In Tennessee, Republicans have invented a new term for this action: disassociation. I like “RINOing” better, but what the heck. Here’s what it’s all about…

“In November, the GOP won control of both houses of the state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction,” reports Brendan Miniter in Political Diary on February 11th. “That victory was one of the few bright spots for Republicans across the country in 2008 and seemed to set the stage for a GOP resurgence and possible capture of the governor’s mansion in 2010.

“Then, on Jan. 13, the wheels started to come off.

“Republicans had rallied behind Rep. Jason Mumpower for House Speaker, and he appeared to be a lock as late as the morning of the vote, when every House Republican prayed together. When it came time to vote, however, it became clear that GOP Rep. Kent Williams had cut a secret deal with Democrats to elevate himself with unanimous support from across the aisle to the Speaker’s chair.

“Mr. Williams was booed in the process, with at least one person shouting out ‘Judas,’ but he was unfazed, telling a reporter that he had ‘been booed before.’ He went ahead and organized the House chamber, splitting committee chairmanships between Democrats and Republicans.”

So what did the Tennessee Republican Party do?

They kicked Williams out of the party. Literally.

On January 30, 2009, the Executive Committee unanimously adopted a resolution which included, among others, the following “whereases”…

Whereas the supporters, voters and donors of the Tennessee Republican Party have a right to expect that, having collectively campaigned for and won a majority in the state House for the first time since 1868, both houses of the legislature would be lead by loyal Republican leadership; and

Whereas the evidence shows that Representative Kent Williams had been planning his betrayal for eight weeks and conspiring with Democrats to crown him Speaker in exchange for betraying his fellow Republican caucus members; and

Whereas Representative Kent Williams rewarded his Democratic allies with committee chairmanships, putting at risk the Republican agenda the majority of Tennessee voters voted for; and

Whereas Kent Williams’ actions and words provide indefensible evidence to the 30 written challenges questioning the Bona Fide status as a Republican; and is entitled to its constitutional right of Freedom of Association; and

Whereas the Tennessee Republican Party seeks to disassociate with Representative Kent Williams;

And this is the best part:

BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That state Representative Kent Williams of Carter County, Tennessee, be forever barred from seeking elective office in Tennessee on a Republican ballot; and

2. That the Tennessee Republican Party immediately request all media outlets in Tennessee to cease referring to Representative Kent Williams as a Republican.

3. That Kent Williams receive no support, endorsements, or financial backing by those affiliates of the Tennessee Republican Party.

Hoo-hah!

Can they DO that? I don’t see why not. As the resolution notes, the Republican Party enjoys the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Association - and the Tennessee Republican Party is the official governing body of the organization. So if they want to kick somebody out of the party and not let them run for office as a Republican, why not?

Have the state parties in Pennsylvania and Maine – home to RINO (Republican In Name Only) sell-out Sens. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins – heard about this?

“The politically expedient thing to do would be to overlook whatever he’s done,” Tennessee GOP Chairwoman Robin Smith said in explaining the decision to oust Mr. Williams. “We’re either going to stand for something or we’re no different from Kent Williams.”

Amen, sister!

Gee, I sure hope no one suggests that local Republicans consider “RINOing” Republican state legislators who sell out their party and conspire with Democrats to give the Democrats “bi-partisan” support for tax hikes in the middle of a recession.

Oops.

I have to admit, Sen. Raggio got me with that one. Doggone it, when he said “this is not the time to start talking about raising taxes,” I thought “this” meant in the midst of a recession when so many businesses and families were hurting financially. Silly me.

It now appears what Sen. Raggio was referring to when he talked about “this” wasn’t the recession but his primary race. You see, “This is not the time” apparently meant “not during the primary because otherwise I’ll never win this race against a conservative Republican who signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which I refuse to sign.”

But now that the primary election is over and Sen. Raggio is safely back in Carson City, “this” is apparently the time to at least start talking about raising taxes, despite the fact that the recession is even worse now than it was during his primary campaign.

“Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio said today…(that) all options - including taxes - are on the table,” wrote veteran political columnist Steve Sebelius in his Various Things & Stuff blog this week. And he quotes Sen. Raggio as saying, “I think we do a disservice to our constituents when we sign those kinds of pledges. Why say you’re going to have a closed mind?”

Simple. Because raising taxes is wrong. Especially in a recession. You either believe that or you don’t.

Or you only believe it when you’re being challenged by a conservative in a primary campaign. And you only say it rather than put it in writing. Like when Sen. Raggio said to GOP primary voter Bob Kinnaman on the campaign trail last summer, “I’m not going to raise taxes, I can guarantee you that.”

Guarantee, huh? Doesn’t the very definition of “guarantee” mean you have a “closed mind” about tax hikes, even if you don’t put it in writing?

If while reading this about Sen. Raggio you experience a slight sense of déjà vu, it may be because history appears to be repeating itself. Yet another massive tax hike is in the works (though no one will admit it…yet) this year, Sen. Raggio appears inclined to support it, and he’s telling the world that Republicans who oppose it are bad and ruining the party.

Just like six years ago, when Sen. Raggio led the legislative effort to pass the largest tax increase in Nevada’s history.

Back on June 23, 2003, Sen. Raggio “warned…that increasingly strident anti-tax rhetoric was deeply dividing and damaging Nevada’s Republican Party,” adding that “comments being made in opposition to the proposed $866 million in new taxes are ‘irresponsible’ and threaten to destroy the party.”

Frankly, and with all due respect to Sen. Raggio – whom I genuinely like and admire greatly for his service to the state - it’s not the anti-tax wing of the GOP which is damaging and destroying the party. It’s moderates like Sen. Raggio who continue to vote for bigger government and higher taxes, confusing voters in the process and undermining the party’s fiscally conservative “brand.”

If the Republican Party hopes to earn back the trust of voters, they sure won’t get there by being Democrat Lite and again rubber-stamping a massive tax increase in 2009 the way many of them - such as Assemblyman Joe Hardy (R-Boulder City) - did in 2003. And if Sen. Raggio really wants to help Republicans win in 2010, he should start by honoring his “I’m not going to raise taxes” guarantee to Bob Kinnaman.

NV Gov. Jim Gibbons Breaks Taxpayer Protection Pledge
Governor’s Executive Budget Includes 3 Percent Room Tax Hike

WASHINGTON D.C. – Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons recently unveiled his executive budget for the 2009-2011 biennium. Included in the Governor’s budget is a 3 percent increase in the state lodging tax, also known as the room tax.

Total state outlays are cut by less than one percent in Gibbons’ budget; yet general fund revenue appropriations represent a $340 million increase from the previous biennium. The executive budget also appropriates $80 million from Clark and Washoe Counties over the next budget cycle. Critics contend that this provision poaches tax revenue from other levels of government in order to prop up state spending levels and could lead to tax increases for residents of both counties.

“The room tax hike is a blatant violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that Gov. Gibbons’ signed as a candidate.” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The Governor and his staff have repeatedly and falsely asserted that it is not a violation of the Pledge if the taxed industry agrees to the hike. The Pledge is a simple one page document that includes no such loopholes or technicalities.”

Gibbons has also claimed that he is not breaking his Pledge in raising the room tax since it was approved by Nevada voters last year. In fact, it was not approved by Nevada voters. The teachers’ union put the room tax increase on the ballot in only three counties in the entire state last November and was only on as an advisory question. Advisory questions, if approved, do not result in implementation but simply require the legislature to take up the issue in the next legislative session.

“Make no mistake, the Governor’s Pledge is a written promise to the citizens of Nevada, not any one organization or person, and the Governor has broken his promise to all Nevadans,” added Norquist. “Gov. Gibbons’ proposed budget is a slap in the face to taxpayers and all Nevada voters that supported him under that auspices that he was the candidate that would oppose any and all efforts to raise taxes.”

It’s gonna be a long session.

Day One yesterday was reserved for bland speeches. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford and Democrat Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, as is their wont, uttered a bunch of words saying nothing. But they did add a third band member to the choir: Assembly Majority Leader John Oceguera. When it was his time to preen before the cameras and wax poetic, here’s what firefighter-by-trade Johnny O had to say:

“I believe that we have reasonable people in this state, not just in these chambers but also in our businesses and communities. They understand that we cannot allow political dogma and tired clichés to dictate Nevada’s course. That doesn’t mean we will always agree about the solutions to our problems. But we cannot let the objections of a few keep us from making the tough decisions that are expected of us. Everyone has to compromise, and be willing to give a little. That’s the price of living in a democracy.”

Funny how Johnny O used a tired cliché about using tired clichés to complain about people using tired clichés. But not very surprising that, like Horsford and Buckley, Johnny O offered nothing of substance as an alternative to the governor’s budget proposal. It’s kinda hard to “agree” on the Democrats’ proposed “solutions” to a problem without them offering…um, you know, solutions.

As for compromise, we all know what this means: Republicans must do what the Democrats want and get legislative table scraps back in return. At least Minority Leader Heidi Gansert doesn’t appear to be willing to cave in to such demands as willingly and quickly as her predecessors.

“During this session, you can expect this Republican caucus and this minority leader to present stiff resistance to proposals that we do not believe are the right direction for our state,” Gansert said in her own remarks on opening day. “However, we pledge today to work in a constructive manner with every member of this Legislature.”

Time will tell if this year’s GOP minority actually presents more stiff resistance than the traditional rubber-stamping. We’re hoping.

But back to Johnny O. It was his closing line which really grabbed my attention. As a firefighter by trade, I understand that history and civics probably weren’t at the top of his list of study in school; however, the fact remains that we decidedly do not live in a “democracy.” We live in a constitutional republic…and yes, there is a very big and important difference.

You see, as Leader Gansert is pointing out these days, in the last election Democrats chalked up about 51 percent of the vote while Republicans garnered 49 percent. Now, if we lived in a democracy, that would mean Democrats should get about 21.5 Assembly seats and Republicans 20.5.

Alas, we don’t live in a democracy - so Democrats ended up with 28 seats and Republicans only 14. Isn’t gerrymandering wonderful?

Oops, sorry Johnny O. Here ya go…

“Gerrymandering is a form of redistribution in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are used for the electoral advantage. . . . Gerrymandering is used most often in favor of ruling incumbents or a specific political party.”

As USA Today reported yesterday, the post office has lost $8 BILLION over the last two years. And yes, there’s talk of another taxpayer-funded bailout.

You see, this is what happens when you open Pandora’s box. Once the Bush administration bailed out Wall Street, everybody and their uncle got in line with their hand out as well.

What’s interesting here is the similarity between what ails the post office and what ails the Big Three automakers: unions. Greed and unsustainable pay and benefit packages demanded by Big Labor are bankrupting both.

The biggest problem facing the post office, reports USA Today, is “the cost of providing health care to current and future retirees. The service owes its retiree health fund $7.4 billion this year alone.” The paper adds: “Union contracts make layoffs rare. Raises are automatic.”

Republicans should have put the post office out to pasture years ago, but didn’t have the stones to take on the postal workers union. Now economic reality may finally force the issue. RIP.

Jon Porter: The former Las Vegas congressman was fast-tracked to challenge Reid until his train jumped the tracks in November when he lost his seat to Dina Titus. Most speculators believe Porter will move on to a life of big-bucks as a big-time lobbyists, but the siren song of DC power and the wide-open field could still tempt him back into electoral politics. Odds: 3-1

Bruce James: The former chief of the Government Printing Office and current Chairman of the SAGE Commission has had his eye on a U.S. Senate seat since at least 1998, and he likely still has the financial resources to sufficiently seed a competitive race. Question is whether the missus is up for a grueling political fight and a return to Washington, DC, if successful. Odds: 4-1

Randolph Townsend: The term-limited Republican state senator from Reno is definitely eying the seat. Whether a Republican with such a centrist voting record - including serial-voting for tax hikes - can win a competitive GOP primary is the big question. Odds: 5-1

Brian Krolicki: The only “announced” challenger and lieutenant governor still has to put that indictment problem to rest once and for all. As long as that politically-motivated hammer is hanging over his head, he’s out. But if he’s cleared in a timely fashion there’s still time for Krolicki to jump in this race. Odds: 7-1

Joe Heck: The natural race for the former state senator would be a challenge to freshman Rep. Dina Titus in 2010; however, word is the moderate Republican doesn’t want to invest all of the time and effort into raising a couple million dollars for a seat he’d only have to defend two years later. A six-year senate term is much more appealing. But insiders now say Heck is shifting his focus to a GOP primary race for governor. Odds: 10-1

Sue Lowden: The GOP chief is perhaps the strongest “contrast” candidate the elephants could put up. Problem is her husband would really, really, really not like to lose his wife and former state senator to Washington, DC. Unless you can convince Paul, you probably can’t convince Sue. Odds: 15-1

Daniel Bogden: The former U.S. attorney involved in those controversial firings a couple years ago has put a number of Reidites behind bars, including wonder boy Dario Herrera. Could give Reid fits with his tough-on-crime resume. But with no electoral experience or ready constituency, where would the seed money come from? Odds: 20-1

Bruce Woodbury: The highly-regarded former Clark County Commissioner has a solid southern Nevada base of voter support. But the Commish for whom the Las Vegas beltway is named has shown no interest so far for taking up residence inside the DC beltway. Odds: 25-1

Dean Heller: Continues to move up the leadership ladder in the House, including that new seat on the Ways & Means Committee. But being in the minority under Nancy Pelosi is no day in the park. Being in the minority after taking out Harry Reid would be a lot more fun. But most folks seem to think Heller will stick with his safe House seat until the time is right to come home and run for governor. Odds: 35-1

Greg Maddox or Greg Anthony: Wealthy sports figures with Nevada ties. If you’re looking outside the box for a candidate with no political bones in the closet, one of these guys could be just the ticket. But no idea if either has any interest. Odds: 50-1

Mitt Romney: It ain’t gonna happen folks. Period. Odds: 1,000-1

As other potential names come forward or drop off, we’ll update this horse-race. But remember kids, no actual wagering until you get into high school and can place bets illegally with the bookie under the football stands.

The Raptor is the world’s most sophisticated defense weapon in the air – and it’s ours. It was conceived in the mid-eighties to replace our aging fleet of F-15s, the entire fleet of which, you may recall, was grounded over safety concerns for two months in late 2007.

Nothing in the world can match the Raptor - although Russia and China are trying hard to catch up. To give you just a bit of an idea of this plane’s capabilities, in testing “a Raptor dropped a 1,000-pound JDAM (guided bomb) from 50,000 feet (passenger jets generally fly at around 35,000 feet) while cruising at Mach 1.5 (around 1,000 miles per hour), striking a moving target 24 miles away.” That’s roughly the distance between the Washington, DC, beltway and the Baltimore beltway.

Oh, and to help the Raptor retain its stealth protection, a high-tech hydraulic system opens the bay doors, launches its missile, and closes the door in…less than a second. That’s the blink of an eye.

So how has the Raptor done in simulated combat? Glad you asked.

During Northern Edge exercises in Alaska in 2006, 12 Raptors downed 108 adversaries without losing a single F-22. “In two weeks of exercises,” reports Wikipedia, “the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, and neither Blue Force loss was an F-22.”

The plane enjoyed similar success in Red Flag exercises in Nevada in 2007 where “only one Raptor was adjudged lost against the virtual annihilation of the defending force” of F-15s and F-16s. This is one bad mother.

Anyway, the Air Force originally planned to order 750 Raptors in 1986. However, the end of the Cold War resulted in a reassessment, dropping the plan to 648. That plan was shaved twice again in the 1990s; first to 442, then to 339. Budget constraints lowered the number again in 2003 to 277…which is around the minimum number the Air Force says it absolutely needs to assure air superiority in future conflicts.

The current number of Raptors in service or currently in production is 183. And they’ve been delivered on-budget and ahead of schedule. Which is where President Obama enters the picture.

By March 1st of this year, the president is required to give continued production of the F-22 a Caesar-like thumbs up or thumbs down. If he declares further Raptor production is in the nation’s interest, production will continue. If, however, he says no, the production line will begin closing down once and for all.

And while national defense should never been seen as merely a “jobs program,” the fact remains that shutting down production will put an estimated 95,000 high-quality and well-paid workers and sub-contractors in 44 states out on the street. I’m not sure, but I don’t think that’s the kind of economic “stimulus” that’ll help us recover from the current recession.

At issue here is a Department of Defense (DoD) assessment which is at odds with the Air Force - not unlike the situation President Carter faced in the 1970s over the B-1 bomber. As you may recall Carter pulled the plug on the B-1, leading then-Rep. Bob Dornan (R-Calif.) to famously announce, “They’re breaking out the vodka and caviar in Moscow!”

You may also recall that in the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan effectively used Carter’s decision to cancel the B-1 to portray the president as weak on defense. After defeating Carter, Reagan resurrected the B-1 program - and those planes continue to defend the U.S. to this day, currently providing ground support to boots-on-the-ground in Iraq with their precision-guided bombs.

Anyway, DoD maintains that the Raptor can be replaced by the new and less-expensive F-35, which isn’t even in the air yet and won’t be for several more years.

But even if F-35s were prepared to enter into the nation’s defense service today, the fact remains that the F-35’s overall capabilities still don’t match that of the Raptor. Indeed, the F-35 was conceived to fight in conjunction with Raptors, not replace them. Raptors give the smaller planes the kind of air superiority cover which allow them to complete their missions with greater safety and efficiency.

The Air Force says it needs a full complement of around 240 Raptors to wreak havoc and defend the nation should the bad guys in Iran, North Korea, China, Russia or elsewhere decide to - as Vice President Joe Biden warned last year on the campaign trail - “test Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.” As it is they’re about 60 Raptors short and need to keep the F-22 production line open until they get the planes they need.

In the meantime, President Obama has wasted no time in starting down the “weak on defense” path which worked so well for one-term President Carter.

First he ordered the closing of Gitmo without having any plan for what to do with the terrorists there who, if released, would go right back to their old murderous ways - just like their colleagues who have already been released and are back at Infidel Killing, Inc. He followed that up by prohibiting interrogators from giving captured terrorists the ol’ “Jack Bauer” treatment even if interrogators believe it’s necessary in order to extract information which might save thousands, if not millions of American lives.

We’ll see on March 1st whether or not President Obama will continue down this Carteresque weak-on-defense path when he decides whether or not to do to the F-22 Raptor what the peanut farmer from Georgia did to the B-1 bomber. For the nation’s sake and defense, let’s hope not.

OK, just kidding. Tomorrow’s first day will be pretty much wasted on pomp and circumstance signifying nothing.

And speaking of nothing, when the photo ops and glad-handing are over, it will officially mark Day One of the Democrats’ failure to present any kind of specific alternative budget proposal despite non-stop carping over the one presented by Gov. Jim Gibbons.

Meanwhile, Guy Clifton of the Reno Gazette-Journal interviewed several veteran lobbyists and published their thoughts on the upcoming session. I was particularly struck by the comments of Pete Ernaut regarding the challenges Republican Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert faces over the next five months.

“Everybody is wanting the Assembly Republicans to be part of the ultimate solution, so they matter,” Ernaut said. “Getting a few of the more conservative folks to stop throwing bombs might be her biggest challenge.”

By “everybody” I assume Pete means the political establishment, the lobbying corps and the Democrats. They not only want government to continue growing unchecked, they want higher taxes to pay for it all, as well. And they do NOT want Republicans to gain a tactical campaign advantage for 2010 by not going along with whatever tax-and-spend scheme Democrats and the lobbyists who love them eventually come up with.

So the biggest challenge Leader Gansert faces is not in keeping conservatives from throwing bombs so much as making sure the liberal members of her caucus don’t undermine the GOP’s chances at winning legislative seats in 2010 by being “bi-partisan” and voting for bigger government and higher taxes.

The Democrats in the Assembly have a super-majority. They don’t need a single GOP vote to enact their agenda. So the biggest challenge facing Gansert will be in making sure they don’t get one.

If you ask the average citizen to name the three most inefficient, aggravating organizations to deal with, you’ll likely get back, in no particular order, the post office, the IRS and the DMV. And it’s no coincidence that all three are government-run operations.

And at he heart of the problem is the fact that the DMV has no competition. It’s a government-enforced, government-run monopoly no matter how it tries to promote itself otherwise.

The Nevada DMV’s 2008-2009 Strategic Plan promises to “deliver progressive, responsive service to our customers.” This makes the DMV sound like it’s Wal-Mart or something. But a real “customer” has the freedom to buy a product or service, or not buy a product or service. In addition, a real “customer” has the option of buying a product or service from a variety of competitive providers.

No such choices are available when it comes to the DMV. Drivers are trapped. We’re “customers” in the same way a kidnap victim is a “house guest.”

Although ensuring that the public roads are filled with only safe drivers and safe cars is arguably a legitimate government concern, that doesn’t necessarily mean the government should provide the services itself.

The general functions of the DMV are vehicle registration, license plates, driver tests, driver’s licenses and title transfers. In reality, all of those “services” could be provided by private vendors under government guidelines and oversight. This would allow the DMV to shrink its taxpayer-funded workforce to next to nothing while also shuttering unnecessary, redundant and expensive taxpayer-funded satellite offices.

Indeed, we could do the same thing with the post office. Oh, and the public schools, too.

There’s simply no reason in the world why DMV functions can’t be performed – better, more efficiently and at a lower cost – by private operations such as insurance companies, car dealers, automobile clubs, credit unions, chambers of commerce, the AARP and even independent operators located in shopping centers and grocery stores - much like those cellular phone kiosks you now see everywhere.

Just as restaurants provide a wide variety of menu choices, prices and hours – some are even open 24/7 – privatizing the DMV, or at least most of its services, would be a win-win for Nevada’s drivers and taxpayers.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for state legislators to think outside the box like this. Their sole intent is on continuing the status quo obsolescence and making taxpayers pay for it - in both higher taxes and inconvenience.

On Wednesday afternoon, Jon Ralston reported in Flash: “As much as I had hoped they would have begun the education process earlier - usurping the role Gov. Jim Gibbons has abdicated - legislative Democrats Thursday appear poised to produce some real, substantive plans for the session.”

The key words here are “real” and “substantive.”

Well, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford and Democrat Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley - with much fanfare, pomp and circumstance - finally released their rumored legislative alternative plan for dealing with Nevada’s budget crunch on Thursday.

“Real” and “substantive” it ain’t.

Lame. Pathetic. Embarrassing. Those are just some of the words that immediately spring to mind instead.

Rather than address the key questions involved in the budget debate - what to cut or what taxes to raise - the three-part Hors-Buck plan lamely titled “Charting a New Future for Nevada” (sends a Chris Mathews-like tingle up your leg, don’t it?) is all sizzle and no steak.

First, despite the federal government dumping BILLIONS of federal tax dollars into solving the housing and mortgage “crisis” - with little to show for it - Hors-Buck has decided to capitalize on the issue politically by proposing five feel-good measures which will do even less to fix the overall and underlying problems than the federal bailouts have done.

That being said, how does “curbing home foreclosures” fix the immediate budget problem facing Nevada’s state government? Answer: It doesn’t do squat. Although “doing something,” even if its actually nothing, will look good on a campaign flyer - and that’s what this is really all about.

Secondly, Hors-Buck proposes to use taxpayer dollars to create new job-training centers to create “green collar jobs” using one-time federal economic stimulus money which hasn’t even been approved yet to teach out-of-work maids and Starbucks cashiers how “to conduct energy audits, weatherize homes, and retrofit schools and other public buildings with energy-efficient measures.”

No, seriously. I’m not making this up.

Oh, and by the way, how does Hors-Buck propose to continue funding this new government program once the stimulus money, if it ever gets here in the first place, is gone? Details, details.

Lastly, we finally get around to the Hors-Buck proposal to actually deal with that budget thing:

“We must end the boom-bust cycle of our state budget, which is flush in good times and strapped in bad times. We must stabilize our budget without plunging our state into mediocrity. Unlike the Governor, we will not create a budget in a back room, without the input of those people who are most affected. These decisions will not be easy, but they will be made out in the open, with the input of any Nevadan who wants to give his or her opinion.”

In other words, “We still don’t have any alternative plan but we’ll keep criticizing the governor’s anyway.”

This is a shameful abdication of their “leadership” positions in the state government, but sadly most of the mainstream media is letting them get away with it instead of roasting them royally. I’m…shocked.

In response, legislative Republicans said…

Well, um…nothing. Again. As usual.

At least Gov. Gibbons is finally starting to fight back.

In response to the Hors-Buck non-proposal and political sniping, the governor’s office issued a statement on Thursday calling on the Democrat majority leaders “to present an alternative plan with specific solutions” while accurately noting that “as of yet nothing has been presented.”

“So far, both (Horsford and Buckley) find it easier to simply criticize cuts while hiding from the alternatives,” Gibbons said, adding that “each day spent bickering and criticizing without offering workable solutions costs our taxpayers money and compounds our budget problem.”

Gibbons also smacked Hors-Buck right in the puss for their ridiculous claim that they’ve only had four days to consider the budget problem. In his statement…

“Gibbons pointed out that the Legislature actually has more full-time fiscal staff than does the Governor’s budget office. Gibbons also pointed out that Speaker Barbara Buckley has been touring the state throughout much of the last year, ostensibly seeking solutions to the severe economic downturn. She and Senator Horsford attended two Special Sessions of the Legislature last year to address and solve revenue shortfalls. Yet now they contend that they have had only a few short days to address the topic.”

Hmm. Sounds like somebody in the governor’s press office has been reading Muth’s Truths. Now if only we could get some legislative Republicans to do the same and get in the game…