Governor plans emergency address on Nevada budget

Governor plans emergency address on Nevada budget

By SANDRA CHEREB
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 7, 2010; 2:57 PM

CARSON CITY, Nev. -- Nevada's budget is so far out of balance that by one account the state could lay off every worker paid from the general fund and still be $300 million in the red. The economic downturn has hit so hard that prisons may be closed, entire colleges shuttered and thousands left without jobs.

Against the backdrop of an imploding economy and an $881 million shortage, Gov. Jim Gibbons will try in an emergency "State of the State" address Monday to explain the depth of the state's financial crisis and how fixing the gaping hole in the budget.

It won't be pretty.

Nevada, with a heavy reliance on discretionary spending through gambling and sales taxes, has been especially hard hit by the recession as tourists and gamblers hold on to their money. The state's unemployment rate has hit 13 percent, and a once booming housing market that created thousands of high-paying construction jobs has gone bust, with Nevada topping the nation in foreclosures.
ad_icon

In his address, Gibbons plans to call the Legislature into a special session in late February and instruct lawmakers on areas they can focus on. It will be left to the state Assembly and Senate to tackle painful education and social services cuts.

"Nevadans need to get used to the idea of shrinking state government," said Gibbons' spokesman Daniel Burns.

Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-North Las Vegas, said Nevada faces "very, very ugly" options. Horsford will give the Legislature's response immediately after Gibbons' televised 6 p.m. speech.

Details of the governor's address have not been released. But the first-term Republican who is seeking re-election has released pages of proposals for closing the hole in the $6.9 billion budget passed by the 2009 Legislature.

The governor has said he anticipates 234 state layoffs, and notices already are being sent to employees who must be given a 30-day warning.

Lynn Hettrick, deputy chief of staff, said the governor wants to try to avoid more layoffs because the state must pay the full cost of unemployment benefits for affected workers. Nevada is on track to borrow $1 billion from the federal government to meet jobless claims because its unemployment insurance trust fund has gone broke.

"When we lay somebody off, it doesn't save us very much money," Hettrick said. "Between that and taking the money out of the economy, it really doesn't make sense for Nevada to lay off people."

Still, budget cuts could result in thousands of layoffs with the shock waves reverberating for years.

While Gibbons has told state agencies to prepare for 10 percent cuts, his proposals so far total only $418 million, less than half the deficit.

Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, said balancing the budget would require 22 percent cuts across the board. She said the state could lay off every worker paid from the state general fund - and still be $300 million short.

Gibbons, a staunch no-tax proponent, has said new taxes are not an option, and legislative leaders seem to agree raising taxes is unpalatable in the sour economy.

Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, said the governor's speech will set the tone for Nevada's immediate future.

"This is a time for Jim Gibbons to either cling to his very limited vision of Nevada, or articulate a vision that is very different than the past. Everybody talks about a diversified economy, getting away from a reliance on gaming. But so far nobody's done anything about it."

Nevada's education system could take the brunt of the blow.

Schools superintendents have pleaded for flexibility from mandates on class sizes and full-day kindergarten, and appealed for an emergency declaration to suspend collective bargaining agreements with teachers. They also proposed reducing the required 180-day school year. Each day eliminated would save about $13 million.

While most state employees beginning last July were required to take one day off per month without pay, teachers were essentially exempt because of their contracts.

Administrators say unless negotiations are reopened and teachers agree to salary cuts, layoffs are unavoidable.

Walt Rulffes, superintendent of the Clark County School District, the nation's fifth largest, said without concessions, a 10 percent budget cut would require him to lay off more than 2,000 teachers.

But Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association, opposed cutting teacher salaries unless it was agreed to through collective bargaining.

"I must tell you that we all are tired of the hand-wringing and the seemingly rehearsed response, 'There is no appetite for taxes,'" she said during a recent Interim Finance Committee hearing.

Buy local provision for public nutrition programs?

Local agriculture and public nutrition North Jersey.com

Sunday, February 7, 2010
BY CHARLES KUPERUS
The Record
Comment on this story
0 Comments
Email this story Printer friendly version Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size

IMPROVING the well-being of our country’s schoolchildren by altering the choices of the food they eat is in the hands of our nation’s leaders. As Congress considers reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act, it has the opportunity to direct meaningful change that can improve the diet of America’s young people and help fruit and vegetable farmers by creating a new market for their products.

To do this, language must be included in the legislation requiring appropriate amounts of fruits and vegetables to be served for school breakfast and lunch, to bring these programs in line with federal dietary guidelines. In addition, including a "buy local first" provision would allow farmers nearby to play a more prominent role in supplying nutritious food, while strengthening the local agricultural industry. With these changes, Congress would initiate a radical improvement that would affect communities across America in a positive way.

If you look at trends that focus on children’s health, you can see that continuing current programs without change is unacceptable. In 1980, 6.5 percent of children 6 to 11 were considered obese; today that number is almost 20 percent. In the 12-to-19-year old age group, 18 percent are obese, up from 5 percent in 1980. There are numerous studies that illustrate the consequences to a young person’s health: risk for cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and psychological stress.

Eating right, moving more and providing nutrition education are critical components of a healthy lifestyle for young people.

Big backers

First lady Michelle Obama chose limiting childhood obesity as an issue she is willing to champion, even turning part of the White House lawn into a vegetable garden. In the 2008 farm bill, Congress expanded the U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program by increasing funding for the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables. This program, now available in 50 states, is targeted at schools that have more than 50 percent of the enrolled students qualifying for free or reduced meals in the National School Lunch Program.

Additionally, 21 states have adopted policies that support utilization of farm products in schools; setting the foundation for innovative measures to connect students with local agriculture. There are examples across the country of how school districts have worked with local farmers to bring their farms’ bounty into the school cafeteria and share with students where and how the food is grown. This provides the double benefit of improving nutrition while teaching young people about the importance of having viable agriculture close by.

Surely, more needs to be done. We can build on these good efforts and implement beneficial changes in every school in America.

During the past 60 years, millions of irreplaceable farm and ranch acres have been converted to other uses in the United States. Much of this land is developed, especially on the East Coast, where nearly 50 percent of the farmland acres were lost. While the population has grown, leading to more schools, the connection to agriculture has diminished. A generation ago, someone could speak about a relative or friend who earned a living by farming. Today, many children would not be able to name a farmer and have never experienced a day on the farm. This is sad; children should be enlightened as to how food is grown.

Farm operators need to have hope for an economically stable business climate and a supportive public policy framework allowing them to profit. This is better than the alternative, selling their land and abandoning their farms.

In fiscal year 2008, USDA spent $14.6 billion on the five major programs that primarily serve the nutritional needs of children. Utilizing a portion of the billions of dollars spent by connecting regional agriculture as a local and economical food source for these programs will help fuel the transformation of the neighboring agriculture. This is especially true in densely populated areas where agricultural land is at a higher risk of development.

A policy change of this scale will help save productive farmland, keep farmers in business and provide nutritious food to our children; important policy objectives that have national importance. It is hoped that this change would influence positive lifelong dietary habits.

Charles Kuperus, a farmer from Sussex, served as the state’s secretary of agriculture from 2001 to 2008.

IMPROVING the well-being of our country’s schoolchildren by altering the choices of the food they eat is in the hands of our nation’s leaders. As Congress considers reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act, it has the opportunity to direct meaningful change that can improve the diet of America’s young people and help fruit and vegetable farmers by creating a new market for their products.

To do this, language must be included in the legislation requiring appropriate amounts of fruits and vegetables to be served for school breakfast and lunch, to bring these programs in line with federal dietary guidelines. In addition, including a "buy local first" provision would allow farmers nearby to play a more prominent role in supplying nutritious food, while strengthening the local agricultural industry. With these changes, Congress would initiate a radical improvement that would affect communities across America in a positive way.

If you look at trends that focus on children’s health, you can see that continuing current programs without change is unacceptable. In 1980, 6.5 percent of children 6 to 11 were considered obese; today that number is almost 20 percent. In the 12-to-19-year old age group, 18 percent are obese, up from 5 percent in 1980. There are numerous studies that illustrate the consequences to a young person’s health: risk for cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and psychological stress.

Eating right, moving more and providing nutrition education are critical components of a healthy lifestyle for young people.

Big backers

First lady Michelle Obama chose limiting childhood obesity as an issue she is willing to champion, even turning part of the White House lawn into a vegetable garden. In the 2008 farm bill, Congress expanded the U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program by increasing funding for the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables. This program, now available in 50 states, is targeted at schools that have more than 50 percent of the enrolled students qualifying for free or reduced meals in the National School Lunch Program.

Additionally, 21 states have adopted policies that support utilization of farm products in schools; setting the foundation for innovative measures to connect students with local agriculture. There are examples across the country of how school districts have worked with local farmers to bring their farms’ bounty into the school cafeteria and share with students where and how the food is grown. This provides the double benefit of improving nutrition while teaching young people about the importance of having viable agriculture close by.

Surely, more needs to be done. We can build on these good efforts and implement beneficial changes in every school in America.

During the past 60 years, millions of irreplaceable farm and ranch acres have been converted to other uses in the United States. Much of this land is developed, especially on the East Coast, where nearly 50 percent of the farmland acres were lost. While the population has grown, leading to more schools, the connection to agriculture has diminished. A generation ago, someone could speak about a relative or friend who earned a living by farming. Today, many children would not be able to name a farmer and have never experienced a day on the farm. This is sad; children should be enlightened as to how food is grown.

Farm operators need to have hope for an economically stable business climate and a supportive public policy framework allowing them to profit. This is better than the alternative, selling their land and abandoning their farms.

In fiscal year 2008, USDA spent $14.6 billion on the five major programs that primarily serve the nutritional needs of children. Utilizing a portion of the billions of dollars spent by connecting regional agriculture as a local and economical food source for these programs will help fuel the transformation of the neighboring agriculture. This is especially true in densely populated areas where agricultural land is at a higher risk of development.

A policy change of this scale will help save productive farmland, keep farmers in business and provide nutritious food to our children; important policy objectives that have national importance. It is hoped that this change would influence positive lifelong dietary habits.

Charles Kuperus, a farmer from Sussex, served as the state’s secretary of agriculture from 2001 to 2008.