Political, legal fights will arise out of Sandoval’s plan

By Jon Ralston

Friday, Jan. 14, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.

There are few surprises left in the Sandoval administration’s budget the governor will propose in his State of the State address Jan. 24.

But as Brian Sandoval’s solution to the state’s budget cataclysm — a math answer with all minuses and no pluses — comes into focus, so, too, is opposition and outrage forming, a black cloud on Gov. Sunny’s horizon.

This may not be surprising — raising taxes generally sends into apoplexy only the Grover Norquist wing of the GOP, businesses who pay nothing and want to keep paying nothing, and my old pals on the Review-Journal editorial board. But cut services, pilfer money and slash salaries, and the opponents multiply like biblical locusts swarming Carson City.

But beyond special interests trying to scream the loudest are real issues raised by the Sandoval plan that could inflame sectionalism (where have you gone Bill Raggio, the North turns its lonely eyes to you), threaten bond ratings of private and public institutions (too arcane to seep into the public consciousness but real nevertheless) and bring the judicial branch into legislative decisions (on education funding, reapportionment/redistricting and more) in a way that will make the 2003 state Supreme Court decision that paved the way for a tax increase look like a forgettable incursion.

Sandoval and his minions understandably are trying to quiet the squawks of the various Chicken Littles. The cuts aren’t draconian, all things considered, and at least we are not as ham-handed and thoughtless as Jim Gibbons, so the pitch goes. But, others argue, even if it’s a nicer guy wielding the ax, it still hurts the same when it falls.

The budget will be balanced in several ways:

• Those 5 percent salary cuts announced in a letter by Sandoval to state employees this week. “Hi, I’m the new governor. Nice to meet you. Now give me some money.” This will be the least controversial of his methods because only state employees and their advocates will complain much, as regular folks will have little sympathy because most have suffered much more in this economy.

• A fundamental change to how lower and higher education are funded. The governor apparently will ravage county school districts for what could amount to half a billion dollars, most of it from Clark County. The governor will argue that there are other funds the districts can draw from and he apparently will propose a way for the money to be paid back. Nevertheless, this raises at least two incendiary issues — one political and one legal. The political issue is that Clark County interests — specifically the school lobby and construction folks — will be furious that a governor, whom they will see as an out-of-touch northerner, is balancing his budget on their backs and costing them jobs. The legal issue is that hundreds of thousands of Southern Nevadans voted for bond money that could be used to build schools in Elko. Can you say class action?

By significantly cutting higher education and forcing institutions to raise tuition and fees, Sandoval is giving the system the autonomy it has long sought but also creating access and quality issues. Higher education advocates say the cut is 20 percent, but the governor’s folks say it is about half of that because of what the system can make up in tuition and fees and because Regentworld is counting stimulus money that disappeared.

• Make local governments pay. This will be done by continuing a 9-cent property tax diversion and pushing services, mostly social but some higher ed, to the counties. This also will generate little public opposition — unless they are local government advocates who can stir it up.

• Discontinue Health and Human Service programs, cut others, reduce reimbursement rates for Medicaid. Unlike Gibbons, who did this pretty thoughtlessly, it seems Sandoval has tried to minimize the pain. But those affected will still say it’s only a matter of slight degrees, and in a state with bare-bones social services, these reductions will be felt.

So there you have it. An efficiency and consolidation here and there, and voilà, you have a balanced budget. But at what cost? And to keep a no-new-tax pledge that already has been bent and broken by this gimmickry and reduces complex issues about the state’s future to a bumper sticker.

I am not the only one who sees a cognitive dissonance between Gov. Sunny trying to, as one insider put it, “soften the blow while it’s really, really bad” as he is pushing for economic diversification and job creation while “our kids are failing, we lead the nation in unemployment, foreclosures and bankruptcy and we have the lowest graduation rate.”

A comprehensive plan to fix all of that? Now that would be a surprise.