“The state’s No. 2 Republican broke with Gov. Jim Gibbons on Thursday, criticizing him and other politicians for not being willing to talk about raising taxes,” reported the Las Vegas Sun a few days after the governor called for a little budgetary belt tightening. But according to a press release from Sen. Raggio sent later that afternoon, that’s not exactly the situation.

“I share some of the Governor’s concern in view of the projected shortfall in revenues from Sales and Gaming taxes,” Raggio stated. “I told him it was prudent to ask for contingency plans for all agencies and budgets receiving general funds.” Sen. Raggio added, “A special session of the Legislature and raising taxes should be the last option.”

Where I come from, agreeing with the Governor on this issue isn’t “breaking” with him. Truth be told, if Sen. Raggio “broke” with anyone it was with University Chancellor Jim Rogers who publicly told the governor to pound sand, proclaiming he wouldn’t cut his bloated budget.

“The Governor has specific authority to implement these reductions,” said Raggio in his press release, pointing to NRS 353.250. “And under Nevada law, Higher Ed is also required to comply with any such requests.”

In other words, Mr. Rogers, get with the program.

I was also happy to see that Sen. Raggio agrees that K-12 education should NOT be exempted from the belt tightening. “Some programs can be deferred, even in K-12, such as school empowerment and extension of full-day kindergarten,” the Majority Leader said. For my money I’d prefer to see full-day kindergarten scrapped altogether, not deferred, but deferred is likely the best we can hope for at this point.

In any event, contrary to rumors to the contrary, Sen. Raggio is NOT presently supporting either a special session of the Legislature to deal with the potential funding shortfall in tax revenue or any tax hikes. Instead, perhaps the fiscally conservative members of the state government should pursue other avenues of addressing the situation, including the following:

(a) Implementing budget transparency: Putting every expenditure by the state government into a public, searchable website database so every taxpayer can readily see where every penny of his taxes is going. This could be done, as in other states, by executive order.

For example, how many “consultants” are on the university system payroll and exactly what are they “consulting” about? And are some government workers loading up on overtime in their final years of service in order to boost their retirement benefits at taxpayer expense? Inquiring minds wanna know. So let some sun shine in.

(b) Capping spending: Pass Sen. Bob Beers’ legislation limiting spending increases to the rate of population growth plus inflation. Had last year’s general fund budget been capped at a 14 percent increase instead of the 20 percent increase the Legislature ultimately approved, we wouldn’t be looking at cutting the budget by 5 percent today.

At the very least, if it requires a 2/3 super-majority to pass any tax hikes, let’s change the law to require a 2/3 majority to pass any spending increases which exceed the rate of population growth plus inflation. If the additional spending is truly “needed,” getting a 2/3 majority should be no problem whatsoever.

(c) Empanel a “Grace Commission”: Just as South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford did in his firm term, Gov. Gibbons should establish a Nevada version of Ronald Reagan’s “Grace Commission” to thoroughly review current government spending and recommend cuts in areas of waste, fraud, duplication and abuse, or where the private sector can provide a service less expensively or more efficiently than the government, or where the government shouldn’t be providing certain services in the first place.

Again, I’d START with public education, not exempt it. But that’s just me. And I’d also prohibit anyone working for the government as either an employee, a contractor or an elected official from serving on the commission. Or any big-government union bosses. But that’s just me. If the purpose is to cut spending you sure don’t want anyone on the commission protecting their turf.

And to give the commission some teeth and limit the politicization of its recommendations, they ought to be presented to the Legislature for an up-or-down vote with no opportunity for legislative games and amendments, in the same manner the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission operates in recommending closures of military facilities to Congress.

I’m not unalterably opposed to talking about tax increases, as long as (a) it’s only talk, and (b) the chat only begins after the above three items are in place. There. I compromised.