Live blogging Sandoval's State of the State speech tonight
Write on Nevada will be live blogging Gov. Sandoval's State of the State speech, and Assembly Speaker John Oceguera's response, beginning at 6 p.m. tonight.
What will Gov. Sandoval say? I don't have any inside information, but this preview from the Reno Gazette-Journal is a good summary of what's been revealed so far.
"I can't give you the speech now, but obviously, the priorities within the speech are going to be the budget, economic development and education," Sandoval said. "Those are the three very important components for the future of the state."Here is what NPRI is looking for:
1. Performance-based budgeting. As NPRI's "Better Budgeting for Better Results" study detailed last week, there's a better way to budget than simply rolling up existing costs. Gov. Sandoval has suggested that he's embraced some of the concepts of performance-based budgeting, so it'll be informative to see how he's incorporated performance-based budgeting in crafting his budget.
2. Controlling spending. If you're interested in controlling taxes, it begins and ends with controlling spending.
3. Refuting education myths. Specifically, the myth that Nevada doesn't spend enough. In the last 50 years, Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending, and our graduation rate is now 41.8 percent. A lack of funding is not the problem here.
4. Real education-reform proposals. Following Florida's educational reform model isn't the only way to improve education in Nevada, but it's a proven way.
Sandoval's aides have said that he's going to propose a constitutional amendment to repeal Nevada's Blaine Amendment, which would remove any constitutional problems with school vouchers. While Nevada would benefit from repealing the Blaine Amendment, that shouldn't be the only substantive reform Sandoval proposes. There are a lot of other educational reforms that should be pursued as well.
5. Refute the myth that government creates jobs or should "direct" the economy. If asked directly, most liberals will acknowledge that private enterprise is the key to long-term economic growth. But then in the next breath, they'll note how Nevada needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. Unfortunately, liberals don't believe that individuals working to pursue their own self-interest need to make the decisions that affect our economy - they think the government needs to pick the winners and losers in the economy and decide which industries they are going to favor with tax and regulatory breaks.
What's conveniently forgotten is that Nevada's government has been trying to do this for the last umpteen years. How's that worked out?
Nevada has taken a scattershot approach to economic development, which has resulted in numerous incentives that critics say dilute the state's success. To point: More than a dozen studies have been commissioned in recent years to study how Nevada can diversify, with little coordination or overlap.So what's Gov. Sandoval going to say? Come back at 6 p.m. tonight to find out.
"A lot of people are working independently from each other, and I think it needs to be brought together under one vision," former Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley said. "People need to not get distracted by 'Oh! Let's give the film industry an incentive. Let's try this, let's try that.' We end up trying to cater to everybody and end up not accomplishing anything." [Emphasis added]
Read moreMurphy v. Krugman
For those who haven't been following, there is a very interesting debate going on between Robert Murphy of the Mises Institute and Paul Krugman of the New York Times as to whether Keynesian or Austrian economic theory is more apt to describe current economic conditions and the business cycle in general.
It's riveting!
Is Clark County firefighters' abuse of sick leave criminal?
It's been apparent for years that Clark County firefighters have been gaming sick-leave policies to inflate their salaries.
Consider this egregious example of sick-leave abuse that an arbitrator noted in his decision to accept Clark County's final offer over the firefighters'.
In 2009, he took 48 days of paid sick leave, without ever taking 4 days in a row, so the Chief could require a certificate of illness. He worked 63 of his 121 scheduled shifts, took 11 days of vacation, and worked 92 shifts of overtime/callback. (County Ex. 16Y) He earned $232,187 for the year.
We've known for years these kinds of shenanigans have cost taxpayers millions of dollars, but now Commissioner Steve Sisolak is pointing out that these abuses might be criminal as well.
A Clark County commissioner has called for a criminal investigation into allegations of firefighters abusing sick leave.
Bolstered by critical comments from an arbitrator, Commissioner Steve Sisolak is sending letters to the FBI, the Metropolitan Police Department, the district attorney's office and the state attorney general's office asking that they look into whether some firefighters conspired to use sick leave to pad each other's paychecks and pensions.
When Commissioner Sisolak first started pointing out salary abuses by Clark County firefighters, some firefighters tried to intimidate him.
In retaliation, members of the union showed up at Sisolak's public meetings to glare at him. He said he received death threats, which prompted county administrators to post park police at commission meetings. A city firefighter posted on Facebook that she'd like to shoot him.
Commissioner Sisolak should be applauded for not backing down in the face of these shameful intimidation tactics. Taxpayers need advocates who will stand up to powerful, politically connected and well-funded special interests like the firefighters union and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately. More lawmakers should join with Commissioner Sisolak to ensure that waste and fraud, especially potential criminal activity, are eliminated in all of Nevada's fire departments.
House votes to repeal Obamacare
245-189. Only three Democrats voted for the repeal.
While Obamacare has many negative impacts (including job-killing regulations), its supporters often claim that it's a deficit-reduction bill.
Watch as Rep. Paul Ryan destroys that myth and explains how Obamacare, as it currently stands, will explode the deficit.
The repeal bill now moves onto the Senate.
(h/t Hotair)
Is the fox auditing the hen house?
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, President Obama announced an executive order for a "government-wide review of regulatory agencies." The president wrote:
This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.While President Obama correctly notes that many government rules make the economy less competitive, he fails to mention "reviewing" the job-killing regulations he helped pass, such as the Consumer Protection Bureau in the Dodd-Frank Bill or health care reform. Also, just last week the president touted tougher regulation for the oil industry as opposed to investigating the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
Reviewing and eliminating government regulations could help businesses create jobs, but to do that you actually have to review and eliminate government regulations. Let's hope the president's actions follow his rhetoric.
Greg Brower replaces Raggio; promises not to raise taxes
Details from the Nevada News Bureau.
The Washoe County Commission today selected former state Assemblyman and U.S. Attorney Greg Brower to replace retired GOP state Sen. Bill Raggio in the 2011 session of the Nevada Legislature.
Brower, the first applicant interviewed for the remaining two years of Raggio's term in Washoe District 3, said he was seeking the seat purely as a public service. Brower said he agrees with GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval that the upcoming two-year state general fund budget must be balanced with existing revenue.
"The governor is right," he said. "We can, we must balance the budget without raising taxes."
For those of you keeping score at home, Glenn Cook's column from two weeks ago is looking more and more accurate.
Budget cutting is a national trend
It isn't just Gov. Brian Sandoval. It's not just tea partiers. It's not just us liberty-lovers at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
Democrat or Republican, budget cutting is a national trend.
The dismal fiscal situation in many states is forcing governors, despite their party affiliation, toward a consensus on what medicine is needed going forward.
The prescription? Slash spending. Avoid tax increases. Tear up regulations that might drive away business and jobs. Shrink government, even if that means tackling the thorny issues of public employees and their pensions.
And why is cutting government budgets a national trend? Because as NPRI pointed out months ago, the unsustainable spending in which most states have indulged is unsustainable.
On the other side of the country, and in the other major political party, [Democrat] John Kitzhaber, the new governor of Oregon, elaborately described the state, which needs to bridge a projected budget deficit of $3.5 billion, as an old house in need of an overhaul.
"There are too many rooms, and they aren't the right size," Mr. Kitzhaber said. "There's no insulation, and the windows are drafty. And the cost of keeping this house is more than the family can afford. The roof needs to be replaced, and the siding is falling off."
In 2005, Nevada increased inflation-adjusted, per-capita spending by 30 percent [pgs. 5-6] (a 50 percent in unadjusted dollars). In 2009, the Legislature chose to avoid the inevitable spending correction and propped up the budget using one-time monies. Now Nevada must face fiscal reality, not make things worse by kicking the can down the road.
The good news is that Gov. Sandoval appears ready to join with numerous other governors in cutting state spending and has stated, "We're only going to spend the money we have."
Sen. Kieckhefer 'supports balancing the state budget with existing revenue'
So reports the Review-Journal:
Kieckhefer said he is "very friendly" with Gov. Brian Sandoval and supports balancing the state budget with existing revenue.
"We need to look at the state as a whole," he said. "See how much we have in tax revenue and how it best can be spent." [Emphasis added]
This isn't the first time Sen. Kieckhefer has said this, either. On the Nov. 13, 2010 episode of "To the Point," he told Anjeanette Damon this. (Video after the jump):
Damon: Is there any circumstance under which you would vote for a tax increase?
Kieckhefer: Not that I can envision right now. The governor has said he's going to put forward a budget that does not raise taxes and I'm obviously a strong supporter of Brian Sandoval. I think he's going to be an excellent governor and we'll be evaluating his proposal that will not have tax increases.
There's a big difference between saying and doing (not just for Kieckhefer, but for all politicians committed to limited government and not raising taxes, starting with Gov. Sandoval), but this is encouraging for taxpayers.
The proof is in the pudding, but if Sen. Kieckhefer and his liberty-minded colleagues in the Senate (including Sen. Lee?) hold fast, it will be impossible for leftists to raise taxes this session.
The above exchange starts at 4:34.
Sandoval: Furloughs out, pay cuts in
In a letter to state employees dated yesterday, Gov. Sandoval told them that he is proposing a 5 percent pay cut in his budget and ending the furlough program (and the accompanying 4.6 percent pay cut).
Thoughts:
1. From a policy perspective, this makes sense. As Gov. Sandoval wrote in his letter, the Cabinet officers have noted that "the furloughs are difficult to manage." It's also an encouraging sign for Gov. Sandoval's budget that will be released on Jan. 24. To keep his promise to spend only what the state has, he must reduce spending to around $5.3 billion.
2. As a courtesy to state workers, this letter makes sense. The letter (the best I can tell) wasn't sent to the media. It was sent directly to state employees. If you're going to cut someone's salary, telling the person directly is better than letting him or her hear about it in news reports.
3. This is not, NOT, a tax increase on state workers. While it's great to see leftists and state workers acknowledge the negative impact of tax increases, cutting state worker pay is exactly that - a pay cut, not a tax increase.
Exit question: How long until we hear someone say that if both a husband and wife work for state government, this would be a 10 percent pay cut?
And if you believe that it would be a 10 percent cut - think about it, think about it ...
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.
