Jon Ralston says Gibbons v. Nevada makes divorce look like a walk in the park

By Jon Ralston

Sunday, June 1, 2008 | 2:02 a.m.

Time to take a welcome break from Gibbons v. Gibbons to glance at a much farther-reaching and more sordid case: Gibbons (Jim, that is) v. the state of Nevada, with the Gang of 63 submitting an amicus brief and most of the affected parties declining to intervene.

Gibbons v. Nevada is a case, political not legal, in which the governor is hardly alone in being divorced from reality, practical not political. And we can only hope that we will not have to wait for the first hearing in 2009.

With gaming and sales numbers tanking, with few options left for the budget-hackers in the executive and legislative branches, it’s no longer a question of whether a special session is needed; it’s when. The only question is that when Gibbons v. Nevada is heard in open court — i.e., the Legislative Building — whether anyone will tell the truth after being sworn in.

Have you heard any of the pretrial statements?

“Having worked on the budget since I’ve been in the Senate, I’d be hard-pressed to find areas to take money from.”

Wonder which Democratic lawmaker uttered that? Try Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, a week ago in the Sun. I believe he is a Republican, perhaps the most influential one in the state.

So let’s start there: A declaration of no fat in the budget from someone, unlike the governor, who knows it inside and out.

And what sayeth plaintiff Gibbons, intent on reducing the state to rubble in this case? The governor told In Business Las Vegas last week that his approach is different from “other administrations previous to mine that looked at it and said the answer was to raise taxes to meet those spending expectations. My goal is to lower spending expectations to meet the tax revenues that we have.”

If lowering expectations were a sport, Gibbons would be an Olympian. So where is this expectation that spending should be reduced? From parents sending their kids to public schools? From motorists experiencing a road rage epidemic? From social service recipients and activists fretting about the less fortunate?

We know from previous depositions that Gibbons will testify that you can’t raise taxes in a recession, that you can’t pick the pockets of hardworking Nevadans. It will sound believable, but will the jury buy it?

One witness not afraid to tell the truth is Chancellor Jim Rogers, whose affidavit disseminated last week was very clear about more cuts: “All of the remedies, in the pursuit of sustaining life, create permanent injury which can never be restored or repaired and which permanently impair the quality of life.”

Indeed the Gibbons cure — cut, cut, cut — is worse than the disease — declining revenue. Although there is no inoculation for a state budget when the economy gets sick, a three-dimensional tax base could have been created long ago that would have immunized Nevada against a precipitous drop in gaming and sales taxes.

I still think — and hope — that a special session is inevitable even though most of the legislative Democrats are afflicted with an all too common political disease known as whinitis. Many of them moan about the awful cuts — and they did even as they ratified the first round at the Interim Finance Committee 10 days ago — but don’t want to propose any alternatives. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them were too ill to attend the special session.

So is there a way to settle Gibbons v. Nevada, short of the plaintiff abdicating his position? The governor didn’t know it but he illuminated a possible resolution in that same In Business interview when he declared, “On the other hand, mining is doing very, very well. The prices of gold and silver are as high as I think I’ve ever seen.”

The last time any governor extracted a significant amount from the mining industry was almost 20 years ago when Bob Miller did so. I am imagining a conference table with the governor at the head telling representatives of mining and other industries (gaming, development, Big Business): “We can’t cut any more and we already have cut too much. How much are each of you willing to pay to ensure we don’t fall hopelessly backward?”

As I said, I am imagining it.

So what will happen once we get to court? We know what Gibbons will say. But we will be looking for a Perry Mason moment from some Democrat or Rogers-like outsider who will make the case for something other than decimating the state’s tangible and intangible infrastructure, imposing a settlement in a case that already has done too much damage.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program “Face to Face With Jon Ralston” on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the daily e-mail newsletter “RalstonFlash.com.” His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or at [email protected].