Battle over the budget

To the editor:

A lot of ink has been devoted lately to the subject of state budget cuts and the methods used by the governor in implementing them. But, in no single story or editorial has the complete background behind the headlines been conveyed. I thank the Review-Journal for this opportunity to bring the loose ends together.

I do not advocate a tax increase. The state’s “rainy day fund” was created to prevent pressure for a tax increase during an economic downturn. And some cuts will be necessary despite the use of the fund.

I helped create the fund in 1993 because I saw the effect on important budgets which were stripped in the previous year because of a recession. Gov. Jim Gibbons has said that he will not employ the nearly $300 million we have saved up in the fund until early 2009. This is the equivalent of not using it at all, despite its creation to smooth out the troughs of the business cycle.

All that is needed to access the fund is a one-day special legislative session. The governor controls the agenda.

There has not been a full discussion of the law and the committee discussions behind the law requiring the governor to report to the Interim Finance Committee. That is a critical piece of the puzzle because without the law I would not be pushing the issue. In each session since 1993, we have enacted a safety valve clause in the Appropriation Act to allow the governor to cut budgets with the concurrence of the Legislature.

Prior to 1993 this was a power denied to the governor. He could not cut budgets except in periods of extreme emergency. We are not at the emergency point yet, despite the governor’s cries starting in September. In fact, we had substantial cash reserves then and the governor’s secrecy has cost us four months of potential cooperative planning.

My questions during the 2007 Senate Finance Committee hearings on the Appropriation Act show that I foresaw the downturn and sought reassurance from our staff and the chairman, state Sen. Bill Raggio, R-Reno. I was assured that the governor would have to come to the committee.

Late last month, I presented to the Interim Finance Committee the minutes of the past eight legislative sessions which show that the governor must come to the Legislature for concurrence. In fact, in the 2007 session, Sen. Raggio said that “anything the governor does is subject to our approval.” He continued, “The governor would have to attend the Interim Finance Committee meeting and utilize the reserve subject to the committee’s approval.”

There is another factor to be considered, and that is a portion of the safety valve clause which leads the average citizen to believe that the process of budget cutting does not start until the government checking account balance approaches or drops below $80 million. The law was drafted by reasonable people and voted on by your layman’s Legislature with the understanding that budget cuts would not be attempted until we were nearing financial distress.

What has caused anger and frustration among citizens and legislators is that the governor is violating the spirit and intent of the law by making budget cuts which cause the bank account balance to stay above $80 million. This act creates a lawyer’s dream. So to a crafty lawyer, the governor’s actions might seem legal, but to me they are broken promises.

The governor agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract we entered with him in the Appropriation Act when his representatives participated in the drafting of the bill, the Legislature voted for it, and the governor signed it without reservation. He should have vetoed the bill if he thought that it contained too much spending.

Now, the governor is exercising a line-item veto over the budget; a power never granted to any governor by the Constitution since Nevada statehood in 1864. The governor took an oath to support and defend the constitution of Nevada and he is on the verge of breaking that oath.

I had hoped the Review-Journal would not endorse this maneuver by the governor. Consider that this could be a Democrat in the governor’s chair. Would you let him run unbridled?

I am not a lawyer and those who have legal training, such as the governor and the majority leader, understand the fine points of legal doctrine better than I. The majority leader said his actions were legal and the Republicans fell into line. That boggles the mind in view of his earlier statements. I am sorry that the law contained a loophole that an opportunist would discover and hold over a lay Legislature. Flawed law or not, there is clear legislative intent shown in the record.

This is not about last year’s election, as a clever Sen. Raggio would say. He knows better. It is about embarrassment of him and our legal staff who let this get by them. During Democrat Bob Miller’s 10 years as governor we crossed swords several times on the budget. The principle is worth fighting for. We set a bad example for the public who see the highest official twisting the law to suit his aims and the little guy wonders why Mr. Big doesn’t get punished.

Again, please take a look at the issue. The governor has won, for now. Senate Republicans will block any lawsuit, but I will not be dismissed by them because they have temporary power.

Will the Review-Journal speak truth to this power?

Bob Coffin

LAS VEGAS

The writer, a Democrat, has represented District 10 in the state Senate since 1982.