Early thoughts on BDRs for 2013 session
I've been reviewing the list of bill draft requests made by lawmakers for the 2013 legislative session. While there isn't much information available about the specifics of any particular bill draft request (legislative staff only lists the topic for each BDR), there are a few that look familiar. I thought I'd offer a few quick highlights:1. John Hambrick will re-introduce a bill encoding the Castle Doctrine into Nevada law. Here's a great position paper on the topic from the Cato Institute.
2. Sheila Leslie plans to re-introduce her bill requiring reports of lobbying expenditures between legislative sessions. This was a government transparency bill that was killed in committee last session by one of the most prolific beneficiaries of unreported lobbyist spending-William Horne. Horne was at the center of the PokerStars scandal, having accepted a free trip to London that he never reported.
3. As if on cue, William Horne again has requested legislation that "revises provisions governing interactive gaming" and another one that "revises provisions related to gaming." I wonder if one of these is that bill from last session that was written by the PokerStars lobbyists...
4. Barbara Cegavske wants to remove the Blaine Amendment from the state constitution-a provision that arguably creates a barrier for school vouchers. While this might be a positive step, this proposal comes up every session and never goes anywhere. Plus, amending the state constitution takes about five years even if there's full support and Nevada's schoolchildren need help now. That's why I've always seen the education tax credit proposal from NPRI/Cato as the superior route to school choice.
5. The Assembly Judiciary Committee and Tick Segerblom both want to revise "provisions relating to the medical use of marijuana." Meanwhile, Steven Brooks wants to change the rules for "dispensing of marijuana used for medical purposes." I wonder if the legislature will finally get around to addressing that voter-approved constitutional amendment...
6. Pat Hickey wants to extend the Open Meetings Law to the legislature. He must have read NPRI's legislative reviews.
7. Harvey Munford wants pass a special excise tax on fast food. Perhaps he's plotting a run for mayor of New York City...
8. John Ellison wants to change "provisions governing contracts for services entered into by certain public employers." I wonder if this has to do with that recent audit that revealed much of the contract work by current or former employees was fraudulent and/or overpriced?
9. Debbie Smith wants to expand the system of full-day kindergarten. The program should already be considered an unaffordable luxury given that it fails to contribute toward lasting student achievement, according to all the research. While it produces temporary gains, those gains disappear by the end of the third grade. It would make more sense to use that money identifying the best teachers, paying them WELL, and packing as many students as possible into their classes. Research shows no school-controlled variable has a greater impact on student achievement than the quality of the teacher-a great teacher can improve a child's life forever while an under-performing teacher can handicap a child for years.
10. Richard Carillo wants to prohibit "participation in an organized retail theft ring." Somehow, I have a hard time believing this isn't already covered.
11. Ira Hansen wants to require "the creation and maintenance of contingency plans by state agencies for loss of federal revenue." Again, why wasn't this already in existence? On a related note, this bill may portend well for a return of federal lands to Nevada.
12. Ben Kieckhefer wants to revise "provisions relating to the funding of public construction projects"...I smell prevailing wage reform!
13. Does anyone else find it ironic that right below Joe Hogan's name is a request by the Senate Committee on Transportation to revise "provisions relating to driving under the influence?" Hogan was arrested earlier this year on DUI charges.
14. Maggie Carlton wants to enact the "State Buy American Act." She may as well call it the "Mercantilist Act" and start burning copies of Wealth of Nations.
15. Randy Kirner is proposing changes to PERS. Hopefully, it's something along the lines of Utah's hybrid system, as proposed recently by NPRI.
16. The Legislative Committee on Education wants to create a K-12 Public Education Stabilization Account...like a "rainy day" fund...which already exists...
17. The Legislative Committee on Public Lands is asking lawmakers to urge "Congress to take certain actions concerning federal public lands in Nevada." Could this be it?!
18. Another one for the category of "why doesn't this exist already?"...the Assembly Taxation Committee is asking that a report of tax expenditures be submitted to the governor and the legislature.
19. North Las Vegas may finally get its wishes with a bill that would change the formula for C-tax distributions.
20. The Taxation Department wants to make "various changes to provisions governing collective bargaining." You know...in case they have to assume management of North Las Vegas.
21. Michael Roberson wants greater oversight over the Southern Nevada Water Authority. I wonder if he was inspired by that recent rate hike.
22. Both the Assembly Committee on Education and Michael Roberson want to enact "parent trigger." I prefer to call it "parents to the rescue." If it was tweaked to include an educational savings account option for parents, it would be perfect.
23. As an appropriate way of capping off this long list, Lynn Stewart would like to limit the number of bill drafts requested by lawmakers. That'd certainly make things less confusing.
Read moreVideo: It's a Wonderful Life! (with capitalism)
What a terrific video. Enjoy.
Lying for libraries: Question 1 supporters using falsehoods to push tax increase
Supporters of Henderson Libraries District Question No. 1 are pushing two falsehoods and several misleading arguments in an effort to get voters to raise property taxes.
That's a charge I don't make lightly, but that's exactly what's happening, and someone needs to point out the dishonesty of these tax-increase supporters.
Falsehood #1: "We have not increased funding for our libraries since 1991."
This appears in the "official" Argument Advocating Passage of Question 1 and is a bald-faced falsehood.
In 1997, the Library System took in $1.94 million from taxpayers. In 2012, it took in $6.67 million.
Even inflation-adjusted, per-capita spending has increased from $19.12* in 1997 to $24.96 in 2012.
The proponents' claim is so untrue that when I called Thomas Fay, executive director of the Henderson Library District, to ask about this statement, he disavowed it and acknowledged that revenue has increased.
Falsehood #2: "The last time the library received a tax rate increase was in 1991..."
This inaccuracy appears on the FAQ provided by the Rescue My Library group, which supports the tax increase. A hard copy of this FAQ is also available in Henderson Libraries.
If you look at the Library District's FY 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (p. 68 in PDF, p. 39 on the page), you can see that the property-tax rate it collects has increased from $.0500 per $100 assessed valuation in 2000 to $.0575 per $100 assessed valuation today.
Once again, when I asked Fay about this, he acknowledged that the tax rate used to fund the Library District has increased since 1991.
Ironically, Fay is listed as the contact on the FAQ sheet. I asked him if the library PAC had any plans to reprint the material to correct the error. He said the PAC did not plan to reprint them, because it didn't have enough money. Even the electronic version of the FAQ, though, has not been corrected, despite my conversation with Fay several days ago.
Misleading statement #1: The tax increase "will NOT be used to increase salaries, benefits, or the number of staff positions." (Emphasis original)
A version of this statement actually appears in the ballot question itself, although that statement is from the Rescue My Library FAQ.
When I interviewed Fay, he insisted that new money raised by the tax increase could not be used for pay increases, but admitted that money currently being used for books and services could be used to fund salary increases.
This is a textbook example of a shell game. If voters approved an additional $1.614 million for services and supplies, there's no legal prohibition on the Library District using the $1.606 million it spent this year on services and supplies to increase employee wages.
So, the tax increase may not directly fund wage increases, but it will free up funds previously spent on services and supplies to increase salaries and benefits.
It's easy to deduce that spending this tax increase on salary and benefits is actually the plan, because Fay has said there's "practically no one to run Malcolm and Galleria (branches)." Since this tax increase is being sold as necessary to keep those branches open, money currently being used for services and supplies will go toward hiring more staff.
Misleading statement #2: "I fundamentally believe that every citizen of Henderson has the right to decide what their community's going to look like. Is that a community with libraries or a community without libraries? And in this case, the voters are going to decide."
This quote comes from Thomas Fay himself and is a false representation of the choice facing voters. The choice facing Henderson voters is this: After adjusting for inflation and population growth, do you want the library system to grow by 31 percent or 64 percent?
That's because tax revenue received by the Henderson Library District has grown by 31 percent since 1997 after adjusting for inflation and population growth.
In 1997, Henderson Libraries received $19.12 in tax dollars per resident. In 2012, it received $24.96.
That's a 31 percent increase.
If the proposed tax increase had been in effect this year, the Library System's per-capita tax revenue would have been $31.44 - a staggering 64 percent increase since 1997.
In 1997, Henderson Libraries received $1,941,306 in tax dollars. In 2012, it received $6,671,331 from taxpayers.
Misleading statement #3: The tax increase is "a matter of survival. We are not looking to grow; we are simply interested in keeping the doors open."
That statement is from the RescueMyLibrary.org website and has the same problems as Fay's quote above. If you can't figure out how to keep the doors open after going from $1.9 million in 1997 to $6.6 million in 2012, an inflation-adjusted, per-capita increase of 31 percent, you need new leadership, not more tax dollars.
It is shameful for Question 1 supporters to lie and mislead citizens in their quest for this tax increase. Henderson residents should know about these falsehoods.
*In a previous post, I noted that the level of inflation-adjusted, per-capita spending in 1997 was $19.04, while the figure above is $19.12. What happened is the inflation-adjusted amount given by the BLS' inflation calculator changed, because it uses the "latest monthly index value" for the current year.
So while both numbers were accurate at the time, $19.12 is the most up-to-date figure.
What's wrong with health care?
Nobody understands the health care marketplace and its failings better than John Goodman and, in this short interview with Reason, he breaks down the crux of the issue quite well. His most recent book, Priceless, is a great read and its title is an indication of the central argument--since individuals are not price-sensitive in health care markets, their decisions are distorted and the price structure is unable to transmit the information that it does in other markets.Huh. I seem to recall someone else having written about that topic recently...
NPRI on agency budget requests: A good start, but more to do
LAS VEGAS - Official state funding requests, by agency, were released today by the budget division of Nevada's Department of Administration for the 2013-2015 budget cycle. These requests total $3.22 billion in Fiscal Year 2014 and $3.24 billion in FY 2015, which would be modest increases from the $3.11 billion spent in FY 2011 and $3.15 billion spent in FY 2012. In response, NPRI's Deputy Policy Director, Geoffrey Lawrence, released the following comments:
Governor Brian Sandoval and his budget staff should be applauded for helping executive-branch agencies limit cost growth and to focus more narrowly on their statutory missions. While not perfect, these agency budget requests are a concrete step toward limiting the growth of government from already inflated levels.Lawrence noted that Nevada government previously used a flawed method known as baseline budgeting, which presumes that government agencies are entitled to significant funding increases from year to year in order to finance automatic pay raises and other so-called roll-up costs. Unlike a performance-based budget, baseline budgeting provides no incentives for agencies to pursue greater efficiency.
Besides limiting spending increases, this budget shows the power of performance-based budgeting, which focuses on providing the highest level of outcomes for every dollar spent. Combined with Governor Sandoval's instructions that spending increases would only be accepted in the case of rising caseloads, these directives have allowed state agencies to moderate budget requests while achieving largely the same outcomes for taxpayers.
Lawrence also observed:
It must still be recognized that agency requests are only the beginning of the governor's process of focusing spending upon the areas where it can have the greatest impact. When revenue projections are provided by the Economic Forum in December, the governor will have additional opportunities to adjust his Executive Budget proposal to align with available tax revenue.
NPRI believes strongly that Nevada's leaders can meet the state's budgetary challenge while keeping their promise to let temporary increases in payroll and sales taxes and car registration fees expire - and without impinging any further on the state's struggling private sector.
Meeting that challenge may require long-overdue reform legislation in areas like education finance, Medicaid, collective bargaining, agency outsourcing and prevailing wage, among others. But, armed with the highly specific reform ideas available in NPRI's Solutions 2013, Governor Sandoval and legislative leaders should have no problem finding additional savings.
Lawrence also warned lawmakers against using any higher revenue projections from the Economic Forum to boost spending.
Higher-than-expected revenue projections from the Economic Forum should be used to lower taxes on struggling Nevada families, instead of as an excuse to increase government spending. Agency budget requests are agency wish lists and, as such, should be the high-water mark for government spending proposals for the next two years. If an agency didn't request it, why should lawmakers spend precious taxpayer dollars?Read more:
Intimidation
Dear Friend:
When you engage in the war of ideas and have the courage to expose government waste and corruption, as NPRI does on a daily basis, you expect to have some heated disagreements.
Disagreements are acceptable. Intimidation from government officials is not.
Now, however, a well-known government official is trying to intimidate us here at NPRI.
Of course, we're used to government officials being upset with us. After all, we've revealed the inflated salaries of firefighters and other government officials, we've uncovered millions in waste at the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, and we're defending our constitution's separation-of-powers clause against those who callously violate it.
In our defense of liberty and taxpayers, we've upset almost every special-interest group and powerful politician in the state at one point or another. And we wouldn't have it any other way. We are your voice - the voice of taxpayers and business owners.
Unfortunately, as reported in this morning's Las Vegas Sun, Clark County School District Superintendent Dwight Jones has gone beyond respectful disagreements. He is trying to intimidate NPRI - precisely because of the impact we are having. When they fail to win in the arena of ideas, many government officials think it's OK to use political pressure to silence their opponents.
Here's what happened: When asked about NPRI's recent lawsuit defending Nevada's Open Meeting Law, Superintendent Jones, after voicing his displeasure with NPRI's pursuit of the case, made the following statement:
I do plan to send a letter to [NPRI's] board of directors to say let's be clear on what your mission is.
Excuse me?
Mr. Jones, you, as a government official, are going to try to insert yourself into the business of defining the mission of NPRI, a private organization?
To do so would represent a blatant abuse of authority as a governmental official and an explicit attempt by government to intimidate a private organization.
My friend, I'm sharing this story with you for three reasons.
First, we've seen, once again, that sunlight is the best disinfectant for the abuses of government officials. Even our friends on the Left should be able to agree that government has no right to insert itself into the process of defining the mission of a private organization. It would be just as outrageous if Superintendent Jones were to try to "clarify" the mission of the ACLU instead of NPRI.
Second, this is yet more evidence of the positive impact NPRI is having on the policy debate.
As Gandhi once said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Government officials are fighting NPRI because they know that the information, research and litigation we produce exposes their actions for all to see - and they'll do anything to stop us.
Third, I want to ask you to do something important: Will you stand with NPRI and donate $5 to our efforts today?
Unlike the Clark County School District, which takes in billions of tax dollars a year, NPRI refuses to take any government funding and is supported solely be donations from freedom-loving individuals like you.
Will you please donate $5 today, and send a message to government officials that it's unacceptable to try to intimidate NPRI and the individuals, like you, who support our work?
Despite this attempt at intimidation (and others), NPRI isn't backing down. In fact, to paraphrase a fearless American naval officer: We have not yet begun to fight.
Will you fight alongside us by contributing $5 right now?
Yours in liberty,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
P.S. Intimidation tactics from government officials are a threat to you and other freedom lovers throughout Nevada. But NPRI is committed to fighting for you.
Will you stand with us by donating $5 or more right now? Let government officials know that they won't be allowed to intimidate you, and that you support NPRI now more than ever.
Thank you.
Of Muppets and Men
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them. Just enter your email in the box on the top right.
For today's week-in-review email, Andy dives into the debate over government subsidies for PBS.
Of Muppets and Men
Reagan-Carter gave us "There you go again." Bentsen-Quayle produced "You're no Jack Kennedy."
And now, we have another presidential-election debate quip to enshrine for all posterity:
"I like Big Bird."
When Mitt Romney offered this line last Wednesday night during his debate with Barack Obama, it hardly seemed likely to dominate the post-debate discussion. Yet here we are.
The line - which prefaced Romney's pledge to eliminate federal subsidies for the Public Broadcasting Service, which airs Big Bird and the other stars of "Sesame Street" - has caused quite a ruckus on the Left. It even inspired an Obama campaign ad mocking Romney for exposing, at long last, the avian antagonist behind America's economic collapse. In 2008, then-candidate Obama bemoaned the onset of "Silly Season" in political campaigns. Indeed.
But there's a serious discussion to be had here. Should taxpayers be forced to fund PBS? No.
I grew up watching Big Bird, Bert and Ernie and the rest of the Sesame Street gang, and I even had a stuffed Grover as a kid. Alas, these days, as an adult without children of my own, I have little occasion to give the show much thought. But my recollections of it are fond, and so you can count me among those who, along with Romney, "like Big Bird."
So what's the problem with using taxpayer dollars to fund PBS? The problem is that, whatever the merits of "Sesame Street," "Charlie Rose" and the network's other programs, government doesn't belong in the broadcasting business. I enjoy watching "SportsCenter" on ESPN. That doesn't give me the right to force taxpayers to subsidize my tastes.
But in the minds of liberals and progressives, anything they deem "good" - solar plants, light rail, Elmo - must be showered with public subsidies. The decision on whether to support a product, however, should be made not by government bureaucrats, but by individuals exercising their own will and spending their own money. Taxpayer subsidies to PBS violate this core principle, and should be stopped.
Some will concede the principle, but complain that it doesn't matter, because the $450 million-a-year subsidy PBS receives is but a drop in the bucket compared to our annual deficit. True enough. But while the dollar figure may be relatively trivial, the argument isn't.
That's because if we're ever going to get serious about addressing out-of-control government spending, we must be able to at least start with the trivial. If we can't handle the small stuff, we'll never be able to do the big stuff. As Mark Steyn put it in a recent column for National Review Online: "If Americans can't muster the will to make Big Bird leave the government nest, they certainly will never reform Medicare."
This whole kerfuffle provides an illuminating window into the mindset of the statist Left. A question I'd like to see asked of President Obama, or some other member of the newly hatched "Save Big Bird" movement, is: Why do you equate the desubsidization of PBS with the elimination of the network and its programs altogether?
Think about it. PBS receives only 15 percent of its funding from taxpayers, the rest coming through philanthropic and other voluntary means. This suggests there is significant consumer demand for what the network offers and a large number of people already willing to fund PBS on their own. Do liberals really assume that the network would not survive without its subsidy? Would no amount of belt-tightening, strategic rethinking or appeals for charitable support be enough to make up that 15 percent and make Big Bird and his friends self-sufficient?
And even if PBS and "Sesame Street" were to go under, wouldn't the ensuing void in the children's-television market be filled by somebody else more capable of meeting consumer demand? Would kids everywhere really be forever deprived of entertaining-yet-educational programming?
The answers to these questions are obvious. But in the Leftist worldview, if government doesn't do it, then it simply won't get done - despite centuries of evidence to the contrary.
If cutting off PBS from the public trough would indeed presage the network's doom, then doom is precisely what it should face. But if its programming really is as important and popular as we're told it is - if it truly does offer something of irreplaceable value to society - then PBS will do just fine on its own.
Either way, it's time for Big Bird to heed the words of Patrick Henry: Give me liberty, or give me death!
Take care, and I'll see you next time.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here. Enter your email address in the box on the top right.
Question 2: CCSD admits A/C breakdowns unrelated to capital improvement program
About a week after school started, several schools in the Clark County School District had air-conditioning breakdowns.
At Diskin Elementary School, the breakdown was severe enough that its students were temporarily moved to another school.
Never ones to a let a crisis go to waste, District officials, led by Chief Lobbyist Joyce Haldeman, put out a press release entitled, "Air conditioning failures at schools highlight need for CCSD ballot initiative."
At the time, NPRI pointed out that, with 357 schools, A/C breakdowns were inevitable and that's why CCSD already has a maintenance budget.
And now, that point has been confirmed by none other than Joyce Haldeman.
In a response piece to NPRI's research sent out earlier this week, Haldeman writes, "Many of the 47 school HVAC systems that experienced outages during the first week of school did so because of maintenance issues that are not capital related..." (Emphasis added.)
Now she tells us. Now she reveals the District's scare tactics to be nothing more than an attempt at emotional blackmail. Talk about a bait and switch.
Haldeman and CCSD are misleading parents, the public and the media.
They're manipulating the media to gin up publicity to try to raise taxes.
And they're trying to frighten voters into approving a tax increase that is unrelated to the A/C breakdowns that students, parents and teachers experienced recently.
It's shameful.
CCSD officials are, once again, waving the bait. This time, they've already admitted they're misleading you.
Don't bite.
Question 2: CCSD admits capital projects "will be added, deleted or modified as necessary"
Earlier this week, I detailed some of the reasons why the Clark County School District's campaign to raise property taxes is full of bait-and-switches.
In a response to NPRI, Joyce Haldeman, CCSD's chief lobbyist for the Capital Improvement Plan, actually outlined another way officials are playing the bait-and-switch game.
Here's some of what Haldeman wrote in response to NPRI's research.
By necessity, the plan must be fluid to respond to changes in conditions that occur to the major systems and conditions in our schools. ...And the adding, deleting and modifying has already begun. There are differences between the May project list, the September project list and the list Haldeman sent around to media folks earlier this week.
Projects will be added, deleted or modified as necessary to meet enrollment and changing program needs within the District in "revisions" to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). (Emphasis added.)
Haldeman even wrote that "three schools (Beckley, McWilliams, and Culley elementary schools) were removed from the 2012 list. They were temporarily included on a preliminary draft list of projects due to a clerical error but are not included on the final list because the work at those schools is completed."
It'd be a full-time job to try and follow what's on the list, what's off the list and what's being "modified."
What that means for parents, students and taxpayers is that there is no guarantee that a project currently on the list will happen if the tax increase passes. There's also no guarentee a certain project won't be "deleted" before Election Day.
CCSD officials are, once again, waving the bait. With this information, I hope you can also see the "switch" around the corner.
The promise of digital learning
There are a number of reasons that today's union-dominated and monopolistic education factories should give way to dynamic, technology-based learning. But this short video distills some of the major problems with today's outdated education model and contrasts that image with the hope of better achievement through digital learning.Enjoy.
