The campaign of Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo has released an analysis estimating that Democratic candidate Aaron Ford’s policy agenda would impose $18.1 billion in costs to government and the private sector over four years, including nearly $8 billion in projected state spending.
The estimate assigns costs to 76 of Ford’s proposals, combining projected Nevada expenditures with expenses that the analysis says would fall to businesses, the federal government, and ultimately taxpayers. Ford’s campaign contends the report invents implementation plans never proposed and misclassifies certain federal and private costs as state liabilities.
The analysis projects $7.93 billion in direct state spending during the four‑year term. Lombardo’s team argues that Nevada could not absorb spending of that magnitude without higher taxes, new fees, or cuts to other programs, while Ford’s camp maintains many projected expenses would not require new appropriations.
A university professor reviewed the proposals and affirmed that an $18 billion cost estimate is reasonable, emphasizing the need for clear answers on financing, taxpayer impact, and long‑term fiscal stability.
Because Nevada does not levy a personal income tax, any significant increase in recurring state spending would likely require additional revenue from other taxes or fees, reductions in existing spending, or a combination of both.
The report assigns the largest price tag to Ford’s healthcare agenda, estimating $4.25 billion for measures addressing medical debt and predatory practices, including $3.5 billion to cancel medical debt and $1.76 billion for expanded Medicaid protections, workforce expansion, and preventive care.
Ford’s K‑12 education plan is estimated to cost $3.68 billion, covering a raise in per‑pupil funding to the national average, expansion of pre‑K, universal school meals, and higher pay for teachers and support staff.
Overall, the analysis breaks down costs as roughly $4.9 billion for education, $4.8 billion for housing, more than $6 billion for healthcare, about $1.5 billion for energy, and nearly $900 million for economic development.
Ford’s campaign spokesperson rejected the report, calling it “fraudulent” and asserting that the proposals would not cost the state a penny and would actually save taxpayers money.
The campaign argues that the analysis attributes expenses to implementation measures not contained in Ford’s platform, such as assumed expansions of state health plans and partial replacements for federal Medicaid cuts.
Ford’s team presented its own fiscal analysis, claiming the platform could be implemented without tax increases and with substantially lower direct state costs than those projected by Lombardo’s campaign.
Lombardo’s campaign responded that it estimated the resources required to fulfill Ford’s promises, noting that regulatory changes, enforcement initiatives, and expanded benefits would need staffing, oversight, and funding even if not explicitly detailed by the candidate.
A former state senator warned that the level of spending outlined in the report would be unsustainable without significant tax hikes, emphasizing the need for responsible budgeting and clear financing plans.
The chair of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee dismissed the report’s calculations as “fake math,” asserting that Ford’s policies are common‑sense measures that would save Nevada residents at little to no cost to the state.
Separately, Ford’s own spending has come under scrutiny, with state records showing over $410,000 in travel expenses since 2019 and more than 100 days spent outside Nevada. He is also under investigation by the Nevada Commission on Ethics for alleged improper gifts and use of his office for personal benefit.
Lombardo is seeking a second term, and the two candidates will face off in November in a closely watched gubernatorial race that could shape Nevada’s fiscal direction for years to come.
