Hoooo-weeee! You’d have thought somebody’d kicked a puppy to hear all the squealing and caterwauling coming from the bleeding heart, tax-and-spend, redistributionist socialist-liberals over what amounts to less than a ten percent “cut” in the budget; not the widely reported 34 percent or the astronomical $2.5 billion cut we’ve been reading about.
That’s not my figure. That’s the figure by the guy who knows the figures, Andrew Clinger - the state’s Budget Director. According to an email I received from Mr. Clinger this week, Gov. Gibbons’ proposed general fund budget this year “is $632.9 million smaller than last biennium,” a reduction of 9.3 percent. How to square the conflicting numbers?
To ‘splain, I’m going to take great liberty in rounding off some figures here, because I fully appreciate that nothing makes a reader’s eyes glaze over faster than trying to read a bunch of budget numbers with lots of decimal points in them. And in the interest of full disclosure, it’s quite possible my math could be a little off thanks to several years of a public school education.
Let’s hop in the Wayback Machine and set the dial for 2003. During that session of the Legislature taxes were increased by more than 3/4 of a billion dollars. There were no spending cuts. Indeed, then-Rep. Jim Gibbons famously dressed down then-Gov. Kenny Guinn for not cutting 3/4 of a billion dollars from the budget rather than raising taxes 3/4 of a billion dollars.
Fast-forward to 2005. Turns out Nevada ended up with a budget surplus that legislative session of almost…3/4 of a billion dollars. Go figure.
Recognizing that if he left the money in the hands of the Legislature they’d spend every red cent of it, Gov. Guinn put some of the surplus into the Rainy Day Fund and rebated another $300 million back to the taxpayers. Note that the general fund budget that year was around $6 billion.
Which brings us to 2007. Gov. Guinn is out; Gov. Gibbons is in. And what Gibbons SHOULD have done was propose a budget which included the 3/4 of a billion dollars worth of spending cuts he told Gov. Guinn to cut four years earlier. Adding a little for inflation, let’s generously say Gibbons should have proposed a budget of $5.5 billion.
But instead, Gibbons broke his own words and proposed a billion dollars worth of HIGHER spending! His proposed budget weighed in at nearly $7 billion instead of $5.5 billion. And get this: The Economic Forum is currently projecting actual revenues coming into the state coffers at around…$5.5 billion. What are the odds?
So in essence the governor and the Legislature wrote a check with insufficient funds in 2007 and had to roll back all that increased spending last year to the 2005 level when we had a budget surplus.
Meanwhile, the big-government crowd wants the 2009 Legislature to spend, not just the $7 billion the government already can’t afford and had to roll back, but an additional $1 billion on top of that! Which means the liberals are demanding $8 billion in government spending when the state is only taking in $5.5 billion. And in their delusional minds, that’s a $2.5 billion “cut.”
Of course, we wouldn’t be in this pickle today had Jim Gibbons put his 2007 budget money where his 2003 budget mouth was. Had he made the cuts in 2007 that he told Gov. Guinn to make in 2003, our government spending and our tax revenue today would be right about even. Instead, Jim Gibbons has now broken his 2006 campaign promise to Nevada’s voters by proposing a massive $300 million tax increase while simultaneously looting tax dollars from local governments.
Sadly, we’ve all come to learn you just can’t trust Jim Gibbons. If he tells you the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow, you might want to get a second opinion.
Posted on January 21st, 2009 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
Chucky…..ummm…are you saying we are in this mess because of the tax and spend conservatives in the republican controlled legislature from 2 years ago?
Nice try, John. The Assembly has been controlled completely by Democrats since 1995. The Senate was controlled by Republicans, but that’s not the same as saying it was controlled by conservatives.
Doesn’t the Senate make the final vote? Controlled by repubs with a repub Gov. to sign off on it? No matter how you spin it, it was….that is like saying now it is controlled by Libs, so that means”The Senate is controlled by Democrats, but that’s not the same as saying it was controlled by Liberals”?…..
Oh good Lord, John. Do you really not know how a bill becomes law? Here, catch this oldie from School House Rock…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
You really should become better educated before you make a fool of yourself on blogs like this.
And you didn’t answer my question poindexter, here is your comment:
The Senate was controlled by Republicans, but that’s not the same as saying it was controlled by conservatives.
so that means”The Senate is controlled by Democrats, but that’s not the same as saying it was controlled by Liberals”?…..
Is it that difficult to answer?
No, but it’s quite obvious that you wouldn’t understand the answer so I didn’t waste my time. But since you insist, the Senate this year will be controlled by both Democrats AND liberals. In this case, they are one and the same. You can’t say the majority of Republicans who controlled the Senate last session were conservatives. Indeed, you could probably only apply that label back then to Beers, Cegavske and Washington.
That is the most stupist thing I heard…so to sum this up: Repub controlled legislators are repubs and conservatives…A Dem controlled legislature is Liberals only…pretty one sided….no wonder why their are more registered dems than repubs now with thinking like that…LOL
Geez, Bill. I didn’t think anyone could possibly be any denser than John. I stand corrected.
Geez Chuck, didn’t think you could be more of a political dinosaur than Rush. I stand corrected.
Chucky has the personality of a wet cigarette on a urinal cake, too bad his party didn’t win in ‘08.
John- There is no such thing as a “tax and spend conservative” as you yourself put it. “Conservative” is a label and a grouping that applies to individuals who believe in limited government, among other things. So, your assessment is wrong.
It is easy for the government to increase its spending in times of plenty, which it did to quite an extent, but keep in mind the tax rebate that was sent out as well.
Today I attended my first day at college and my teacher referred to the necessary budget cuts as an attempt to “eviscerate” education, which it clearly is not.
State employees don’t understand that citizens in the private sector are tightening their belt and watching their budget. Why should state employees get to ignore economic hardtimes and continue to run at current levels when private business can’t?
Um, because State employees did not experience any of the bounty in pay that private sector employees did at the same time, John. If you bothered to look at the pay-stubs for casino workers at the same time that the economy was in a boom, and compare it to state employees and teachers, the state employees and teachers were getting nowhere near that bounty. I say be even and fair. Even counting retirement and medical, my pay as a casino worker was 4 to 5 times that of my public sector friends. I never complained once about making that much more than they did. I know you think highly of Mr. Muth, John, but you could at least compare the numbers before you make an assessment like this.
Jeff, there is no tax and spend conservatives? You better look what has happened the past 6 years (cant count the last 2) in the Bush Administration. They went from a surplus in a conservative controlled congress, to a deficit. Actually you can count all 8 years of the Bush era, for the largest deficit in history, as Muth explained so brillantly how bills are passed in the houses, the bottom line is, it is signed by the conservative President.
Teacher…umm…what the hell are you talking about? Me and Chucky were not discussing state employees at all? Chucky was talking about being a boot licking conservative, and I was just trying to figure out why is all…
Well for one thing, John, it’s better than being a blood-sucking liberal leech.
Teacher, if you want to experience the “bounty” in the private sector, try working in the private sector. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to go work for the government.
Who said I was a liberal Chuckles? Assuming again? I am neither a right wing neo-con nazi like yourself, nor a blood sucking liberal…I don’t have a “posted party affiliation” like yourself, I am not brainwashed like you…see Chuckles, you “require” a party affiliation because the weak and feeble minded need to be wanted by at least someone…it is a “feel good” thing to be wanted. The nazi’s had this, the satanists/wiccans have this following too.
It is a shame you need to belong to feel good about yourself, even if it is wrong. But seeing how your responses are so child-like, I understand why you have to belong to something………
Good grief, John. Get back on your meds. And consider the wisdom of keeping your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to post something on my blog and remove all doubt.
First, I never said you were a liberal. I simply said I preferred being a conservative to a blood-sucking liberal leech? Guilty conscience.
And if you had any clue whatsoever what you were talking about, you’d know I am a registered “independent” voter, unaffiliated with any political party.
Boy, what an ass you must feel like now, huh?
Yes, you are real “independent” Chuckles…fair and balanced, and the middle of the road…if you didn’t have your head so far up Gibbons/Bush/Heller/Ensign’s asshole I would almost believe it. I truly believe you are on drugs, as you are a broken record, saying the same bullshit on a daily basis, and your hairline is proof of it, as your antiquated idealogy, and lack of knowledge just proves you just another paid talking head for the GOP party, that just reads off of a script daily from the RNC.
Don’t you feel like a jackass when you you are supposed to be a paid political spin doctor, instead a broken down feeble minded, frustrated old man that no one listens to, as the last election has demonstrated. I would suggest you need to go to the ranch to get laid, clear your little mind, but even the whores have boundries.
Thanks, John. Your comments say all that needs to be said about you.
Your welcome Mr. Muth, your response covers all about you…..
Who are you picking for the Super Bowl Chuck?
Unbelievable. What a waste of a blog…comical and ridiculous yes…substantive or sublime…not a chance. Any solutions to the problem of having a budget that cannot be met…yet…with either spending cuts or revenue raising? What we have read is the result of two people feeling…surplus powerlessness. Gee whiz.
To the Governor: cut like mad, bolster revenues…and you will be a hero when the storm passes.
To Chuck. entertain those who having something worthwhile to add in terms of solutions sets or option solving paradigms. Comment wit wisdom and acumen.
To John….wow…you sound like Ralston on crack. What a disappointment in any event.
And to Jeff, the neophyte, sit, listen, observe, and comment carefully. You have a future.
Chuck Muth licks assholes.
Hey Haha…where is your solutions? All I hear is more dribble from a wannabe think tank, you sound like Rush on oxycotton. What a moron.
[…] Democrats: Spending Only As Much As the State Has Is “Irresponsible” Posted by E!!-lizabeth Crum on Jan 22nd, 2009 • 1 views Clicks Nevada’s most incorrigibletax hater, Chuck Muth, penned a pretty good one yesterday. Here’s a sum-up with a little E!! on the side: […]
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/16/jon-ralston-cutting-educations-nose-spite-rogers-f/