Budget theater

Let's put this latest state budget sleight of hand in perspective:

The special legislative session that wrapped early Monday in Carson City wouldn't have been necessary had lawmakers done their jobs in 2009 or 2007 or 2005 or 2003 or 2001 or ...

And barring the long shot that those on the Democratic side of the aisle suddenly get a grip on fiscal reality, we're certain to witness a repeat of this whole charade in two years.

For almost two decades, Nevada has been on a predictable cycle: Spend, spend, spend during the good times, creating baseline budgets that are unsustainable when the party stops, leaving lawmakers to demand that taxpayers step up again lest children and the elderly are left to die in the streets.

The latest scene in this tired act played out this weekend as majority Democrats and GOP Gov. Jim Gibbons "compromised" to close an $887 million gap in the $6.9 billion budget approved last year. In addition to a few accounting gimmicks, lawmakers "cut" spending by $300 million.

But this is a "cut" only in the world of government budgeting. It is, of course, actually a reduction in a proposed spending increase -- if you spent $50 last year and hope to spend $100 this year but find you've earned only $60, you're not suffering a 40 percent "cut" if forced to live within your means.

In addition, lawmakers and the governor agreed to a whole host of new fees that will suck money from the struggling private sector at a time when it is most vulnerable. Among those hit with new levees: mining and the banking industry.

Meanwhile, state workers -- whose generous pensions, benefits and salaries, along with healthy annual raises, have contributed to the budget mess -- avoided any major hits. That's no surprise, given that the Democratic leadership in Carson City openly admits that as far as they're concerned government employees stand far higher on the pecking order than the taxpayers who support them.

In the end, though, lawmakers simply slapped a Band-Aid on a trauma patient. Come 2011, as the state economy continues to struggle, the big spenders in the Legislature will be looking to spend as much as $3 billion more than is available -- and rather than embrace serious spending restraint, they'll seek to impose all manner of new taxes on the beleaguered private sector to fund those plans.

Between now and then, though, there is an election. If you'd like to see the state get off this 20-year-old, boom-and-bust budget cycle, study the legislative candidates carefully -- and vote accordingly.