Las Vegas Sun editorial on public union salaries is ... right on the money
This is from a while back, but it's worth noting any time the Las Vegas Sun editorial page gets it this right, especially about a labor union issue.
Yet, the SEIU is asking for cost-of-living and merit raises over the next two fiscal years, according to the county. It is also trying to hold on to longevity pay for new employees. The county wants to freeze salary increases for a year and cut longevity pay, which is antiquated and costly, for new employees. ...It took me about 20 minutes to narrow the editorial down to these three paragraphs, because there was so much good stuff in it. I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing.
The unions should step back and look at this realistically: Americans who have jobs are thankful to be working; they're not demanding wage hikes.
The county should stand firm and focus its efforts on preserving and providing services. Given the economy, there is precious little funding, and salary increases don't serve the taxpayers well. They also don't help the unions. By continuing to hold out for salary increases, unions have hurt their credibility, and that's a price they'll have to pay in years to come. [Emphasis added]
Speaking of good things, this chart says it all when it comes to public employee salary increases during the economic downturn. Great job here by the Las Vegas Sun and Joe Schoenmann.
Exit question: Some Clark County employees were supposed to receive wage increases of over 23 percent in three years. Who approved that and did anyone think that was sustainable?
Read moreGreat 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.
Occupy Las Vegas decides to skip protesting Obama fundraiser
Today, President Obama visited Las Vegas for, among other things, a fundraiser at the Bellagio.
Part of Occupy Las Vegas' mission statement reads:
We want an end to corporate money's influence in politics, whether through campaign donations, PACs, or other groups. Money is not speech.For a group that claims to be interested in getting money out of politics, a protest outside of a luxury hotel where the President of the United States is holding a fundraiser would be a no-brainer, right?
We want truly effective campaign finance reform, so that corporations and other interests have no overwhelming advantage over the rest of us in any part of American politics.
Yes, and at one point, Occupy Las Vegas was planning to hold a rally, as OLV-forum-user hamnose wrote:
The RVJ on Saturday says Obama will be here Tuesday. I haven't seen any news concerning this since then. I notice that all the messages related to this event have disappeared from the OccupyLasVegas website. Has this been cancelled? Or has Obama cancelled his visit?
But cancel they did, because they're too busy ... or something.
From OLV-forum-user Breadman:
I wanted to help with a protest with the obama event but there's just too much to be done setting up the new occupation site. That mixed with the uncertainty about where he was supposed to actually be really threw a wrench in the works. You can be sure I'll be at the next political rally to remind people about our mission. Dems, Repubs, they're both crap at the moment. We won't miss the next few regardless of party.From OLV-forum user Tyrion:
At tonight's GA [General Assembly] there were a few reasons mentioned not to do this. The visit was happening too quickly for us to create a coherent response, and there were some concerns about the secret service. There was some disagreement here; some will be protesting the visit anyways, which is fine.One user, MIZZTAZZ [caps in the original], blamed the lack of protesting on Obama's secret travel schedule:
I finally discovered the VERY general location (east side of Vegas) that he'll be in tomorrow. The area is being blocked off so no one can determine the exact route he'll be taking. We discussed planning for future events and being ready to go with 10-12 hours notice (approx. what we'd have for tomorrow) for his next visit.Never mind that the Review-Journal noted Friday that Obama was having a "midday fundraiser at the Bellagio," and Jon Ralston literally posted the invitation to Obama's fundraiser early yesterday afternoon, Occupy Las Vegas claims they just couldn't figure out where the president would be. If only they had known, I'm sure they would have been out there protesting him just as vigorously as they protested at the Republican debate.
Right ... and if you believe that I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Since the Occupy Las Vegas group has stopped posting their General Assembly meeting videos on their livestream page, there's no way to verify why Occupy Las Vegas called off the Obama protest, but there are some dots here begging to be connected.
Less than two weeks ago, I exposed how union organizers are "behind" Occupy Las Vegas.
A key part of that article quoted union organizers using their influence (and promise to turnout union members to OLV events) to steer protesters away from protesting a Democratic event. They registered no objections, however, to protesting the Republican presidential debate.
Since union organizers guided Occupy Las Vegas protesters away from one Democratic event, it's likely they would do it again to try and avoid any negative publicity for the president they've heavily support with campaign contributions.
If Occupy Las Vegas was serious about protesting big money in politics, they would have protested the president's fundraiser as vigorously as they protested the Republican debate last week. Instead, Occupy Las Vegas is being influenced and/or guided by the very union groups that put the most money into politics.
If Occupy Las Vegas was living up to its own mission statement, they would be protesting unions for being among the largest campaign contributors in the country. Instead, Occupy Las Vegas is relying on union organizers to boost their numbers at rallies - assuming, of course, those rallies are to the liking of those unions.
A brief history of Project Labor Agreements in Clark County
Mike Chamberlin with the Nevada Business Coalition wrote a really terrific explanation of Project Labor Agreements this morning on the NBC blog.
And why should something as bland-sounding as a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) matter to you? Because, as the Right to Work Foundation notes, those PLA's can cost you and I, as taxpayers, millions of dollars.
A project labor agreement requires all contractors, whether they are unionized or not, to subject themselves and their employees to unionization in order to work on a government-funded construction project. This is done by including a union collective bargaining agreement in a public construction project's bid specifications. In order to receive a contract, a contractor must sign the agreement and subject its employees to union control. ...As Chamberlin describes, this is exactly what the Clark County Commission is trying to do.
The use of a project labor agreement usually results in cost overruns and higher construction costs for taxpayers. Qualified non-union contractors who wish to make lower-cost bids, and employees who wish to work non-union, are locked out of the project. However, politicians and government officials continue to impose project labor agreements to reward the union officials that fund their political campaigns and keep them in power.
The unions' only hope remaining was to use their political influence to force contractors to use union workers on public works projects. In 2009, a few months after unions spent more than $200,000 on just the four winning candidates in Clark County Commission races, the Commission took up a proposal to impose a PLA on every County construction project.There's a lot more good information at the NBC blog, so read the whole thing.
Only through the action of groups like the Associated Builders and Contractors, which were able to quickly mobilize a strong showing of opposition, was this attempt to impose the will of unions on the public stopped.
But that didn't stop the unions, or their favorite politicians. Rather than a blanket PLA, they've been working on imposing PLA's on individual projects, with the same ultimate effect.
Stunning video: Reid says "private sector jobs have been doing just fine"
And he said that today. October 19, 2011. On the Senate floor.
I'm not sure what state Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is from, but it must not have a 13.4 percent unemployment rate.
Wait, he's Nevada's senior senator? What is he saying?
Honestly, I have no idea.
The level of falsehood in that statement is stunning. As James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation notes:
While the recent decline in government employment has attracted attention, government employees have fared far better than private-sector workers in the recession. The unemployment rate of government employees is just 4.7 percent, the lowest rate of any industry. [Emphasis added]Maybe Reid's speech was written by the same people who thought the first stimulus would keep the national unemployment rate under 8 percent. That didn't work out so well. Under Reid and Obama's failed stimulus, the country spent $862 billion and ended up with the unemployment rate peaking at 10.2 percent.
My question for the presidential candidates: 'Who has the guts to admit we're broke?'
The GOP presidential candidates are in Las Vegas for a CNN debate tonight at 5 p.m.
While there are many questions worth asking the Republican candidates - and the current president - this is mine: Who will admit that the way our country's spending money is unsustainable, and what are you going to do about it? Note: If your answer doesn't involve reforming Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, we both know your answer is worthless.
If you'll notice, my question contains an assumption - that the way the federal government spends money isn't sustainable - to be blunt, we're broke! Unfortunately, that assumption is the truth: Our current spending path is unsustainable.
And if your answer is "taxing the wealthy," I have some bad news - to maintain our current spending path, we'd have to raise income taxes on the top two tax brackets to 206 percent and 233 percent. Give me a second to consult the Laffer curve - oh, wait - that's not going to work.
Fortunately, believers in limited government have offered concrete plans on how to fix Washington's out-of-control spending - from Heritage's Saving the American Dream plan to Paul Ryan's Roadmap for American's Future plan.
Fiscal conservatives and libertarians have the plans to fix this mess - actual concrete ideas - what I want to know is this: Which presidential candidate will have the courage to support them?
Union president pledges to understate CCSD per-pupil education spending by $4,000
Do facts matter?
More specifically, do they matter to Ruben Murillo, president of the Clark County Education Association - at least when it comes to accurately noting how much the Clark County School District will spend per pupil this year?
We'll find out for sure soon enough, but the answer seems to be "no."
Here's what happened.
Recently, Fox 5 interviewed Murillo and quoted him saying that CCSD only spends $5,000 per student.
Murillo said comparing the success of CCSD schools, where about $5,000 is spent on each student, to Andre Agassi is unfair.As both NPRI and Geoff Dornan of the Nevada Appeal have noted, that's flat wrong. CCSD will spend more than $9,000 per student this year.
"That is a unique charter and receives almost $13,000 per student."
Wondering where Murillo had come up with the $5,000 figure, I called him up and asked. Murillo told me the reporter had cited him accurately, but then admitted his figure was just an "estimate" and that it could be higher.
Murillo gave me his e-mail address, and I sent him the research linked above, showing that CCSD will spend more than $9,000 per pupil this year. And that $9,000 includes only "current" education expenditures. If you include total expenditures, CCSD will spend over $12,300 per student this year.
Murillo e-mailed me back and said that the spending amounts to which he had been referring were as follows (these numbers are per student, per school year):
Statewide average:He then wrote: "These are the figures I was referring to and will continue to use when addressing CCSD & Nevada per pupil expenditures."
11-12 $5,263
12-13 $5,374
CCSD
11-12---$5,136
12-13---$5249
I recognized these numbers immediately. These numbers represent how much Nevada's state government will spend on education through the Distributive School Account.
However, CCSD, like every school district in Nevada, also receives significant funding from the local and federal governments. This isn't a secret. It's spelled out clearly in the Nevada Plan, and for years, local funding for schools was actually greater than state spending. Here's what the Legislature's report on the Nevada Plan says (p 4):
The DSA is the budget through which the State distributes direct financial aid to local school districts. It does not include the entire funding for K-12 education but rather includes only the State's portion of the guaranteed basic support.After I e-mailed Murillo to explain the different sources of government funds (although I strongly suspect he knew this already) and encouraged him to be honest with the public, he wrote simply: "Thanks for your response."
While it'd be nice to think that Murillo will start telling the truth about Nevada's education spending, nothing in his e-mails suggests that such honesty is forthcoming. In fact, he explicitly committed to using inaccurate numbers to describe education spending in CCSD and in Nevada.
So much of today's education debate isn't about policy. It's about cutting through union lies, like this one, and making the public aware of what's actually happening.
It's not a policy argument to say that, "In the last 50 years, Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending." It's a fact.
It's not a policy argument to say that, "CCSD will spend more than $9,000 per pupil this year, excluding capital payments and debt outlays." It's a fact.
Whether or not Murillo knew the truth about education spending before our exchange, he most certainly does now. It will be shameful if Murillo and, by extension, the CCEA, choose to ignore this information and lie to the public about how much we spend on education in Nevada and in CCSD.
Teachers deserve to be represented by someone with enough integrity to tell the truth on a matter as simple as this.
We'll see if Murillo and the CCEA start discussing education spending honestly. But if they don't, the media, teachers and the public shouldn't let them get away with it.
I'll keep you posted.
GOP presidential dating game
Before the GOP presidential debates head into Las Vegas next week, you might be interested in this game put together by our friends over at the Reason Foundation.
It lists quotes from each of the candidates on a variety of policy topics and invites you to pick which quote most closely aligns with your particular views on the issue. At the end, it tells you who your GOP "sweetheart" would be.
Honestly, I would have preferred it just say "This guy's views are closest to yours," but Reason chose to go the sweetheart direction...
Video: EPIC rant from Occupy Las Vegas General Assembly meeting
Give this gentleman about 20 seconds to warm up and then look out! (Strong language warning)
What's ironic here is that this gentleman is/was a protestor with Occupy Las Vegas who's upset with the group for trying to tell him how to protest.
To learn more about the Occupy Las Vegas movement, I encourage you to read my column from yesterday, Union power, organizers 'behind' Occupy Las Vegas.
Horsford: I don't compromise my ideals and convictions
Hey, remember when compromise was the highest legislative ideal?
That's what Sen. Majority Leader Steven Horsford thought on May 8, 2011.
As the current legislative session approached, I hoped our state's political representatives would set politics and ideology aside, and then find a balanced solution to address Nevada's many challenges - a solution that would position Nevada for long-term success. ...Now that's he's running for Congress, however, Horsford remembers things a little differently.
In a continuing effort to find a responsible middle ground, the Democratic budget proposal introduced this week offers a balanced approach that includes significant budget cuts as well as new sources of revenue.
"I am known for working across party lines to get things done," he [Horsford] said. "What I don't do is I don't compromise my ideals and convictions. I don't sell my constituents out."Now he tells us! Turns out that, while he was brow-beating Gov. Brian Sandoval and Republican legislators to break their commitment not to raise taxes, Horsford didn't compromise his ideals or convictions one iota!
What's in the past is past, of course, but there's a valuable takeaway here.
The next time a liberal attacks a believer in limited government for not adopting a "balanced approach" to raising taxes or attacks them for signing a pledge not to raise taxes - they should just say they're following the example of Sen. Horsford by not compromising their ideals and convictions.
