Even slight agreement before Legislature meets feels good

The strongest areas of disagreement between Gov. Brian Sandoval and Democratic leaders can be boiled down to two significant, easy to understand issues.

Assembly Speaker John Oceguera and Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford want to raise taxes to soften Sandoval’s proposed cuts to education.

The two Clark County Democrats also want to defend local governments from being raided by the state, which is ready to act as the equivalent of Genghis Khan riding in from the Northern provinces to plunder the riches of the South.

Sure, there will be additional areas of disagreement, but those are the biggies.

Surprisingly, in his televised response to the State of the State speech Monday, Oceguera said there are plenty of areas where Democrats agree with the Republican governor, and he named some.

While conflict makes for drama and drama queens, isn’t agreement noteworthy?

Of course, once the details emerge, some agreement items may move from the Kumbaya list to the “hell no we don’t agree” list.

Oceguera said Democrats agree with the governor on the need to consolidate agencies for better service and greater efficiency. (Of course, Democrats may find they don’t agree once they see the specifics.)

He said the Democrats agree with the need for long-term government reforms. “If the state is trying to do a job local government could do better, let’s give that task to local government, but let’s give them the tools to do it well.”

In other words, don’t just shift the responsibilities to local governments, but shift dollars as well. Don’t think that’s really Sandoval’s plan.

“Transferring tasks without resources is just shifting blame. It is our responsibility to see that problems are solved, not just passed along,” the speaker said. Again, not Sandoval’s approach.

Oceguera agreed to work with the governor on:

■ Expanding school choice within the limits of the Constitution. (Is that some sort of hint Sandoval’s plan isn’t constitutional?)

■ Concentrating on support for the classrooms. (This was so vague, it must turn contentious.)

■ Rewarding the best teachers and removing the worst. (Oceguera is sure to tick off the teachers union with that statement.)

Sandoval said he had been working on redesigning the Nevada Commission on Economic Development with the Democrats, so that seems like an area of agreement, even though Oceguera didn’t specifically mention it.

It was a far cry from 2009, when then-Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley gave the Democratic response to Gov. Jim Gibbons. She didn’t mention one area of agreement; instead she blasted draconian cuts he proposed and promised to fight them.

As a result, the budget passed at $6.8 billion, but then Gibbons had to call a special session in February 2010 to cut. The final general fund budget ended up at $6.2 billion.

Sandoval’s proposed budget for the next two fiscal years? $5.8 billion.

Recalling Gibbons’ final State of the State speech reminded me how optimistic we were then. Nevada’s unemployment rate was 9.1 percent and the prediction was that it would peak at 11.4 percent in 2010.

If only.

Instead, unemployment, which doesn’t include people who stop looking for work, reached a staggering high of 14.5 percent in December.

Joblessness drives the real disagreement. Sandoval believes investing in economic development will bring Nevada up from its knees and new taxes will hobble the state .

Oceguera and Horsford believe investing in education is essential to successful economic development.

So that’s what you’ll be hearing about for the next four months while the Legislature meets. It won’t be pretty, no matter how agreeable the start.

But consensus on something worthwhile early in the session wouldn’t be a bad way to mark the 2011 Legislature starting Feb. 7. Getting something accomplished early would be a positive for everyone.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.