ReasonTV: Health care mandates vs. pizza toppings
Why is health care insurance so expensive? Remy, with Reason TV, provides the answer in a very creative way.
The answer to rising health care costs isn't more government; the solution is less government.
Read moreCCSD report: State funding 'cut' results in increased funding to CCSD
I'm currently reading CCSD's 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and came across this gem.
In their transmittal letter, CCSD Superintendent Dwight Jones and CCSD School Board President Carolyn Edwards write (p. xviii):
During fiscal year 2010, the Nevada legislature was forced to respond to continued declines in revenues and cut state aid to the district from their original budgeted amounts. The result was that the District only received an additional $10 per pupil in fiscal year 2011 over fiscal year 2010. (Emphasis added.)Two things are remarkable here. First, this is yet another example of how often government 'cuts' are actually spending increases. After assuming an increase in spending, government agencies turn around and label reductions in future spending as a "cut," even if they receive more funding than they did the year before.
Second, this description, sadly, is actually better than most. At least it notes that the "cut" in state funding was from the "originally budgeted amount."
Many times government officials, including Gov. Brian Sandoval, Sen. Michael Roberson, Assemblyman Pat Hickey, and Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, just assert that spending more on education is a "cut," without any explanation that the state is, in fact, spending more.
It's time to acknowledge that Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending in the last 50 years and that spending more and hiring more teachers hasn't increased student achievement.
NPRI's litigation center files Supreme Court appeal in separation-of-powers case
NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation is taking our separation-of-powers case to the Nevada Supreme Court. Here are all the details:
CARSON CITY, Nev. - NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation has just filed its Notice of Appeal escalating to the Nevada Supreme Court its case, Pojunis v. State of Nevada, et al. - a case which seeks to fully restore the separation-of-powers clause found in Article 3, Section 1, of Nevada's constitution.
Within hours of being served with the Complaint in December 2011, state Sen. Mo Denis announced his resignation from his executive-branch employment with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Despite the important principle at stake and well-established, applicable exceptions to the "mootness doctrine," First Judicial District Court Judge James T. Russell ruled the case was mooted by Sen. Denis' resignation.
Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of CJCL, took issue with Judge Russell's decision and released the following comments:There are several well-established and compelling exceptions to the mootness doctrine that show why the Nevada Supreme Court should allow Pojunis v. State of Nevada, et al. to proceed. Among them is the "Public Interest" exception, and it is hard to imagine a case that better satisfies the "Public Interest" exception to the mootness doctrine than this one.CJCL's Notice of Appeal in Pojunis v. State of Nevada, et al. is available here.
Article 3, Section 1, of Nevada's constitution says, "The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others . . ."
This makes it perfectly clear that a sitting legislator cannot hold a job in the executive or judicial branch of government, and yet, there are at least 14 conflicting attorney general's opinions on this issue and no fewer than six current legislators who also hold jobs in the executive or judicial branch of state government.
This is the same separation-of-powers clause that the Nevada Supreme Court has written "is probably the most important single principle of government declaring and guaranteeing the liberties of the people." The court has also written that "[t]he separation of powers; the independence of one branch from the others; the requirement that one department cannot exercise the powers of the other two is fundamental in our system of government."
Agreeing with the Nevada Supreme Court that the separation-of-powers clause is "fundamental in our system of government," we believe strongly that this case meets the "Public Interest" exception to the mootness doctrine and should be allowed to proceed.
Even Governor Brian Sandoval, chief executive of the State of Nevada, which is also a named defendant in the lawsuit, has stated that this lawsuit "brings up a very important constitutional issue." Further, in regard to the separation-of-powers issue raised by this lawsuit, Governor Sandoval has implored the Supreme Court to "[s]ettle it once and for all."
Upholding the constitution's separation-of-powers clause is a fundamental and "public" legal issue, and we urge the Nevada Supreme Court to let this case proceed.
CJCL's Case Appeal Statement in Pojunis v. State of Nevada, et al. is available here.
More information on the case, including the original lawsuit, is available at the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation's website at http://justice.npri.org/cases/pojunis-v-state-of-nevada/.###
Story from NPRI's Nevada Journal picked up by Drudge, Rush, Fox News, Hot Air, Bill O'Reilly
Remember the Nevada Journal story I highlighted yesterday, which described how the solar plant President Obama spoke at Wednesday employed only five workers, after taking $54 million in taxpayer subsidies?
Government waste that outrageous isn't just news in Nevada - it's newsworthy all over the country.
First, several major political sites, including Hot Air, FoxNews.com, Gateway Pundit, and Bill O'Reilly, linked to the Nevada Journal story.
Next, Drudge linked to the story, and I must say, it's a blast watching your traffic after a Drudge Report link!
Then, on his radio show this morning, Rush Limbaugh read part of the article on his show and linked to NPRI's report on his site.
Of course, I'm excited, nay thrilled, about the traffic and exposure for NPRI and our publication, Nevada Journal, but I'm even more excited about two things.
First, it's great to add another bit of evidence that exposes the myth and lies surrounding "green energy" and "green jobs."
As NPRI President Andy Matthews said, "President Obama's visit to the Solar 1 Facility in Boulder City is the perfect illustration of why the president's economic policies are such a failure. The government has spent over $50 million to 'create' five permanent jobs and build a plant producing a product - expensive solar energy - that no one would purchase without a government mandate.
"That's not a path to a vibrant economy; it's the road to serfdom. This mindset - of government attempting to pick winners and losers in the economy through subsidies and regulation - is a major reason why the national unemployment rate is at 8.3 percent, Nevada's unemployment rate is 12.7 percent and the national debt is over $15.5 trillion."
Second, this is a very tangible way to show NPRI's friends and supporters that your work and contributions are making a big difference, not just here in Nevada - but around the country! NPRI doesn't exist with our supporters, and without our supporters, this story wouldn't have become part of the national dialogue. You are making a difference. Thank you!
Obama to tout green energy 'investments' at solar facility employing 5 workers, relying on $54 million in taxpayer subsidies
President Barack Obama is coming to Southern Nevada today, and NPRI's Nevada Journal points out the irony of the President's visit to the Solar 1 plant.
BOULDER CITY, Nev. - President Obama will tout investments in "renewable" energy Wednesday at the local Copper Mountain Solar 1 plant, although the plant has only five full-time employees.
The plant, owned by San Diego-based energy company Sempra, was built in late 2010 at a cost of $141 million. Funding included $42 million in federal-government tax credits and $12 million in tax-rebate commitments from the state of Nevada.
Construction of the plant involved over 300 part-time jobs, but currently only five full-time employees operate the plant, a Sempra spokeswoman confirmed. That comes out to $10.8 million in tax-dollar subsidies per employee.
Solar 1 is the largest solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant in the country and is regarded as a "revenue generator" by Sempra. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Boulder City expects to receive over $60 million in lease revenue from the plant.
Boulder City Manager Vicki Mayes, however, told Nevada Journal the $60 million was "highly inaccurate" and that the total lease revenue will be "much less."
Increasing green-energy production has been one of President Obama's main goals since he took office. Politicians such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and officials including Secretary of Energy Steven Chu have zealously encouraged green-energy subsidies in Nevada.Read the whole thing here.
In addition to wanting to create many new jobs, President Obama has claimed green-energy investment will decrease America's energy costs and reduce the country's dependency on foreign oil.
In Boulder City, however, renewables have produced no lower energy costs. Instead, in late 2009, the city approved a 35 percent rate hike, while power generated by Copper Mountain is to go to Southern California - rather than serve Nevadans whose taxes helped finance the plant.
The solar energy is being sold by Sempra to California, which has mandated that 33 percent of the state's energy must come from renewable sources by 2020.
Nationally, solar energy is unlikely to help the president achieve his goal of lower energy costs. Geoffrey Lawrence, deputy policy director at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, the free-market think tank that publishes Nevada Journal, noted in his Solutions 2013 report that, even according to the U.S. Department of Energy, solar-PV energy will cost three and a half times more than energy from traditional sources such as coal.
"President Obama's visit to the Solar 1 Facility in Boulder City is the perfect illustration of why the president's economic policies are such a failure," said Andy Matthews, president of NPRI. "The government has spent over $50 million to 'create' five permanent jobs and build a plant producing a product - expensive solar energy - that no one would purchase without a government mandate.
"That's not a path to a vibrant economy; it's the road to serfdom. This mindset - of government attempting to pick winners and losers in the economy through subsidies and regulation - is a major reason why the national unemployment rate is at 8.3 percent, Nevada's unemployment rate is 12.7 percent and the national debt is over $15.5 trillion."
The last time President Obama came to Las Vegas, NPRI's Nevada Journal caught him leaving an event promoting clean energy in a motorcade of 22 fossil-fueled vehicles.
RJ editorial: CCSD police force is overstepping its legal authority
For the last several months, Nevada Journal's Karen Gray has documented how police with the Clark County School District have overstepped their legal authority by, at the minimum, routinely issuing tickets away from school grounds.
At stake is no less than the rule of law. If the CCSD-PD, or anyone, is allowed to break the law in one case, what's to prevent them or someone else from breaking it in another? In the long run, you can't have a society based on the rule-of-law 98 percent of the time, 67 percent of the time or XX percent of the time. It's either a 100-percent thing or it's nothing.
Fortunately, the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board understands this and has called the CCSD-PD out for its "big overreach."
The matter should have put to rest last month, when the state's Legislative Counsel Bureau issued a legal opinion denying school police authority to engage in traffic enforcement on roadways far from schools. The bureau specifically examined the force's "mutual aid" claims under NRS 277.035 and NRS 277.110. "It is the further opinion of this office that (the statutes) do not authorize a school police officer to enforce traffic laws and ordinances and issue citations on streets that are not adjacent to school property," the bureau noted.Read the rest here.
If the Clark County School District needs an independent police force, its officers should operate solely on or very near school grounds.
It's way past time for CCSD to rein in its school police force. The law demands it.
Government math: $1 million subsidy for Reno windmills saves $2,785 since 2010
From the Reno Gazette-Journal:
Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.
The city's seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.
That's according to data available on Reno's new "open government" website that tracks the amount of power each windmill generates and the average wind speed from each day.At this rate, the windmills will have paid for themselves by the year ... 2551. But not to worry, these windmills are winning Reno awards and national recognition.
And while the windmill numbers are lackluster compared to other portions of the project, such as solar panels and retrofitted buildings, Geddes said Reno's green-energy efforts have earned the city national attention from the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Time and USA Today, as well as the National Resource Defense Council in 2010 naming Reno one of the top 22 "Smarter" cities in the country when it comes to renewable energy.Spending a million dollars to save $2,785 is smart? Only in government.
And to think some people want these bureaucrats to run our healthcare system and our economy.
(h/t Thomas Mitchell)
Sandoval's taxing situation
NPRI President Andy Matthews' thoughts on Gov. Brian Sandoval's decision to propose raising taxes in 2013:
First, let me say that I like Brian Sandoval. On the occasions I've met with him, I've found the governor to be cordial, engaging and admirably inquisitive.
And I had high hopes for his governorship. He arrived in Carson City pledging to fight tax increases, limit government spending and implement genuine reforms to Nevada's disastrous education system. On some occasions, he's followed through, and we at NPRI have applauded him when he's been right. And he's been particularly good on education reform and in his pick for Nevada's next superintendent of public instruction.
But our organizational mission, our commitment to our principles and our understanding of the implications of policy choices compel us also to point out when the governor - any governor, Republican or Democrat - is wrong. And we must do so unequivocally. This is essential, because a policy will have the same consequences whether it's passed by Republicans or Democrats.
We've been critical of Gov. Sandoval this week - and rightly so. The governor's decision to support an extension of the tax increases scheduled to sunset next year - a decision that has already drawn support from prominent Republican legislators - represents bad policy and, if implemented, will have negative consequences. Plain and simple.
The governor could have chosen a different path. He could have reiterated his own argument from 2010 that raising taxes is "the worst possible thing you can do" after a recession. He could have pointed out that Nevada's economic downturn has occurred in the aftermath of a massive government spending binge, and that it was that recklessness, not insufficient tax revenue, that caused Nevada's fiscal woes. He could have embraced cost-saving measures like those championed by NPRI as the superior solutions to our state's challenges. He could have stood with Nevada taxpayers in the fight over the future of our state.
But he didn't.
Extending a temporary tax that is set to expire is, by definition, a tax increase. Given the choice between accepting a higher tax burden on Nevada's businesses and families and fighting for a lower one, Gov. Sandoval and his political allies have chosen the former course. And if they get their way, Nevada's job creators - and job seekers - will be worse off for it.
The speculation is that Gov. Sandoval and legislative Republicans are making this move in order to "take the issue off the table" in 2013. Conceding defeat always takes the issue off the table - but only briefly, until your opponents, sensing weakness, come at you again.
I'm not naïve. I understand that politics involves trade-offs and compromises. But that's exactly why organizations like NPRI are so important, and why it's imperative that we remain firm in the midst of the ever-shifting political winds. We're beholden to no political party, no interest other than the preservation and advancement of liberty. Those who put their faith in politicians will inevitably be let down. What's important is that the free-market cause have someone willing to lead when the politicians can't, or won't.
There is, of course, still time for the governor and his allies in the Legislature to choose the right course. Statements have been issued, but no votes have yet been cast. It's not too late for each elected official who campaigned as a fiscal conservative to govern as one.
The news this week doesn't mean that this fight is over. It just means that those of us who believe in limited government and individual freedom have some real work to do in the months ahead. So let's get to it.
Until next time,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
After four rounds of 'cuts,' state K-12 education funding at highest level ever
Here's a perfect example of the doublespeak engulfing the debate on Nevada's education system.
Wednesday on Face to Face, Assemblyman Marcus Conklin bemoaned that state K-12 education funding has had "four rounds of cuts" in recent years. (13:48 mark)
Host Jon Ralston: You think that even though Sandoval is essential keeping everything flat, we need more money in education. ..."Four rounds of cuts"? Let's look at state K-12 funding over the last several years. This comes from p. 9 of the Legislative Appropriations report on the education budget.
Conklin (13:33 mark): Fundamentally, the question is, "Do we spend enough now?" We've gone through four rounds of cuts. ... Those cuts mean we have more kids in class in K through 12, particularly in Clark County.
At some point in time, we have to recognize that those things affect the outcomes. The outcomes are our students; the outcomes are their ability to earn an income and grow our future economic potential.
In case you can't see the screen shot, here's how much state government has spent per pupil since 2004:
2004 (all years are fiscal years): $4,298, $311 increase over the previous yearSo for those of you keeping track at home, "four rounds of cuts" have produced a $26 per-student funding decrease in 2010, which came after at least six years of sizeable spending increases, and record-high amounts of state education funding in 2012 and 2013.
2005: $4,433, $135 increase
2006: $4,490, $57 increase
2007: $4,699, $209 increase
2008: $5,125, $426 increase
2009: $5,212, $87 increase
2010: $5,186, $26 decrease
2011: $5,192, $6 increase
2012: $5,263, $71 increase
2013: $5,374, $111 increase
How many unemployed and underemployed Nevadans would love to have pay "cuts" like education has had "spending cuts"? Instead, if Sandoval and Democratic and Republican leaders get their way, all Nevadans will face higher sales taxes and vehicle registration taxes and most of their employers or potential employers will face higher payroll taxes - all to prevent "further cuts" to a program with record-high state funding.
Later on the show, Conklin says, "At the end of the day, nothing is going to get done without dialogue and that dialogue has a beginning point."
I'd like to nominate the beginning point of this dialogue to be the truth and ask Conklin, Gov. Brian Sandoval, Sen. Michael Roberson, Assemblyman Pat Hickey, Superintendent Dwight Jones and Superintendent Heath Morrison to accurately describe the current level of state K-12 funding.
When "four rounds of cuts" lead to record levels of state K-12 education funding, it's easy to understand how many people think we need to spend more, even though Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending in the last 50 years while student achievement has stagnated and Nevada's graduation rate has fallen to 45 percent.
As Nevada's new Superintendent James Guthrie has noted, money is not the problem in education today.
I emailed Assemblyman Conklin for his comments on this last night. I will let you know if he responds.
Roberson campaign website: Repeal the payroll tax increase, repeal the vehicle registration increase
Then-candidate Michael Roberson in 2010.
If elected I would like to enact common sense legislation to ease the burden government places on our citizens. Some examples include:
Repeal the recent vehicle registration fee increases.
Times are tough. Many families are struggling to pay bills and put food on the table. Last legislative session, the Legislature imposed massive car registration fee hikes - this tax hurts working families, and also decreases auto sales. If elected, I will work to repeal these regressive tax increases.
Repeal the payroll tax increase
In the 2009 session, the Legislature voted to double the payroll tax. This is not the way to deal with our budget problems. When businesses are faced with higher payroll taxes, they are less inclined to employ people. We must not hinder new job growth, and if elected, I will work to repeal the payroll tax increase while creating incentives for businesses to add more employees.
Now a senator and presumed leader of the Senate Republican Caucus, here's Roberson earlier this week.
Sen. Michael Roberson, R-Las Vegas, voted against last year's budget largely because of the extension of taxes that would have expired June 30, 2011. On Tuesday, Roberson said he would support the governor's budget blueprint, tax extensions and all.There's no doubt this is a major blow for fiscal conservatives and the cause of limited government. For some perspective, read this July 2011 column by Glenn Cook praising Roberson and his potential to champion limited-government causes as head of the Republican Senate Caucus.
"I am cognizant that right now, that includes needing the revenue from the taxes due to sunset," he told The Associated Press.
Michael Roberson is taking over for Bill Raggio. And Michael Roberson is no Bill Raggio. ...Cook's still right in that there are differences between Roberson and Raggio - though likely not in the way he meant. One clear difference is that Raggio got minor reforms in exchange for conceding on taxes at the end of the legislative session. Roberson acquiesced 10 months before the session even started and received nothing in exchange except for calls for even higher taxes.
Roberson also set himself apart from his colleagues during the 2011 session by being unafraid to publicly challenge Democratic legislation, whether in committee meetings or on the Senate floor, while fighting for Republican bills, even if they had no chance of passing.
And the attorney stuck by his promise to oppose tax increases, voting against the compromise budget signed by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval. Roberson was the Senate's most vocal advocate for Nevada businesses and its harshest critic of public-sector unions.
He's eager to take that fight from the Legislative Building to the campaign trail.
Bonus video: In 2010, Sen. Kieckhefer promised not to vote to renew "sunset" taxes. He voted to renew the "sunset" taxes in 2011.
