What would you cut?

[Tom Clark]

So we've all paid really close attention (right) to the 25th Special session whereby our state elected officials were put into the unenviable position of shaking up the budget so we'll survive this fiscal year. Yes, just THIS fiscal year. The changes made simply curb the bleeding until June 30, 2009.

Beginning in February the Regular Legislative Session begins and the most important issue will be to fund the budget for the next two years amid a continued decline in sales, gaming, property tax, et al and a Governor who remains steadfast in his committment to no new taxes. Cuts will (must) be made.

if you were in this position, where would you cut? What service(s) that the state provides would be on your proverbial chopping block? Remember NO NEW TAXES!

[Mike Jamieson]

Yes, get that program out of the Dept of Ag's hands!

Of course this will never pass the legislature. That's a given. It will be the voters who pass this type of thing. With smart and motivated people drafting the law and putting the initiative on the ballot.

The specific cuts people are suggesting don't even make a dent in the deficit. Or, just slight dents not even worth repairing at the body shop.

[bobc]

Broadly speaking, anytime you cut something like state services you end up with costs somewhere else. Those few advocating for leaner government in Nevada I think fail to realize how lean it is already (I can tell you stories of what some have to do to scrape by). It also ignores how complex funding arrangements are in Nevada government, with the outside support (federal, grants, etc.), self-funded programs (wild horse program at Corrections) and state-assisted entities (university system), as examples. The point, though, is when you cut, those costs are born by citizens and industry elsewhere.

I know this doesn't answer the question, but I think any answers have to take into account increased costs down the road because of cuts today.

[Willie]

I would encourage the Legislature pass a law to require local municipalies to require a "fiscal impact" or "service imapct" to existing residents for any annexation plans or leapfrog development. I would also encourage the same for questionable financial arrangements local governments have given businesses such as STAR Bonds, which have taken tax revenue off the books.

One 'cut" I would like to suggest is the marketing budget of Reno/Tahoe Airport. In recent years, the airport has been spending thousands of dollars on an advertising campaign to inform the public about ongoing construction activities as well as an advertising campaign a few years ago encouraging locals to use the airport for their means of travel outside the area.

I would think fully funding education/social services should take priority rather than subsidizing local ad agencies!