Rogers and the budget

University Chancellor Jim Rogers continues to say that any cuts to the higher education budget would result in dire consequences such as layoffs, a reduction in classes and the closing of campuses. Mr. Rogers is using the tried-and-true formula employed by educators for many years — when threatened by budget cuts, offer up the football team and band to anger parents.

As I understand it, the original state budget for higher education provided a 14 percent increase over the previous two-year budget cycle — this in face of declining student registration. Mr. Rogers is being asked by the governor to reduce his projected budget by 8 percent. I think that the state should cut an additional 3 percent and instruct Mr. Rogers to begin implementing the reduction by closing Nevada State College, which was never justified.

Next, Mr. Rogers should be directed to submit a detailed study of salary increases, staffing ratios and other payroll costs. By the system’s own numbers, of the $168 million increase from the state, all but $3.9 million is tied up in cost-of-living and merit raises and other contractual obligations. This is an astounding admission — approximately 97 percent of new funding is committed to largely payroll increases. Given this, how can Mr. Rogers or the regents advocate raising taxes, cutting other state agencies or dipping into the rainy day fund to allow such spending?

I think all state agencies should look at their costs very carefully. Times are getting tough, people are losing their homes and many costs are skyrocketing. State revenues are down largely because sales taxes revenues are down. Sales tax receipts are down because sales for businesses are down. Does anyone really think that this is the time to raise business taxes or allow higher budgets to government agencies?

Robert More

LAS VEGAS