfilled their assigned tasks of standing up for the importance of increased funding for Higher Education and putting it out there that they would be willing to submit to a “broad-based business tax”.
The odds are still pretty good that the proposal for a Texas-Franchise type of tax will surface at the appropriate time for consideration. This tax type (actually a Gross Receipts tax in a cloaked disguise) fits the model of going after the revenue stream that the private sector generates, skimming off the top in a fashion that Government gets theirs’ first. For those who believe that serving government is the purpose any of us existing in the first place (a perfect description of those who were on center stage this past week) – such a “broad-based business tax” would be the answer to their every aspiration. It doesn’t matter that business enterprises and the private sector employees who earn their income from producing goods and services will be harmed…see rule number 1: Government and those who feast at the public trough must be served.
During the Senate Committee of the Whole session Regent Ron Knecht put “on the record” the facts of what was reported in this Nevada Policy Research Institute blog…
“Regent Ron Knecht should also be noted for creating a spreadsheet that contains the last 12 years of NSHE operating budgets.”
drawing attention the inconvenient details of the way that Higher Education resources and spending have been going up in spite of the assertions of their general fund budgets being “slashed and devastated by cuts”.
To their credit, the officials of the state’s Higher Education system did come forward with a proposal embodied in a four-point plan:
1. Make the cuts for the next biennium equal for each of the two years. The current proposal, offered by Governor Sandoval, has a phased-in application with the cuts greater in the second year than the first. The basis of this point emphasizes the need for correcting our state budget system, since it is mostly designed to set up the next round of budget discussions for the biennium that comes after the one being planned for in the current legislature.While we’ve learned what we’ve learned -- the importance of the lessons so far really are yet to materialize as the timeline ahead plays out…especially, without the key ingredient of the May 2nd Economic Forum results. In the meantime, the deadline of April 26, and finding out what doesn’t pass to the Second House, will hold our short-term attention to see what we learn from that.
2. Increase tuition and student fees by roughly 13 percent (estimated to bring in between $40 and $50 million).
3. Match the amount of the higher revenue generation from students with reductions in the operations costs.
4. Get the Legislature to over-ride the Governor’s budget proposal with an extra amount of funding that equals points 2 and 3. Probably about $100 million extra, but not actually the number that Chancellor Dan Klaich wanted to identify as the number (perhaps with more wheeling and dealing a greater amount will become available).
Posted by Doug Busselman at 4/23/2011 7:39 AM 
Categories: 2011 Nevada Legislature
Tags: Nevada Budget and Spending Nevada Educational Budgets
Categories: 2011 Nevada Legislature
Tags: Nevada Budget and Spending Nevada Educational Budgets
Comments