Beware the video game boogeyman!!!
It sure is a good thing we've got patronizing politicians around to tell us what's good for us.On that point, I love this Reason video that reviews the absurdity of the "video game violence" craze in Congress 20 years ago.
My favorite scene is when Joe Lieberman is waving around a plastic handgun during a committee meeting.
Read moreThe Week in Review: 'You didn't build that'
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 notes how President Obama's "you didn't build that" line diminishes the accomplishments of America's business owners.
'You didn't build that'
I'm in beautiful Northern Nevada this week for a number of reasons, one of which, as I mentioned last time, is to officially open NPRI's new Reno office on Aug. 1.
But another reason I'm here is to spend some time meeting with several members of the Institute's Board of Directors as well as some other NPRI supporters. I always enjoy these meetings because it gives me a chance to talk with a number of individuals I admire greatly - intelligent, hard-working citizens, many of whom have achieved success by building thriving businesses.
Wait, what's that you say? Oh, right. Silly me.
As President Obama helpfully informed us recently, none of the people who built those businesses ... actually built those businesses. Here's the president, speaking a couple weeks ago in Roanoke, Va.:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Lots of commentators have already taken their whacks at the president over this instant classic, but I thought I'd offer my two cents. First, the obvious reason why the president's comment is absurd: We all have access to roads. We all have had teachers who have helped us along the way. But not all of us have built successful businesses. Clearly, those who have done so possessed something - intelligence, work ethic, ambition - that set them apart. It's unfortunate that the president either doesn't recognize this or is so casually dismissive of it.
That said, I think there's another angle to this that hasn't drawn enough attention, and that's what I'd like to address here.
Imagine for a moment that Sasha Obama, the president's 11-year-old daughter, came home from school one day excited because she'd passed her spelling test. Now imagine the president turning to his daughter and saying, "Well, I have to tell you, sweetie: You didn't pass that test. Someone drove your bus to school. Someone made the pencil you used to write in your answers. You can't take credit for that."
Or try another example. Let's say the president, upon welcoming the NBA champion Miami Heat to the White House for a photo-op, were to tell them: "You know, it's nice to have you here today. But I have to tell you, guys: You didn't win that championship. Someone else flew the team jet that took you to your games. You had a gym teacher at some point who made you put in some extra time with the jump rope." Or imagine him telling a musical performer who'd recently won a Grammy for best song: "You didn't sing that. Someone manufactured the microphone you used. You had someone pour you a glass of water when your throat got sore."
You get the point.
These kinds of statements, of course, would be absurd. And I think it's a given that President Obama would never say anything of this sort - at least not to his daughter, the Miami Heat or a Grammy winner. Why? Because it's quite obvious that the fact that those people received help at some point does not in any way diminish what they have achieved.
But in the president's mind, the fact of receiving help in life does diminish the accomplishments of America's business owners. It's a real shame, not only because our nation's entrepreneurs deserve every bit as much credit as anyone else who achieves success, but also because, as society's chief job creators, those business owners do far more than anyone else to drive economic growth and, thus, provide opportunities to their fellow citizens. Athletes and other performers - whose accomplishments would, no doubt, garner acclaim from the president - provide us with entertainment. But entrepreneurs battle long odds to find ways to provide for our most basic needs and desires as human beings.
It's quite telling that President Obama chooses to single out the accomplishments of business owners for such disparagement. Indeed, it is because of their role in our economy that they draw his ire and resentment. When one sees government as the rightful driver of economic activity, he instinctively sees private enterprise as a rival, if not an outright enemy.
The problem with this, of course, is that government simply isn't up to the task. The public sector will never be able to replace the private sector as the creator of economic prosperity - a point the president's own policies continue to prove.
Oh, and if you disagree with me, that's fine. After all, I didn't write this.
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.
Intergenerational warfare
There's a great feature by Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy in this month's edition of Reason Magazine about the entitlement state. It details how the Baby Boomer generation, which holds far more assets than previous generations of retirees, and far more than their childrens' generation, is set to benefit from federal entitlements like Medicare and Social Security even though most of them don't need it and it will bleeding the paychecks of their children.
In 1984, reports the Pew Research Center, households headed by people 65 or older had 10 times the wealth of households headed by people under 35. By 2005-before the Great Recession hit-the gap had increased to 22 times, and by 2009 it was 47 times. In 2010, 11 percent of households headed by people 65 or older were officially under the poverty line. For households headed by someone under 35 years of age, the figure was 22 percent. The last time younger households were less likely to be poor than elderly ones was back in 1983.And this one...
It is hard to know which is more depressing: the punishing and sure-to-rise price that younger Americans are forced to pay for a system that steals from the relatively poor to give to the relatively rich, or the smugness with which champions of this patently unfair system insist on its righteousness. In his March speech in Florida, Vice President Biden told stories of building a new house that included living quarters for his parents, who refused to move in. Biden explained that his parents and other seniors value their "independence" and "dignity" more than anything. His mother, he said, was representative of seniors in that she wanted to be able to pay her own way at check ups with her doctor. "She didn't want to ask her kids."In Biden's strange moral universe, his mom should be admired for wanting to get medical care on the dime of strangers rather than from her own family. The vice president was trying to defend old-age entitlements, but his example is the quintessence of what is wrong with the current system: It gives to those who already have much by taking from those who have little.
James O'Keefe digs jobs
...and who doesn't?Seriously, this video is pretty funny...and offers some insight into how unions work:
The effects of subsidizing higher education
I've always been a fan of economist Richard Vedder, but I was especially intrigued when I came across this short video, the script for which he wrote:The video notes that North Dakota subsidizes its public universities much more heavily than neighboring states and the United States as a whole.
The effect?
Students from neighboring states flock to the University of North Dakota to receive an education financed by North Dakota taxpayers and then, when they've finished, they leave North Dakota for other locations. As the video says, 60 percent of college graduates leave the state upon graduation. This is after North Dakotans have spent $144 per capita each year to finance higher education for out-of-state students.
I thought this analysis was particularly relevant to Nevada, since the Silver State boasts the nation's third-lowest tuition rates at public universities, behind Wyoming and Florida, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Education.
A key objection to high subsidies for the Nevada System of Higher Education frequently raised by NPRI is that the subsidized tuition rates are priced so low that policymakers have essentially priced potential private competitors out of the marketplace. Yet, the major hubs of innovation within the United States, such as the San Francisco Bay Area or North Carolina's Research Triangle Park have achieved such status because of healthy competition between public and major private universities nearby. Not coincidentally, the public universities in these areas are less dramatically subsidized than in Nevada. Other innovation hubs, including Boston and New York, are led primarily by private universities.
Intrigued by Vedder's findings, I went on to see what else has been done on this topic and was pleased to find that there is a rich literature showing the impact of tuition subsidies, merit scholarships (such as Nevada's Millennium Scholarship) and other taxpayer-financed college freebies on the rate of out-migration for college graduates.
Here's just one example, but the academic literature consistently supports Vedder's findings. That is, heavily subsidized public universities tend to draw in more students from out of state and these students tend to leave in large numbers as soon as they graduate. Alternatively, merit-based scholarships targeted to high school graduates who remain within the state for college, like Nevada's Millennium Scholarship, tend to encourage students to remain in the state for college but these students tend to leave as soon as they've exhausted the benefit anyway.
This being the case, it would seem clear that many of the traditional arguments in favor of subsidized tuition or the Millennium Scholarship--that we must attract and retain the best students in order to amass "human capital"--are misguided.
Nevada and other states with highly subsidized tuition rates aren't amassing human capital, they're just forcing state taxpayers to finance the education of students who will likely be headed elsewhere upon graduation.
A new era begins
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 marks the opening of our new Reno office. We will be celebrating with an open house on August 1 from 1-5 p.m. at 1225 Westfield Avenue, Suite #7, Reno, NV 89509 (click here for map and directions). No RSVP required, just stop by whenever it's convenient for you. Hope to see you there!
I'd like to open this week with an excerpt from NPRI's forthcoming Chairman's Report, in which Ranson Webster, the Institute's chairman of the board, writes:
As you may know, the Nevada Policy Research Institute, which for several years now has been headquartered in Las Vegas, was actually founded in Reno back in 1991. And even after moving to Southern Nevada, we've continued to enjoy a strong base of support in the Northern part of the state. Indeed, we've always been proud to call ourselves a statewide organization. And I'm pleased to share with you some exciting recent developments that really demonstrate our commitment to serving citizens all across our Silver State. ...
... I'm delighted to share with you that on Aug. 1 we will open a new, permanent NPRI office in Reno. ... And I have to tell you, we at NPRI are thrilled about this exciting development. Having full-time offices at both ends of the state will allow us to communicate even more effectively with policymakers, media members and our supporters, ensuring that we'll be able to put the free-market policy solutions our state needs into as many hands as possible.
Two reasons I wanted to share this with you. One is to make sure you know what I'm talking about when I refer to our "Chairman's Report." If you don't, there's no need to worry. It simply means you're not yet an NPRI member. Fortunately, you can join NPRI right now by clicking here. As a member, you'll receive our Chairman's Report - a quarterly publication featuring the latest updates on Institute activities - plus a variety of other tools that will bring you greater access to NPRI's work, depending on the level at which you join.
The other reason I wanted to share that excerpt is to make sure you're aware of the exciting news it contains: Twenty-one years after opening its first Reno office, the Nevada Policy Research Institute will once again have a home in Northern Nevada.
This is indeed an exciting occasion for the Institute. As Ranson said, we've always been proud to call ourselves a statewide organization, and adding a new Reno office in addition to our Las Vegas headquarters will greatly enhance our efforts to spread our freedom-friendly message.
By the way, we'll be holding an open house at our new place on Aug.1 from1 to 5 p.m. The address, if you're in the Reno area and would like to stop by, is: 1225 Westfield Avenue, Suite 7, Reno, NV 89509.
I hope you can join us, but even if you can't, I sincerely hope you're able to share our excitement over the start of this new chapter in our history. It was the commitment of liberty-loving Nevadans like you who made this possible, and I can't thank you enough. As proud as we are to be opening our new office, we're even more grateful to those who have helped make it happen.
Take care, and I hope to see you in Reno on Aug. 1.
Sincerely,
Andy Matthews
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.
Andy Matthews on the latest with the CCEA
For anyone interested on the latest regarding our effort to inform teachers of their right to opt out of their CCEA membership, tune into KXNT 840 AM/100.5 FM at 4 p.m. today to hear NPRI President Andy Matthews on "Live & Local with Kevin Wall."
If you're not near a radio you can listen live via their website.
'Union busting at its finest'
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 gives you the inside scoop on NPRI's campaign to inform teachers of their right to leave the Clark County Education Association (which teachers can still do, but only if they hand deliver their opt-out notice by the close of business today).
We at NPRI have just finished a campaign involving the Clark County Education Association that's generated some fiery responses, and I wanted to give you the inside scoop on it.
First of all, here's what some local union bosses and a few CCEA members have had to say about our efforts.
John Vellardita, executive director of CCEA, said NPRI was "bashing teachers." Ruben Murillo wrote that we wanted to "silence the voice of teachers." NPRI received a couple of "F--- you" e-mails from union members. And the Nevada State Education Association even called our efforts "union busting at its finest."
What did NPRI do to provoke all this vitriol?
We simply informed teachers that they have a choice when it comes to deciding whether CCEA membership is right for them, and we set out to let teachers know that they can leave CCEA by submitting written notice to the union between July 1 and 15.
I should note that these are the two most inconvenient weeks of the year for teachers, because they fall in the middle of summer vacation and include Independence Day, to boot. Many teachers don't even know this opt-out window exists.
This is no accident. It has been specifically negotiated and pushed for by CCEA and is in Section 8-4 of its contract with the Clark County School District. The union bosses of CCEA want to make it as inconvenient as possible for teachers to leave, because they know that if teachers know they have a choice, thousands will opt out.
That reality is what inspired our efforts. We believe that teachers are in the best position to decide if CCEA membership is right for them, yet many have been unable to do so because they've been unaware of their options.
Last month, we released a commentary highlighting five reasons many teachers are leaving CCEA, including outrage over one union official making more than $625,000 in 2009 alone. The commentary also highlighted alternative educator associations, like the Association of American Educators, that offer better benefits for a fraction of the cost.
We also joined some brave teachers at a school board meeting to announce this effort before the board. We offered teachers a generic opt-out letter. We appeared on numerous TV and radio shows and in print articles talking about this option for teachers. We even sent e-mails to more than 12,000 teachers letting them know that they had an option when it came to union membership, but only for a limited time.
The response was overwhelming. Teachers wrote and called to tell us how grateful they were to receive this information. How excited they were to learn that they had a choice. How eager they were to leave CCEA, an organization that had attempted to harass or intimidate some of them into retaining their membership. How they were thrilled about the opportunity to save $768 a year.
And that is what prompted the fiery responses from union bosses that I referenced earlier - the fact that NPRI simply let teachers know they had a choice, and that we believe teachers should be trusted to make the choice that's best for them.
Indeed, union bosses are so scared of their members - teachers - being able to make their own decisions that they lashed out at NPRI just for providing teachers with information. It says a lot about the union leadership that they would prefer that their own members remain in the dark about their rights.
My friend, I want you to know that we're not going to back down. Although the opt-out period ends on Sunday, and any teacher wanting to leave must go to CCEA's office today to opt out, we're going to continue to focus on this issue over the next year.
First, we're going to inform legislators on the need to protect the voices and the choices of teachers by doing away with these restrictive drop periods. Teachers should be able to leave CCEA whenever they want, just like they can join whenever they want.
Second, we're going to expand this campaign statewide next year. It's not just teachers in Clark County who have the restrictive July 1-15 drop period. Teachers in Washoe County and elsewhere around the state face a similar restriction.
This year, we let thousands of teachers know that they have a choice when it comes to membership in CCEA, and over the next year we're going to let thousands more know about this option as well.
And of course, none of this is possible without your generous support. So on behalf of NPRI and the thousands of teachers who've been empowered with this information: Thank you.
Have a great weekend, 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.
Teachers only have hours left to opt out of CCEA
As you may know, CCSD teachers can only opt out of the Clark County Education Association by submitting written notice from July 1 to July 15.
And since July 14 and 15 fall on Saturday and Sunday, any teacher who wishes to leave CCEA, but didn't put his or her opt-out letter in the mail by Wednesday, must hand deliver his or her opt-out letter in order to drop membership in CCEA. (Also, here are five reasons many teachers are opting out of CCEA.)
A generic opt-out letter is available here and CCEA's address is 4230 McLeod Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89121-5216.
Teachers have a choice, but only for a very limited time. And, at this point, only if they hand deliver that choice.
Unsustainable spending continues to be unsustainable: Third CA city goes bankrupt
Fiscal conservatives and libertarians often note that current levels of government spending are unsustainable.
Guess what? As the residents of San Bernardino just found out, unsustainable spending levels can't be sustainable, and that city's now bankrupt.
San Bernardino on Tuesday became the third California city in less than a month to seek bankruptcy protection, with officials saying the financial situation had become so dire that it could not cover payroll through the summer.And what caused the problems in San Bernardino?
The unexpected vote came at the suggestion of the interim city manager, who said the city faces a $46-million deficit and depleted coffers.
The city's fiscal crisis has been years in the making, compounded by the nation's crushing recession and exacerbated by escalating pension costs, lucrative labor agreements, Sacramento's raid on redevelopment funds and a city reserve that is tapped out, officials said.Oh boy, those things sound all too familiar to Nevada residents.
So what's the one thing that won't be impacted by San Bernardino's bankruptcy? Is it police protection, the fire department, libraries, services for the poor or programs for the community? Nope. It's pensions for retired government workers.
Current employee pension obligations, one of the contributors to the city's financial straits, will not be affected, officials said.This isn't unusual. Around the country, government pension payments have continued to make full payments, even when the municapity is bankrupt. This is another reminder of why PERS reform is so desperately needed.
Government can't spend its way to long-term prosperity, but it can spend its way into bankruptcy with dramatic negative impacts on current residents. That's why lowering government spending levels - not just limiting future increases - is so important and so urgent.
