Much as I dislike our current Governor, I am not one to withhold credit where credit is due. In what I can only describe as a coup de gras, the Nevada State Legislature did this week what our esteemed neighbor to the west can only dream of- balance the budget. The governor called for a special legislative session to reduce the Nevada state budget by over $1 billion after he discovered accounting errors and shortfalls in funds availability, occasioned by his predecessor's poor fiscal policy and the softening economy (note, I did not call it a recession).
Governor Gibbons has not led a charmed first term in office. Plagued by allegations of scandal, in the midst of divorce proceedings, and after an embittered election in 2006 for both himself and now his estranged wife, I doubt the governor counts many of his friends still with him. I wish to take this opportunity and give him a standing ovation for his efforts, which succeeded in keeping his pledge to not raise our taxes.
Now, at present time, I fall under the category of employee that might have suffered personally if the legislature had their way. They proposed to ablate the current 4% COLA for state employees, which for me accounts to only about $100/month in take home pay, as a way to alleviate some of the budget crisis. Much as I could use that money, I feel willing to sacrifice that, since I am after all paid with TAX MONEY, which is unfairly stolen from my friends and neighbors to fund bloated programs. I am on a mission of my own to help extend the purchasing power of the agency where I work, since I'm sure even if I save money someone else will spend it. At least then you can rest assured that I after the fashion of Potipher am acting as righteous steward over the estate. The government should be willing to cut back.
In the dark light that has been cast upon the governor, I esteem him as never before in light of this program. His special session ended up CUTTING budgets for all government agencies by 3% (which is nothing- I cut my own department spending by 80% this year alone), while still leaving our COLA intact. Yay for pay raises (I also expect a promotion, which is another story ;)).
Two other items of special note: The governor secured a reduction in textbook funding (I remember having to buy my own when I was school age) by 50%.
This is, in my mind, the way to do it. If we have extra money, we do more things. While I prefer they refund the money, like Guinn did in 2005 with our DMV registration tax, I don't mind spending more money if there is more money (which there won't be). It sure beats letting them pass another tax, which I vehemently oppose. I have never voted for a tax increase, no matter how much the bleeding hearts plead for it or how logical it sounds. More on that another time too. However, the last phrase leaves me wondering, why do state agencies have reserve funds?
We already operate under bloated budgets. In April my supervisor came to me and said I had the option to personally spend $10000 by June 30th. I didn't NEED anything, but I used the money to buy things I will need next fiscal year, assuming that the prices will go up by then, figuring I might as well buy things I use anyway. It was hard to spend that much money in a month. In fact, I left $6000 unused, which another associate quickly gobbled up and squandered on lavish luxury items we don't NEED. If on top of that we had a reserve fund, how in Hoboken would I spend that money on top of it?
My boss asked me to come up with a proposal to our Division Chief to cut expenditures in the department. Some of the ideas will make me very unpopular with my coworkers, and it may truncate my career in the state (except that they can't fire me now muhahaha- I'm off probation). Some ideas will make me unpopular with our contractors who have come to expect a never ending pool of fundage on which to draw as we are a state agency. However, none of the ideas will adversely impact our ability to do our job efficiently and effectively for the public, and if we can do the same with less, we don't need as much money from the taxpayers, and we could theoretically GIVE SOME BACK.
Now, I'm not trying to buy votes by thinking you're all stupid enough to thank me for giving you back your own money. I am trying to be a responsible steward of the public trust, and that is what I recognize Governor Jim Gibbons (R-NV) as having done- "exercising the office to which he is appointed in due diligence." He may have other problems, but in this he kept his word, and I will not easily forget it.
Many of our elected officials politic- trying to be all things to all people whenever it's convenient. They say we need more government, that they need more money to meet our needs, when all it takes is someone to take a logical approach to analyzing the crisis and provide options. Most government employees don't care that much. At least the governor of Nevada is trying to meet the budget crisis without raising taxes. Kudos sir, and Godspeed.
Governor Gibbons has not led a charmed first term in office. Plagued by allegations of scandal, in the midst of divorce proceedings, and after an embittered election in 2006 for both himself and now his estranged wife, I doubt the governor counts many of his friends still with him. I wish to take this opportunity and give him a standing ovation for his efforts, which succeeded in keeping his pledge to not raise our taxes.
Now, at present time, I fall under the category of employee that might have suffered personally if the legislature had their way. They proposed to ablate the current 4% COLA for state employees, which for me accounts to only about $100/month in take home pay, as a way to alleviate some of the budget crisis. Much as I could use that money, I feel willing to sacrifice that, since I am after all paid with TAX MONEY, which is unfairly stolen from my friends and neighbors to fund bloated programs. I am on a mission of my own to help extend the purchasing power of the agency where I work, since I'm sure even if I save money someone else will spend it. At least then you can rest assured that I after the fashion of Potipher am acting as righteous steward over the estate. The government should be willing to cut back.
In the dark light that has been cast upon the governor, I esteem him as never before in light of this program. His special session ended up CUTTING budgets for all government agencies by 3% (which is nothing- I cut my own department spending by 80% this year alone), while still leaving our COLA intact. Yay for pay raises (I also expect a promotion, which is another story ;)).
Two other items of special note: The governor secured a reduction in textbook funding (I remember having to buy my own when I was school age) by 50%.
However, under a provision passed by the Legislature, the textbook money can be restored if revenues exceed projections. The remainder of the shortfall will be made up by tapping reserve funds for various state agencies and programs.
This is, in my mind, the way to do it. If we have extra money, we do more things. While I prefer they refund the money, like Guinn did in 2005 with our DMV registration tax, I don't mind spending more money if there is more money (which there won't be). It sure beats letting them pass another tax, which I vehemently oppose. I have never voted for a tax increase, no matter how much the bleeding hearts plead for it or how logical it sounds. More on that another time too. However, the last phrase leaves me wondering, why do state agencies have reserve funds?
We already operate under bloated budgets. In April my supervisor came to me and said I had the option to personally spend $10000 by June 30th. I didn't NEED anything, but I used the money to buy things I will need next fiscal year, assuming that the prices will go up by then, figuring I might as well buy things I use anyway. It was hard to spend that much money in a month. In fact, I left $6000 unused, which another associate quickly gobbled up and squandered on lavish luxury items we don't NEED. If on top of that we had a reserve fund, how in Hoboken would I spend that money on top of it?
My boss asked me to come up with a proposal to our Division Chief to cut expenditures in the department. Some of the ideas will make me very unpopular with my coworkers, and it may truncate my career in the state (except that they can't fire me now muhahaha- I'm off probation). Some ideas will make me unpopular with our contractors who have come to expect a never ending pool of fundage on which to draw as we are a state agency. However, none of the ideas will adversely impact our ability to do our job efficiently and effectively for the public, and if we can do the same with less, we don't need as much money from the taxpayers, and we could theoretically GIVE SOME BACK.
Now, I'm not trying to buy votes by thinking you're all stupid enough to thank me for giving you back your own money. I am trying to be a responsible steward of the public trust, and that is what I recognize Governor Jim Gibbons (R-NV) as having done- "exercising the office to which he is appointed in due diligence." He may have other problems, but in this he kept his word, and I will not easily forget it.
Many of our elected officials politic- trying to be all things to all people whenever it's convenient. They say we need more government, that they need more money to meet our needs, when all it takes is someone to take a logical approach to analyzing the crisis and provide options. Most government employees don't care that much. At least the governor of Nevada is trying to meet the budget crisis without raising taxes. Kudos sir, and Godspeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment