All NV Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves from the Foreclosure Mediation Program case
That's the conclusion of my just-released commentary over at NPRI.org.
Imagine that, less than three years ago, you helped create a new government program.The whole thing - especially the comments by Assemblyman Marcus Conklin - is stunning.
On multiple occasions, you testified before legislative committees on how to set it up. You contributed an amendment to the legislation establishing the program. Once the bill was passed, you and your colleagues mobilized to implement the program, from scratch, in less than 30 days.
Then, your office ran the program and collected fees from it for the next 2½ years - as you do still today. Prominently, on your website, you feature a link to the program.
Frequently, you've gone on television, proclaiming the program a success (Oct. 31, 2011 edition of Nevada Newsmakers, 16-minute mark) and boasting how many people the program has helped. One of your colleagues proclaimed it probably the "most financially stable government program in the state."
Now, imagine that another organization challenges the program's constitutionality and appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Wouldn't you and your colleagues be inclined to vigorously defend your handiwork?
Why, no ... supposedly. Not if the challenged law is the Foreclosure Mediation Program and you're a justice on the Nevada Supreme Court.
In that case, you'd be the ones ruling on the constitutionality of the program!
Yes, you read that right.
The individuals who administer the program, who helped craft the original law, who implemented the program from scratch, who advertise the program on the Supreme Court website, who have frequently and publicly bragged about how many people the program has helped, who collect fees from the program - they are going to be the impartial arbitrators of the program's constitutionality?
Yep. That is exactly what the Supreme Court is preparing to do.
The Supreme Court runs the Foreclosure Mediation Program. The Supreme Court is preparing to rule on the constitutionality of the Foreclosure Mediation Program. That's the very definition of conflict of interest.
The emperor has no clothes here. Everyone knows it, and it's time to start acknowledging it - or Nevada's judiciary will once again become America's judicial laughingstock.
Every Supreme Court justice should recuse themselves from this case - which would be a de facto admittance that the Foreclosure Mediation Program violates the Separation-of-Powers clause in Nevada's Constitution and is unconstitutional.
Read moreThe power and promise of digital learning
Imagine you or your child could have personalized lesson plans with almost instantaneous feedback on how you're doing on a particular subject area. That's the power of digital learning, and it's just not possible in a traditional classroom. The teacher prepares lessons for the class as a whole and has to teach the class, not a particular student. For many students - especially with a high-quality teacher - this model works great.
For other students, that style of learning doesn't meet their particular needs. That's one of the promises of digital learning - giving students who aren't learning in the current system another chance.
As the Review-Journal noted a while back, CCSD has done a good job incorporating digital learning by running a "Virtual High School."
New Clark County School District Superintendent Dwight Jones is fully behind such reforms and rightly sees the Internet as a tool to not only improve the graduation prospects of credit-deficient students, but provide gifted and motivated teens with opportunities to achieve their potential.For those of you interested in learning more about digital learning, especially how Nevada compares to other states, let me offer you two publications.
Virtual High School is growing, the Review-Journal's Trevon Milliard reported Sunday. The 7-year-old program has 12,000 students this year and a goal of enrolling 30,000 by next year. ...
With online classes becoming more common at colleges and universities, it's imperative that the Clark County School District offer more such alternatives to students serious about graduating and getting on with their lives. Online courses for middle school students are in development.
First, is NPRI's study on digital learning in Nevada, Transforming Education in Nevada Through High-Quality Digital Learning.
Second, is a study by the Foundation for Excellence in Education, which is headed by former FL-gov. Jeb Bush. Called the "Roadmap for Reform: Digital Learning," it details the ten elements of high-quality digital learning. It also grades every state on 72 metrics from those ten elements. Nevada's report is here. As you can see, the Silver State is strong in some areas but also has room for improvement.
Sebelius backs away from false dichotomies; a response on the issues raised
A little back story here. On Sunday, Steve Sebelius wrote a column claiming that some conservative legislators didn't "want schoolchildren to enjoy a good breakfast."
On Monday, I wrote a blog pointing out how Sebelius' piece was full of false dichotomies. Sebelius' Wednesday column responded to my blog by backing away from the false dichotomies he used before, but claiming that conservative lawmakers put their "philosophy" "above the needs of real people suffering in real life."
I just submitted the following to the Review-Journal as a letter-to-the-editor response. It's a bit long, so we'll see if they run it.
In the meantime, here it is. I'd enjoy reading your thoughts, on the issues it raises, in the comments.
_______
In his recent column ("Don't put philosophy ahead of people," Nov. 9, 2011), Steve Sebelius backs away from claims in his previous piece ("Defending liberty?" Nov. 6, 2011) that conservative legislators "don't care if schoolchildren go hungry," this time granting that "Nobody is happy about kids going hungry or workers dying in industrial accidents."
Having abandoned his textbook false dichotomy - either you agree with liberal policies or you must not care if "parents labor in unsafe workplaces" - he nonetheless misses the mark in his more recent piece.
Part of Sebelius' beef is with lawmakers who voted against AB 137 and AB 254 during the last legislative session. He argues, in his more recent column, that even if these conservatives would prefer that children not go hungry, the "conservative philosophy" that drove those legislators to vote as they did will have the effect of hurting "real people suffering in real life." But that isn't the case.
AB 137 would have required every school district in the state to increase enrollment in the school breakfast program by 10 percent per year - until "the school district achieves 100-percent participation in the school breakfast program."
Leaving aside the fiscal folly of subsidizing meals for students whose parents are millionaires, this isn't about breakfast at all - it's about control, and the question of who should raise and feed your children. Sebelius and other liberals think the government should. Conservatives and the vast majority of parents think parents should.
It is precisely because parents love their children so much that most prefer that they - not Carson City bureaucrats - determine what their child eats.
AB 254 wasn't any better. It would have given government bureaucrats the ability to fine employers if "any employee has access to a hazard." The ambiguity of this phrase would have let bureaucrats fine employers for almost anything.
Imagine a construction worker working with a nail gun. Properly used, a nail gun is an important tool. Improperly used, it can be deadly. Is access to a nail gun a finable offense? The law would have left that up to a bureaucrat.
Sebelius thinks government bureaucrats should have this practically unlimited ability to fine because of the tragic deaths of construction workers on the Strip.
Except, as reported by the Las Vegas Sun, the problem wasn't that OSHA was powerless to fine construction companies or didn't know about the unsafe working conditions. The problem was that "investigators found serious safety violations in the cases, but the agency often did not follow up with aggressive enforcement. Instead, after meeting privately with contractors, the agency withdrew or reduced fines."
So Sebelius' argument for giving government more power rests on the fact that, a few years ago, a bureaucracy failed to properly use the power it already had.
That, in a nutshell, is the case for liberalism. Government misused its power, so we must give it more power - and if you don't agree with that, you're starving children and endangering workers.
The "abstract vision" that Sebelius mocks, and that conservatives and libertarians fight to maintain, is freedom. It is the commitment of believers in freedom that stops government from fully controlling families and businesses.
And I'll take that philosophy - and its practical implications for people - every time.
Victor Joecks
The writer is the communications director for the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
PERS works as designed, gives Rogers $150K a year retirement
In today's Review-Journal, Knight Allen uses David Roger's retirement announcement to write an absolutely devastating critique of Nevada's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).
Mr. Roger is 50 years old. He has worked in government for 25 years and, following the PERS rules, he is eligible for a $150,000-a-year pension for the rest of his life. ...Yep. What he said.
In 25 years, has Mr. Roger really contributed so much more to society's well-being than the private-sector working people who are now being forced to work into their late 60s and even 70s, only to wind up with a fraction of Mr. Roger's golden-parachute pension?
Let's be clear. Mr. Roger has not "gamed" the system. He's played it straight all the way. It's the system that has gamed the people of Nevada. PERS, as it exists now, is a cancer on the body politic, and if left untreated it will destroy us. [Emphasis added]
If you want to know how bad it is, check out NPRI's recent study on PERS, which finds that PERS's true unfunded liability is over $40 billion and PERS is only funded at about 34 percent!
The long-term solution is moving all public employees to a defined-contribution pension system.
If you're interested in this topic, I invite you to join NPRI for a luncheon next Tuesday, November 15, on the problems with PERS. Andrew Biggs, who wrote NPRI's PERS study, will be speaking about Nevada's shortfall and what we can do about it.
More information on the luncheon is available here and you can register online here.
$150,000 a year in guaranteed retirement benefits for a 50 year-old isn't sustainable.
Reform has to happen and the sooner, the better for all involved.
'I have to grow up. I have to incorporate what I want and what I can have.'
The perfect contrast with yesterday's story about the "Occupy" protester who handcuffed himself into a barrel with no plan on how he would eventually unhandcuff himself.
This quote comes from 18 year-old Daniel Schwartz, who chose to attend City University of New York's Macaulay Honors College over Cornell University, because he couldn't justify spending $50,000 a year for a bachelor's degree.
Mr. Schwartz started at the Macaulay Honors program at Queens College this fall with "nagging" disappointment but has come to terms with his decision.Economists call this scarcity. Scarcity is the "basic economic problem that arises because people have unlimited wants but resources are limited. Because of scarcity, various economic decisions must be made to allocate resources efficiently."
"I have to grow up. I have to incorporate what I want and what I can have," he says. "Even though people say money shouldn't be everything, in this situation, money was the most important thing."
He says he had grown enamored with the "prestige" of an Ivy League degree. His teachers cited the networking opportunities and academic rigor. It didn't help that his father attended Princeton University and his uncle, Columbia University.
"I thought that the Ivy League title would really, really boost my chances of getting into a good med school," Mr. Schwartz says. Now, he is aiming for top grades at Macaulay to remain competitive with Ivy League candidates.
In real life, recognizing this and reacting accordingly is a sign of maturity and, well, adulthood. Congrats to Schwartz for making a mature decision. It certainly bodes well for his future and offers a powerful contrast to those "Occupiers" demanding the government bail them out for their own poor decisions.
Steve Sebelius loves false dichotomies
So, are you a liberal, or do you want children to go hungry and workers to die?
That would be a false dichotomy, but that's the tactic Review-Journal columnist Steve Sebelius used yesterday to try to tarnish conservative legislators.
Observe:
So what exactly is a "defender of liberty"?Here's how Prof. Rick Grush of the University of California, San Diego explains the logical fallacy of false dichotomies. As you can see, Sebelius' statements would be textbook examples of false dichotomies.
According to the American Conservative Union, it's a person who doesn't want schoolchildren to enjoy a good breakfast.
It's a person who opposes strict regulation of workplace hazards, even after a dozen workers died in construction accidents on the Strip.
It's a person who thinks child care workers don't need more training.
It's a person who thinks a local redevelopment project funded by local tax dollars shouldn't have to employ local residents.
The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities.At the end of his piece, Sebelius doubles down on his false assumptions:
The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.
Either you let me go to the Family Values Tour, or I'll be miserable for the rest of my life. I know you don't want me to be miserable for the rest of my life, so you should let me go to the concert.
Either you use Speed Stick deodorant, or you will stink to high heaven. You don't want to stink, so you better by [sic] Speed Stick.
Has conservatism really come to this? Honoring people who don't care if schoolchildren go hungry and show up to underfunded schools or questionably regulated day care centers while their parents labor in unsafe workplaces, assuming they can even find work at projects taking place in their own blighted neighborhoods?Unfortunately, personal attacks on conservatives have been standard operating procedure for leftists for years and years. I submit that that's what happens when your ideas fail. Remember this video, which showed "Paul Ryan" pushing a grandmother off a cliff, because he proposed reforming Medicare?
How do you argue with leftists who resort to personal attacks and logical fallacies? I'd submit you don't.
If a pundit won't even acknowledge that those who disagree with him might have sincere (or at least non-evil) reasons for their political positions, it's not worth your time trying to convince him.
Just make sure others are aware of the logical fallacy - and how laughable and simplistic the claim is - and move on.
Video: How will this 'Occupier' go to the bathroom?
As you can tell from the video, this is a serious question. [Language warning]
I hope he's got one of these.
As for the other obvious question - I have no idea how he'll get out. And as you can see in the video, neither does he.
(h/t Hotair)
Conklin signals interest in revenue-neutral tax reform
Session after session, liberals bemoan Nevada's "narrow" tax base and claim they to want to reform Nevada's tax structure. And, session after session, liberal proposals to "expand" Nevada's tax base end up being little more than political cover for massive tax increases.
With Sen. Majority Leader Steven Horsford and Speaker John Oceguera both deciding to run for Congress, however, there is a chance for new Democratic leaders, including Assembly Majority Leader Marcus Conklin, to separate the debate on Nevada's tax structure from the debate on how much Nevada collects in taxes.
In an interview on Nevada Newsmakers, Conklin indicated he's willing to do just that. (11:19 mark)
Conklin: There are significant downfalls with the current revenue system. So even if it's not an increase, at least from my perspective, I think we need to continue to take a hard look at the revenue system that we have in place, which was largely built in the 60s and 70s. And the question is, "Does it reflect the economic activity that takes place in our state these days?" And I think the answer to that is probably no. [Emphasis added]While I would be shocked if Conklin didn't also want a massive tax increase during the 2013 session, it's encouraging to hear him say that he's willing to discuss Nevada's tax structure and the amount Nevada collects in taxes separately.
This is exactly what NPRI did last year, when we released our tax study, "One Sound State, Once Again: Comprehensive fiscal reforms to again make Nevada strong, prosperous and free." Authored by Geoffrey Lawrence, One Sound State was and is a comprehensive plan to restructure Nevada's tax system in a revenue-neutral manner.
Let's hope legislators give it another look in 2013.
Graduate student shocked to discover masters in puppetry didn't lead to job offers
Ideas have consequences and so does racking up $35,000 in student loans to pursue your passion in puppetry. Unfortunately for this gentleman, just like with government policy - good intentions do not produce good results.
A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an MFA in his passion-puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren't exactly in high demand, he went looking for work at his old school. The intervening years had been brutal to the city's school budgets-down about 14 percent on average since 2007. A virtual hiring freeze has been in place since 2009 in most subject areas, arts included, and spending on art supplies in elementary schools crashed by 73 percent between 2006 and 2009. So even though Joe's old principal was excited to have him back, she just couldn't afford to hire a new full-time teacher. Instead, he's working at his old school as a full-time "substitute"; he writes his own curriculum, holds regular classes and does everything a normal teacher does. "But sub pay is about 50 percent of a full-time salaried position," he says, "so I'm working for half as much as I did four years ago, before grad school, and I don't have health insurance.... It's the best-paying job I could find."A masters in puppetry didn't lead to upward mobility - I'm shocked, absolutely shocked!
Like a lot of the young protesters who have flocked to Occupy Wall Street, Joe had thought that hard work and education would bring, if not class mobility, at least a measure of security (indeed, a master's degree can boost a New York City teacher's salary by $10,000 or more). But the past decade of stagnant wages for the 99 percent and million-dollar bonuses for the 1 percent has awakened the kids of the middle class to a national nightmare: the dream that coaxed their parents to meet the demands of work, school, mortgage payments and tuition bills is shattered. Down is the new up.
And these are the people the rest of society is supposed to subsidize by forgiving their student loans? And here I thought liberals were opposed to regressive distributions of wealth.
Surprise: Cost of CA light rail triples ... before construction even begins!
Of course, this isn't really a surprise at all. High-speed rail has been an expense boondoggle in the United States and around the world.
Consider this just another example of why you shouldn't trust government "experts" or estimates who are trying to get taxpayers to pay for something.
Faster than a speeding bullet train, the cost of the state's massive high-speed rail project has zoomed to nearly $100 billion -- triple the estimate given to voters and more than enough to run the entire state government for a year.At one point, some in Nevada had been promoting a high-speed train between Las Vegas and California. Let's hope this news puts those ideas to rest. Otherwise, what's happening right now in California will happen in Nevada. And as a taxpayer, you'll be stuck with the bill!
What's more, bullet trains won't be up and running until at least 2033, much later than the original estimate of 2020, although that depends on the state finding the remaining 90 percent of the funds needed to complete the plan.
The new figures come from a final business plan to be unveiled by the California High-Speed Rail Authority on Tuesday, though some of the details were leaked to the media, including this newspaper, on Monday. Officials at the rail authority did not respond to repeated requests for comment Monday.
Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday was expected to endorse the long-awaited plan, the first major update to the project in two years and the last before the federal deadline to begin construction next year. But state legislators, who were already skeptical, will tear through the plan starting Tuesday before deciding whether to start building, or to kill the project.
The new business plan pegs the price tag at $98.5 billion, accounting for inflation -- more than double the estimate of $42.6 billion from two years ago, when it was already the priciest public works development in the nation. It's a little less than triple the estimate of $33.6 billion voters were told when they approved the project in 2008. By comparison, the total state budget this year is $86 billion.
