Elizabeth Crum

.

Nevada’s most incorrigible tax hater, Chuck Muth, penned a pretty good one today.  Read it for yourself, but here’s a sum-up with a little E!! on the side:

The Silver State’s usual tax-and-spend suspects are crying a river over what amounts to a 10% budget cut (not 15%, not 22%, and not 34%, as has been reported by various hysterical persons who shall go unnamed).

Yes indeedy, 10% is the official figure that Andrew Clinger, the state’s official Budget Director, is officially using in his official correspondence with people.  According to Clinger, Gov. Gibbons’ proposed general fund budget this year “is $632.9 million smaller than last biennium,” a reduction of 9.3 percent. 

So why all the discrepancies, disparities, and dispepsia over huge budget cuts?  Let’s have a little history (and MATH) lesson and see:

2003:  The Legislature increased taxes by more than 3/4 of a billion dollars.  And there were no spending cuts.  Then-REPRESENTATIVE Jim Gibbons criticized then-Governor Kenny Guinn for not cutting 3/4 of a billion dollars from the budget rather than raising taxes. 

2005:  Wonder of wonders, Nevada had a budget surplus of about 3/4 of a billion dollars.  Gov. Guinn put some of the surplus into the Rainy Day Fund and rebated $300 million back to the taxpayers.  The general fund budget was around $6 billion.

2007:  Gov. Guinn is out; Gov. Gibbons is IN.  Gibbons SHOULD HAVE proposed a budget which included the 3/4 of a billion in cuts he’d suggested to Guinn back in 2003, which is to say he should have proposed a budget of around $5.5 billion (allowing for inflation and giving a little leeway and such).  But instead Gibbons suffered from sudden budget amnesia (SBA) and proposed about a billion dollars MORE in state spending.  So the Gibbons budget was nearly $7 billion.

2008:  Astonishingly enough, The Economic Forum projects actual revenues coming into the state coffers at around $5.5 billion.

SO, here we are, 2009:  Looking at the insufficient funds left over from 2007′s budget and faced with having to roll back spending to 2005 levels based on current state revenues.

AND the big-government gurus want the 2009 Legislature to spend NOT ONLY the $7 billion the government already can’t afford, but ANOTHER $1 billion on top of that!   Yes, it’s true:  the spendy spenders are demanding $8 billion in government spending while the state is only taking in $5.5 billion.

AND – here’s the big finish, folks! – the Spenders are calling any talk like the Talk I just talked (i.e. only spending what we are actually taking in), an “irresponsible $2.5 BILLION BUDGET CUT.”

.

Any questions?!

Almost forgot to post this!  If you live in Nevada and want your name added to to the coalition letter below, email your name and location to chuck@chuckmuth.com 

Chuck will see that the names get added and the letter is delivered!

So there’s your E!! inside look at the KNPR studio. (Left to right: host Dave Berns, Chuck Muth, Steve Sebelius, E!!, and Jon Ralston)

Here’s the link to the KNPR page featuring this morning’s State of Nevada all star line-up of Nevada analysts, panelists, pundits, and me. You can read notes, listen to the broadcast, and see a few in-studio pics.

Note: I did very little talking during the first hour, so you’ll find most of my brilliant insights in Part 2. (kidding: everyone there was much smarter and wittier than I am)

It was great to meet Jon Ralston, Geoff Schumaker, and Patricia Cunningham for the first time.  And Chuck Muth and Steve Sebelius were their usual interesting selves. Interpret that as you will.

I’m scheduled to be on KNPR’s State of Nevada with Dave Berns tomorrow to discuss the election.  Others on the panel will be political consultant (and my friend) Chuck Muth, City Life editor Steve Sebelius, and Las Vegas CBS/Channel 8 Face to Face’s Jon Ralston (who I’ll be meeting for the first time).  Listen in if you can or check the website for the archive later on.

The Muthster tells me that Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley did an interview last week in which she threatened to target any Republican candidate who signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. 

On the other side is Muth and Citizen Outreach, not-so-gently reminding candidates that there will be a barrage of pre-election phone calls and mail-outs into their districts if they don’t sign the Pledge.

What’s a Republican candidate to do?  Buckle when the leader of the opposition party points her canons his way, or stand up for fiscal conservatism and fight the Good Fight?

Here’s a third alternative for Nevada’s candidates:  if you’re billing yourself as a Republican but support raising taxes on an already over-taxed citizenry, do us all a favor and leave the party.  Buckley will be glad to have you, and we’ll be glad to see you go.

If you’re a voter who opposes new taxes, or are running for election and want to see and/or sign the Pledge, go here.  Candidates can fax it to Citizen Outreach at (775) 522-3925.

I’m glad Chuck Muth keeps talking about Yucca Mountain.  Harry Reid says the debate is “over” and that the Yucca Repository will “never happen.”  The thing is, Yucca never enjoyed the benefit of a full, open debate.  It was quashed by Reid and Friends as “bad for Nevada” and that was That.

Here’s a flashback to some of my thoughts in early June:

“The United States Department of Energy submitted its license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 3,” wrote Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto in an op/ed in the Nevada Appeal. “Nevada’s experts reviewed the application and quickly concluded that it is neither viable nor complete.”

I’m wondering who these “Nevada experts” were. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my short stint on NV’s political airwaves and especially in re: to Yucca Mountain, it’s that the word “expert” gets bandied around like nobody’s business and due diligence and follow-up questions are key to uncovering the truth.  Very often, the so-called “expert” is some underqualified PR hack who is being paid to have the opinion he has.

I’d be willing to bet that some of these “Nevada experts” are people who have already come down against Yucca in the past.  And shall we ask how they managed to sift through the 8,600 page application in less than a week in order to render their “expert” verdict…?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to take three to four years to evaluate all the information before reaching its decision on whether or not to license the Repository…so who were these speed-reading geniuses that managed to do it in 4 days???

We keep seeing what looks an awful lot like co-ordinated, biased knee-jerk opposition over Yucca Mountain.