Number 1: Why separation of powers matters: Is freedom inevitable?
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. This is my favorite post of the last year. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 1.
_________
Thoughts on this post: I hope this post helps remind people that freedom is rare and must be defended from even the smallest encroachments.
_________
Why separation of powers matters: Is freedom inevitable?
The answer to that question is obvious but essential.
Freedom is not inevitable. Historically, freedom is a temporary condition enjoyed by only a fraction of the earth's population.
Since freedom is not inevitable - indeed, the opposite is true; freedom is rare - we must ask, "Why are we free when others or not?"
As a nation (and state) of immigrants, we can't claim we are free because of our genetics. Our nation (and state) is blessed with natural resources, but so is Russia. Wealth does not produce freedom.
In America (and in Nevada), we are free, because our founders recognized that, as Lord Acton stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and designed a government with three branches of government. While these branches of government each have different functions, they also have the ability to check the power exercised by another branch.
To ensure that no person or group would amass too much power, the founders established a government in which the powers to create, implement, and adjudicate laws were separated. Each branch of government is balanced by powers in the other two coequal branches: The President can veto the laws of the Congress; the Congress confirms or rejects the President's appointments and can remove the President from office in exceptional circumstances; and the justices of the Supreme Court, who can overturn unconstitutional laws, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.Because we're so used to this system of government, it's easy to forget how important this system is to ensuring freedom.
Government is needed to secure an individual's right to life, liberty and property. But those wielding governmental power tend to corruption, which harms the very rights government was created to defend.
But using the checks and balances contained within three separate branches of government, you have a system where the tendency of government officials to amass power is checked by other government officials who usually aren't interested in giving up their power.
It's genius.
And it's also why it's so dangerous for one individual to work in two branches of government at the same time. Both the separation of powers and the checks and balances in the system go out the window if one person has authority in two branches of government. Instead of separating power, power is consolidated. Instead of one branch checking another, it could collude with it.
The idea of separating powers is so important that it's explicitly required in Nevada's constitution in Article 3, Section 1.
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...And that's exactly why NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation has sued Mo Denis, the Public Utilities Commission, and the State of Nevada for violating the separation-of-powers clause in Nevada's constitution.
Even the smallest encroachment in the separation-of-powers clause opens the door for larger and larger encroachments. Hello, Wendell Williams, Chris Giunchigliani, and Mark Manendo.
Once you remove the bright-line standard, it's only a matter of time before incremental "exceptions" render the provision meaningless.
And once you've removed the structural protections against, what James Madison called, "tyranny," you're left with a system of government dependent entirely on the character of its elected officials to keep it free from corruption and abuse of power.
As "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," this is a problem.
Freedom isn't inevitable. Freedom is rare, and we should do everything in our power to protect the form and structure of our government - including a clear separation-of-powers provision - which provided us with freedom.
Read moreNumber 2: Stop giving private businesses government handouts
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll share my favorite post tomorrow. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's post number 2.
_________
Thoughts on this post: One of the biggest misconceptions about about believers in free enterprise in general and NPRI in particular is that we always support "big business."
Nope. Believers in free enterprise support freedom in the marketplace, which means that individuals - not government officials, should decide who wins and who loses. If individuals choose a small business, great. If individuals choose a large business, great. If individuals choose a large business for a while and then decide they like another business better, great. There will always be winners and losers, but they should be selected by individuals, not government bureaucrats.
Always having to compete for business is difficult and risky. And so some businessman decide to try and use the power of government as a shortcut to profitability. One of their favorite excuses is that business subsidies are needed to spur "economic development." As this post shows, that is garbage.
_________
Stop giving private businesses government handouts
Whether politicians call it "business development," "economic diversification" or a "venture capital fund," handing out government - excuse me - taxpayer money to favored companies is corporate welfare and the very worst of crony capitalism.
Then why are politicians, from Gov. Brian Sandoval, Speaker John Oceguera, Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, Henderson Mayor Andy Hafen to even Texas Gov. Rick Perry, so eager to do it?
First, it looks good - for them! Not for taxpayers, not for the vast majority of the unemployed, not for the businesses (and their employees) who have their taxes used to subsidize their competitors. Corporate welfare looks good for politicians.
Why? Because they can put out press releases saying "they," your elected representatives, have created jobs, and "they" are fixing the biggest problem facing you and your community. Now, don't you want to vote for them again?
Second, when the jobs never materialize, politicians often aren't held responsible. And businesses receiving government largesse go belly up or produce significantly fewer jobs than advertised with astonishing regularity.
How about the $1.5 million lost when a company subsidized by Texas - authorized by Perry - went belly up? Gone.
ThromboVision, Inc., a medical imaging company, was also the recipient of an award from the Emerging Technology Fund: It received $1.5 million in 2007. Charles Tate, a major Perry contributor, served as the chairman of a state committee that reviewed ThromboVision's application for state funding, and Mr. Tate voted to give ThromboVision the public money. ...How about the $58 million Massachusetts gave Evergreen Solar, which recently declared bankruptcy? Gone.
According to a Texas state auditor's report, ThromboVision failed to submit required annual reports to the fund from 2008 through 2010, when the company went bankrupt. The report noted the tech fund's managers were "unaware of ThromboVision, Inc.'s bankruptcy until after the bankruptcy had been reported in a newspaper."
How about when Nevada spent $12 million to "create" five green jobs? Wasted.
Third, there's a significant misunderstanding in this country (among politicians and the public) about what or, more appropriately, who creates jobs.
Sure, politicians can create short-term jobs and bubble expansions by taking wealth away from citizens and manipulating interest rates, but neither those jobs nor the economic bubbles are sustainable. Exhibit A is the epic failure of the stimulus. Exhibit B is the high number of failed government interventions during the Great Depression.
Long-term economic growth, the kind that made America the richest country in the history of the world, where even 97.7 percent of "poor" Americas have televisions, comes from entrepreneurs - individuals acting in their self interest.
How does a system, rooted in individuals acting in their own best interests, benefit society in general and not just those individuals? Simple. In a free-market system, you earn money by making others better off.
Want to be rich? No problem. Just invent something to make other people's lives better off. Want to run a successful company? Meet your customers' needs at a competitive price. Want to put Wal-Mart out of business? Build a better store - "better" being determined by individuals making decisions about what's best for them.
The beauty of the free market is that individuals are incentivized to meet the needs of others. These free exchanges of money for goods or services leave both sides better off and are the basis for wealth creation.
A simple example: Imagine going into a McDonald's and ordering a Big Mac. You value the Big Mac more than the money it cost and McDonald's values your money more than the Big Mac. That type of win-win transaction - freely agreed to by both parties - is how wealth (not money, but wealth) is created.
Contrast that with government-directed "growth." Instead of spending money on satisfying customers' needs, businesses that want government handouts spend money lobbying and contributing to elected officials. This shifts the power from the consumer to the government. (There's a host of other reasons this negatively impacts the economy, the biggest being that government officials suffer from both an incentive and information problem, but that's a whole other issue.)
Indeed, the great success Texas had creating jobs while Perry was governor isn't about what Perry did. As noted above, the times Perry "did" things to grow the economy, he often failed.
Perry's great success in Texas is what he didn't do. In general, he didn't raise taxes, he didn't grow government, he didn't increase job-killing regulations, he didn't pass ObamaCare. Perry's success is that he got out of the way of entrepreneurs, and they built businesses while pursuing their own individual self interests.
Entrepreneurs are ultimately responsible for job growth in Texas or in any other state. The great achievement of a politician, then, is simply to create a low and uniform tax and regulatory burden and get out of the way.
And giving money to favored companies is the very definition of getting in the way. Those who care about long-term job growth, as opposed to short-term photo-ops, should oppose government giving tax-dollar subsidies to private businesses every chance they get.
Number 3: Great news: Underperforming math teacher ... transferred to another school
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. We'll be counting down the top five this week. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 3.
_________
Thoughts on this post: Often a story is more powerful than any number or set of statistics. This is one of those stories.
_________
Great news: Underperforming math teacher ... transferred to another school
Dave Berns with the Las Vegas Sun has been writing a series of articles on Chaparral High School. Included in Berns' most recent article was a perfect example of why school must be allowed to fire bad teachers.
Chaparral High School Principal David Wilson refers to math as "the gatekeeper" that determines the success or failure of high school and college students. Those who pass will move on. Those who don't will fail and may be "absolutely, positively" sentenced to a lifetime of weak professional and earnings prospects. Students will have five opportunities to pass the exam. ...So a math teacher isn't able to "meet the academic needs of students" at Chaparral and what happens - instead of being fired, like would happen to individuals in the private sector - he or she gets sent to another school where, presumably, he or she will continue to not adequately "meet the academic needs of students."
The academic and professional stakes are high, and Wilson has pushed the transfer of at least one math teacher since the start of the school year after he concluded that the educator was not able to adequately meet the academic needs of students. [Emphasis added]
This is outrageous!
Unfortunately, it's also not a one-time occurrence and isn't unique to Nevada. Here's how the movie "Waiting for Superman" describes the "dance of the lemons."
This is why it's so important that schools be allowed to fire bad teachers - the learning of students, including your kids and grandkids, is at stake. And while lawmakers made minor reforms during the 2011 Legislative Session - schools can now fire a bad teacher after three years of poor performance - that's of little comfort to the neighbor kid down the street, who needs an excellent teacher right now, not in three years. (And given the power of the union representing underperforming teachers, it's doubtful how many underperforming teachers will actually be removed.)
Nevada's children deserve better than lemons. To ensure the best educators are teaching our children, teacher tenure should be eliminated.
Number 4: Nevada spends $12 million to 'create' five jobs
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. We'll be counting down the top five this week. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 4.
_________
Thoughts on this post: This is what happens when government tries to pick the winners and losers in the economy. Instead of economic meddling, government should stick with its core functions like upholding the rule of law, public safety and education.
_________
Nevada spends $12 million to 'create' five jobs
If you ever need the perfect example of why government shouldn't be involved in economic development, consider this amazing story from Sunday's Las Vegas Sun.
Some statistics about Copper Mountain Solar, a 775,000-panel array outside Boulder City that went online last year as the largest photovoltaic solar plant in the United States, might seem surprising.Sempra Generation also received $42 million from the federal government.
And not in a good way. ...
Permanent jobs created: 5. That's not a typo. State incentives developer Sempra Generation received: $12 million. That's not a typo, either.
Gov. Brian Sandoval says the public money was well spent. "Every job is a great job," Sandoval said when asked if the benefits of the project justify the incentives. "It's the essence of what we are trying to accomplish here ... in terms of diversifying the economy and taking advantage of our renewable energy resources."
This is the problem with government-directed economic-development efforts. Politicians get positive media coverage from "creating jobs" and are long gone by the time reality surfaces and the jobs are few and far between, but taxpayers are left subsidizing politically connected business owners.
Such giveaways also undermine the strong entrepreneurial spirit that Nevadans are showing. In 2010, Nevada and Georgia had the highest entrepreneurial activity rates in the country.
Individuals don't need special tax breaks to create businesses and jobs. They need the freedom that comes with an equal and low tax and regulatory burden. Unfortunately, entrepreneurs in Nevada face numerous tax and regulatory barriers.
If politicians want to create jobs and not photo-ops, they should work to lower taxes for all and reduce the red tape businessmen and women face. It's not as glamorous, but being a public servant, compared to politician, rarely is. It is, however, a whole lot more effective in the long term.
Number 5: Will the Legislature stop the CCEA from blocking Jones' school-reform plan?
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. We'll be counting down the top five this week. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 5.
_________
Thoughts on this post: Here's a snapshot of who is stopping meaningful and proven education reform in Nevada - union officials who do everything they can to defend the status quo and protect bad teachers. Look for this battle to continue in 2012, although, both in Nevada and nationally, more and more people are realizing that reform is needed.
_________
Will the Legislature stop the CCEA from blocking Jones' school-reform plan?
Yesterday, I wrote about Superintendent Dwight Jones' awesome-sounding plans for education reform in CCSD. Last night at the school board meeting, Jones unveiled more of his plans, and they sound ... even more awesome.
Teachers' pay would be tied to performance, private charter schools could take over ineffective public schools and principals would gain power under a Clark County School District re¬organization blueprint unveiled Thursday by Superintendent Dwight Jones.Take a moment and read the Review-Journal's whole article, because this plan sounds like a great chance to introduce reforms that would lead to better teachers and greater student achievement.
So who could be opposed to substantial reforms that would benefit Nevada's students? The teacher union.
Ruben Murillo, president of the Clark County Education Association, which represents district teachers, noted that many of Jones' proposals would "require union action."Murillo's objections are ridiculous. Consider this statement - "It's a traditional way of paying teachers so it's fair and equitable." Really, that's your argument? We've been doing it for a long time, so it's fair? It's fair that we reward teachers for seniority and degrees instead of how good a teacher they are?
"I know a lot of our teachers would be very opposed" to replacing the salary schedule, Murillo said. "It's a traditional way of paying teachers so it's fair and equitable."
Murillo said he would have to speak with Jones about the proposals. Formal talks on a new labor agreement have not begun because the union and the district are waiting for lawmakers to pass a state budget, he said.
It's not fair for the super-talented young teacher who doesn't get rewarded for how good he or she is. It's not fair to our kids who are struck in classrooms with bad teachers. And it's not fair to taxpayers who are paying more for two factors that have little to no relationship to teacher quality.
Of course, Murillo's statements tell you all you need to know about the CCEA and its priorities - make sure all teachers get paid the same regardless of ability and only give raises for things unrelated to how effective a teacher is.
The real question is: Why is the CCEA, which along with the NSEA has been doing its best to kill or water down education reforms at the Legislature, allowed to block meaningful reform?
Amazingly enough, the CCEA is only in a position to block these reforms because of power they are given by the Nevada Legislature in NRS 288.
Why is it so hard to remove a teacher who's not teaching and replace that teacher with one who is?Aside from copying the reforms passed by Florida, the best thing the Legislature could do to increase student achievement is to repeal NRS 288 and give Jones a clear shot at implementing the awesome-sounding reforms he's proposing.
In Nevada, it's because Chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes compels school districts to negotiate long, difficult and costly step-by-step procedures that district administrators must follow to terminate a teacher. Moreover, NRS 288 requires that school districts must collectively bargain with teacher unions on a whole shopping list of "subjects" - making contract agreements between school districts and teacher unions into cumbersome obstacles to any school district effort to improve students.
For example, NRS 288 mandates that school districts bargain "total hours of work required," "policies for assignment of teachers," "materials for the classroom," "procedures for reduction in workforce," and "discharge and disciplinary procedures," to mention but five of some 28 compulsory subjects.
What results are pages and pages of contract provisions that, over years of negotiation cycles, end up damaging student achievement.
Number 6: Audio: Klaich admits NSHE's past hyperbole
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. The top five will come next week. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 6.
_________
Thoughts on this post: And for an example of this hyperbole, look no further than UNLV President Neal Smatresk and the comments he made in January 2011 on UNLV's budget. Unfortunately, as detailed by Regent Ron Knecht in a recent column, many liberals continue to make false or misleading claims about NSHE funding.
_________
Audio: Klaich admits NSHE's past hyperbole
For the past couple of weeks, I've been citing this quote by Chancellor Dan Klaich whenever someone would overstate the impact of Gov. Brian Sandoval's proposed reductions to the Nevada System of Higher Education.
I think we have been guilty of hyperbole in the past, where we get the first dollar of a cut and we would like you to believe that the sky is falling in. And here we are a few years later and, lo and behold, the sky is right where it started out. It has not fallen in.And now, for your listening pleasure, I have audio of his statement.
Unfortunately, those involved with the higher education system continue to make hyperbolic remarks. The latest:
Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, said hopelessness over long-term unemployment and pent-up anger about a funding imbalance that favors universities over community colleges has unemployed construction workers and others who are seeking retraining at their wits' end. ...Umm ... yeah. Can't you see the similarities between fighting an oppressive regime and fighting to get more of the state funding pie? Chancellor Klaich did tactfully decline to agree with Lee's call to arms, though.
"We will have to do as they did in Egypt, fight for those rights," Lee told the group, who didn't respond other than to thank him for his testimony.
What's worse is that in the same article, the reporter, Benjamin Spillman, misreports the size of the NSHE operating budget, which makes the proposed funding reduction look larger than it actually is.
Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval's budget proposal would cut the system's operating budget from the current level of $556 million to $395 million by 2013.False. The NSHE's current operating budget is $1.744 billion. Don't believe me? Check out the budget for yourself (second tab). What the $556 million figure refers to is the subsidy NSHE receives from the state, which is less than 32 percent of its operating budget.
In total, the reduction in state support proposed by Sandoval is less than 10 percent of NSHE's operating budget - and that's before you factor in tuition increases.
Crisis? Only if you're using hyperbole.
Number 7: Nevada or ... Somalia?
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post them from December 16 to January 2. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 7.
_________
Thoughts on this post: The hyperbole that inspired this post still makes me chuckle ... and cringe.
_________
Nevada or ... Somalia?
I was on KNPR's State of Nevada last week discussing the new Brookings report titled "Structurally Unbalanced" with Matthew Murray (the report's author), John Restrepo (a Nevada economist) and Launce Rake (PLAN's communications director). (Additional thoughts on the report are here.)
During the course of the conversation I noted that many of the so-called deep cuts that happened during the 2009 session and 2010 special session were either smaller-than-desired increases in state spending or small overall reductions.
The host then asked Launce to respond. Instead of addressing the facts that I presented, Launce accused me of being a "snake oil salesman" (22:40) and uttered this unbelievable bit of hyperbole (23:40).
"... a little dark humor here, but people are dropping dead on the sidewalk because of a lack of health care services. This is a reality that we're dealing with [in Nevada]. As long as the governor [Sandoval] is just going to parrot that snake oil and say, 'No new taxes,' and that's some sort of magic panacea, we are going to fail as a state. We are going to be the Somalia of the United States. We are no longer the Mississippi of the West. We are the Somalia of the United States."Yep, some leftists think Nevada is the Somalia of the United States. In the spirit of one of my favorite "Daily Show" segments, let's consider that statement.
Nevada:
Somalia:
Nevada:
Somalia:
Not sure...
Nevada:
When they don't have facts on their side, some individuals will use rhetorical hyperbole to try and scare people and discredit their opponents. Pretending that the situation in Nevada even holds a candle to the tragedy that has occurred and continues to occur in Somalia is beyond the pale.
Let's keep the debate focused on the issues and facts, not on fear-mongering rhetoric.
Number 8: The truth about pre-K (hint: it doesn't work)
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post them from December 16 to January 2. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 8.
_________
Thoughts on this post: The most frustrating thing about the education policy debate is that facts are routinely ignored by those seeking to spend more money and expand government. Facts like "Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending in the last 50 years.
The debate over pre-K is just another example of that. How do you deal with the experiences of pre-K in Georgia and Oklahoma, if they don't fit your narrative? Ignore them. Ignorance is bliss my friends, especially if taxpayers would be paying for it.
_________
The truth about pre-K (hint: it doesn't work)
At last night's education committee hearing, both Clark County Superintendent Dwight Jones and Washoe County Superintendent Heath Morrison indicated they are proponents of spending government money to provide pre-K services. Several liberal lawmakers have also previously indicated they are big fans of pre-K.
Each claims that funding pre-K increases student achievement.
Except it doesn't. Consider Georgia, which has had universal, state-subsidized pre-K since 1992.
Or consider Oklahoma, which has had universal, state-subsidized pre-K since 1998.
Now compare this to the reforms Florida instituted in 1998, and the ensuing results.
There's no contest. Why would anyone choose pre-K over the proven reforms of Florida? Bueller... Bueller...
Now, advocates of pre-K will cite small-, small-scale studies to justify this enormous expense, but those studies have significant limitations, which the Heritage Foundation's Lindsey Burke details here. She also explains here how government-funded pre-school could crowd out private alternatives.
In fact, the research in these papers is so important, I'm going to link to them again:
- Does Universal Preschool Improve Learning? Lessons from Georgia and Oklahoma
- More Government Preschool: An Expensive and Unnecessary Middle-Class Subsidy
State-subsidized pre-K is an enormously expensive program that produces little to no lasting increase in student achievement.
Number 9: Missing lawmaker alert: Have you seen this man?
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post one almost every weekday from December 16 to January 2. (Sorry for the delay; it's been busy.) We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 9.
_________
Thoughts on this post: Remember when Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea was one of the most fiscally conservative lawmakers in Nevada? Hard to believe, but it's true.
_________
Missing lawmaker alert: Have you seen this man?
In one sense, this man isn't missing at all. Pete Goicoechea was one of the most prominent figures during the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session and led Assembly Republicans as their minority leader.
But take a closer look at that undated photo from the Ely Times. In another sense, the man in that picture - the man who earned the right to wear that "Mean 15" hat by his courageous stand against new taxes in 2003 - has been missing for years.
For anyone who isn't familiar with the "Mean 15," or, more accurately, the "Fearless 15," 15 Assemblymen and women earned that badge of honor during the 2003 session when they stood up to Gov. Kenny Guinn and his plan to implement a gross-receipts tax in Nevada.
Thanks to a 1996 voter-approved initiative, the Nevada Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority in each legislative chamber to approve tax increases. That meant the 15 members of the Republican Assembly caucus [opposed to tax increases] controlled the minimum amount of votes required to block new taxes [during the 2003 Legislative Session]. Quickly earning the nickname "The Mean 15," the caucus unanimously rejected the governor's tax proposals.That group of 15 lawmakers then rejected tax increases during the 2003 session and a special session held right after the regular session. During a second special session, however, one of the "Mean 15" caved and voted to pass an $833 million tax increase, which at the time was the largest tax increase in Nevada's history.
But while The Mean 15 had the votes to block a record-breaking tax increase, Guinn's supporters in the legislature - majority Democrats in the assembly and a bipartisan group in the senate led by Republican Majority Leader Bill Raggio - were able to pass the appropriations bills with mere simple majorities. Lawmakers appropriated $4.83 billion in general fund spending - even though they lacked the supermajorities necessary to raise taxes to the level required to fund their spending.
Goicoechea, however, stuck by his principles to end, voting against the record-setting tax hike.
No one can take those moments of courage away from Goicoechea. He faced immense pressure from special-interest groups, Democrats and the leftists in his own party, led by Guinn and Raggio, and stood his ground - even through two special sessions.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. This past session, Goicoechea led Assembly Republicans in tax-increase negotiations with Democrats. He ultimately voted to raise taxes by extending over $600 million in "sunset" taxes.
Consequently, Goicoechea earned low scores, especially for a Republican, on both NPRI's 2009 and 2011 Legislative Report Card. In 2009, he scored only 34.86 percent (p. 18) and was not considered an ally of economic liberty. In 2011, he earned a 52.88 percent (p. 18). A lawmaker earning a score above 50 percent is generally considered an ally of economic freedom.
What changed from 2003 to the present for Goicoechea? Did he cave to political pressure? Did he have a genuine change in beliefs? Did he feel the need to cut deals to benefit his constituents in other areas?
I don't know, but I ask you again: Have you seen this man? The man in that hat? Nevada could use more courage from its lawmakers.
Number 10: A plan for Nevada: Follow PLAN's actions
In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post one each weekday from December 16 to January 2. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 10.
_________
Thoughts on this post: I love this story. While PLAN is publicly calling for higher taxes and more government spending, they're bragging to their donors about their ability to cut costs and do their job while spending less.
When they're spending their own money, even liberals are fiscally conservative.
_________
A plan for Nevada: Follow PLAN's actions
As the Legislature opens today, it's appropriate to share a good budget plan from a surprising source - PLAN.
You may have heard of PLAN - the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. They're the small group cheerleading attempts to raise your taxes and increase spending at the Legislature.
So why should Nevada follow PLAN's actions?
Because when it comes to its own organization (which it can't fund by taking your money), PLAN knows how to balance a budget - cut spending by 20 percent!
PLAN was hit hard by the economic downturn. But we developed a plan to ensure we move forward with our core mission intact. We cut our budget by 20 percent through a combination of staff layoffs, reduction in hours, and voluntary pay cuts.
Cut the budget by 20 percent while keeping its core mission intact? Now that sounds like a plan we can all support for Nevada - even PLAN.
