Horsford won’t play cards yet, but does he have a hand?

By Jon Ralston

Friday, April 8, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.

If there is a train wreck at the end of Session ’11, state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford says he will not be driving.

“I’m not going to tell you my plan, but I have a plan,” Horsford told me in an interview Thursday in which he stressed reports of Democratic plan deficits are exaggerated. And during our brief chat, Horsford showed what I heard from others, too — the shadow of the Great 2003 Derailment, two special sessions and a regrettable judicial incursion from the state Supreme Court shroud the coming endgame.

As the session passed its midpoint Thursday, Horsford insisted the first 60 days of Sturm und Drang have been necessary to illuminate the dramatic nature of the governor’s budget cuts and solidify opposition. He argued that his near-daily criticisms of Brian Sandoval’s budget have helped generate grass-roots opposition and diminished the new governor’s popularity.

So why not tell me his plan if he has one?

Horsford, invoking 2003, said, “Experience shows that the first out loses,” mentioning Gov. Kenny Guinn’s attempt eight years ago to pass a gross receipts tax, which was pounced on and then devoured by a minority of legislators and effective anti-tax groups. Indeed, we heard the first echo of 2003 from Assembly Speaker John Oceguera on Wednesday, when he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Ed Vogel that the governor’s comments about no-trade-for-taxes rendered him “irrelevant” to the budget process.

Guinn, much to his later regret, said lawmakers who did not buy into taxes would be rendered irrelevant — they became relevant enough to scuttle his tax preference and extend the Legislature into — gulp — July.

Sandoval, of course, is far from irrelevant, although Oceguera and Horsford realize he will not compromise on taxes. The difference this time, especially if there is a special session or two, is that the governor will be on the no-tax side and, theoretically, controls the post-June 6 agenda.

The real question is whether after all of the debate here takes place that Sandoval, who has reached out to Democratic leaders, will turn the screws to Republicans who believe taxes are needed.

Horsford tried to emphasize how much agreement, grudging though it may be, that Democrats have with Sandoval. “There are 442 budget accounts and we agree on 70 percent of them,” Horsford told me. “So we can close a lot of budgets at the governor’s recommendations.”

Hmmm. I wonder if that is part if the plan — start closing budgets so all that is left is the controversial stuff, and then start forcing Republicans to make tough votes to support budgets with unpopular cuts.

Horsford said he met with Sandoval for two hours Wednesday evening, but I doubt they talked about taxes too much. On other critical session pivot points — collective bargaining, PERS reform, education systemic changes — they have common ground. And, as I have said before, Sandoval has that amazing, almost magical ability to make anyone feel as if he has just lavished riches upon them and then you discover, once home, that you have nothing in your pockets.

Horsford dismissed reports from myself and others that he has not reached out to possible GOP swing votes, saying he has been meeting with lawmakers and talking about the budget. Horsford believes he is making inroads with Republicans, especially those not on the money committees.

“Are they loyal to the governor? Yes,” Horsford said. “Do they understand the full consequences of his budget? No.”

I buy that. But, again, the key question becomes is that if there are votes to close budgets that the Democrats want to enhance, how many Republicans will fear the gubernatorial lash or have a wink and a nod from across the courtyard?

Some seem to think that Sandoval might let the nearly $700 million in sunsetting taxes be revived without his signature, a passive move employed by his predecessor, Jim Gibbons, on a room tax measure. Maybe. But I don’t see how that would comport with his pledge.

Horsford also pointed out that even Sandoval recognizes “you can’t balance the budget without new revenue,” a reference to the governor’s budget adding a billion dollars through fiscal gimmicks (insurance premium tax loan, school district bond reserve shift) that could result in future tax increases but don’t raise taxes now.

It’s that kind of gimmickry Horsford says he wants to end once and for all, an elusive goal at best. “We need to stop having revenue discussions every two years,” he said.

I’ve all but given up on a real debate Horsford wants to see on the state’s taxing and spending. But, this session, sooner or later, the majority leader will have to reveal his plan and, as Cuba Gooding, Jr., might put it:

Show us the money.