A modest step forward: CCSD starts open enrollment
CCSD's only doing it on a limited basis, but it's a start.
The Clark County School District unveiled plans Monday to expand school choice for students in 2011-12, but many of the district's most desirable options probably will be off limits.A full list of available schools is here. Answers to FAQs are here. And if any parents want to apply, they can do so at the CCSD's website.
Current schools of choice, such as magnet and vocational schools, won't be included in the open enrollment plan. Schools that are at or above their normal enrollment capacities also will be excluded.
That would rule out schools such as the Las Vegas Academy, the district's magnet school for the performing arts, and Henderson's Green Valley High School, which is at its enrollment capacity this year. ...
The schools with the space to offer open enrollment will be announced today on the district's website, http://www.ccsd.net/. The list will include 41 elementary schools, 19 percent of district elementary schools; 48 middle schools, 81 percent of district middle schools; and 16 high schools, 33 percent of district high schools.
CCSD should be congratulated for taking a modest step toward recognizing that parents deserve more educational options and choices.
This plan isn't going to solve all or even many of CCSD's problems (and given that parents are responsible for transportation and can't transfer back to their original schools, it has some issues as well). But parents should hope that it's the first of many steps CCSD takes toward increasing educational freedom. Continuing to follow Rory Reid's education plan would be a good place to start.
The only concern here is that school choice skeptics will claim that the level of use the program receives, which I predict will be modest at best, is a sign that parents don't want more educational freedom.
Nevada's parents want school choice. This program is only a small step on the road to true educational freedom.
Read moreRalston finally answers the original question
If you aren't sure what I'm referring to, these previous posts will explain it all: "Ralston calls for a magic tax increase," "Ralston and taxes and Twitter! Oh my!" and "Watch the magic happen: NPRI responds to Ralston."
In response to the letter to the editor that Geoffrey Lawrence and I sent to the Las Vegas Sun yesterday, Ralston posted the following on Twitter:
Lack-of-thought tank refuses to acknowledge it proposed new tax, claims I proposed one (!) and whines about criticism. http://bit.ly/hZaur3Let's ignore the gratuitous jab and go right to the substance of his comment.
First, as I've written before, NPRI has proposed an expansion of the sales-tax base with a corresponding reduction in the rate - that's an expansion of an existing tax, not the proposal of a new one.
But Ralston's comment still fails to answer the simple question I asked him in an e-mail last week, in response to his reference in his column to "some form of new business levy that would not crush folks in this economy." I asked: "What type of tax are you referring to?"
As for Ralston's suggestion that NPRI is falsely claiming he proposed a tax increase? Ralston himself says he "suggested" a business tax in that column.
The good news is that in his next two tweets, Ralston finally answers the original question (which NPRI's letter noted he had not yet answered).
RalstonFlash: All I suggested was "some form" of biz tax that would not crush businesses, just as NPRI did (sales tax on services). What form? Many exist.Although it took a column, several blog posts and many tweets, I'd like to thank Jon for answering the question.
RalstonFlash: As for panoply of taxes beyond NPRI's idea to impose new tax, they include franchise taxes, gross receipts (exempt most small biz), more.
Now that the specific tax ideas have been identified, NPRI will be able to show the negative impacts they would have on businesses, especially with a shrinking labor force and unemployment above 14 percent.
I was going to begin that discussion in this post, but the evidence I had was pushing the post length towards Bill Simmons' word count, so please look for future posts addressing how Ralston's specific tax suggestions (and others that are being considered) would negatively impact Nevadans and businesses.
Watch the magic happen: NPRI responds to Ralston
Yesterday, liberal political pundit Jon Ralston wrote a column attempting to smear the Nevada Policy Research Institute and suggest that NPRI has an internal philosophical disagreement.
For regular readers of this blog, Ralston's ad hominem attacks didn't come as a surprise, because last Friday we predicted that Ralston would write a "doozy" of a column distorting NPRI's positions in an attempt to avoid answering a simple question.
For further background, Ralston's column came in response to my post titled "Ralston calls for a magic tax increase."
Anyway, Ralston's column has led NPRI to send this letter to the editor of the Las Vegas Sun. We've just sent it in, and we'll see if the Sun runs it.
Dear Editor:Also, here is the e-mail I originally sent to Ralston asking him what type of tax increase he was referring to, and his reply that didn't even attempt to answer my question.
It's ironic that in his Nov. 21 column, Jon Ralston both bemoans the lack of real debate about Nevada's tax structure and then proceeds to use ad hominem attacks to try to discredit the work of the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
While Mr. Ralston offers praise for the revenue-neutral tax reforms proposed in NPRI's "One Sound State, Once Again" report, which is designed to, among other objectives, reduce volatility in the Silver State's tax structure, he is apparently upset that NPRI asked him for clarification about his own idea for a new state business tax.
In a previous column, Mr. Ralston had referred to "a tax increase (some form of new business levy that would not crush folks in this economy)." NPRI contacted Mr. Ralston, asking, "What type of tax are you referring to?" Despite his expressed concern for honest debate, Mr. Ralston has yet to answer this very simple and legitimate question. Instead, in his e-mail response, he dismissed NPRI's inquiry as "nonsense" and then, in his Nov. 21 column, sought to argue that discord exists among NPRI's statements.
No such discord exists.
NPRI has consistently maintained that all forms of taxation introduce distortions into economic decision-making and curb long-run economic growth. We recognize that governments are nonetheless compelled to levy taxes in order to finance their operations.
Yet, some tax instruments are inherently more destructive than others and so the choice of tax instrument matters greatly. In our "One Sound State, Once Again" proposal, we evaluate each tax instrument within the objectives of reducing volatility, minimizing tax-induced distortions and compliance costs, and ensuring tax equity.
However, that proposal also calls for limits on state spending and develops the explicit goal of minimizing "the necessarily perverse impact on economic behavior that taxes impose [by] limiting the overall tax burden."
Apparently attempting to distract from his unwillingness - or inability - to identify the benign "new business levy" to which he had referred, Mr. Ralston posits some logical inconsistency between NPRI's calls for tax reform and its recognition of the destructive impact of taxes. Again, no such inconsistency exists.
While the primary purpose of the "One Sound State" proposal is to ensure economic efficiency while protecting taxpayers, NPRI recognizes that even the taxes imposed under this proposal - like all taxes - will have "negative consequences." What's unique about "One Sound State" is that it is designed explicitly to minimize those consequences.
Mr. Ralston says "thoughtful discussion," rather than "ideological hackery," is needed regarding the state budget. Yet, while NPRI has consistently offered "thoughtful discussion" on both the tax and spending sides of the equation, Mr. Ralston himself resorted to ad hominem attacks on NPRI staff.
This is not the "thoughtful discussion" we would have anticipated.
Geoffrey Lawrence and Victor Joecks
Nevada Policy Research Institute
Ralston and taxes and Twitter! Oh my!
Yesterday I wrote a post poking fun at political pundit Jon Ralston's suggestion that the Legislature is looking at a new tax increase - some form of new business levy - that wouldn't "crush" businesses in this economy.
I had e-mailed him to ask what tax he was referring to, and he sent me a dismissive reply that didn't answer my question.
So I published the post titled, "Ralston calls for a magic tax increase," which tweaked him for assuming that there's a new business tax increase out there that wouldn't "crush" businesses - which I referred to as a "magic tax increase." How big would this tax increase be? Ralston didn't put a number on it, but, for reference only, Sen. Horsford has suggested a $1.5 billion tax increase.
Apparently, Ralston didn't enjoy the post, as he tweeted this shortly after it was published.
Conservative narrow-think tank proposes expanding biz tax-- http://bit.ly/bbXSuM --yet criticizes me 4 idea of biz tax. http://bit.ly/amZc5wI responded on Twitter (join the more than 900 people following NPRI, by the way!), asking him what he was talking about.
NevadaPolicyRI: RT @RalstonFlash narrow-think tank//Big difference between a revenue-neutral expansion of sales tax base (consumption tax) & unknown biz taxTo which he responded:
NevadaPolicyRI: @ralstonflash Emailed u to find out what biz tax you meant and u chose not to clarify.
NevadaPolicyRI: @ralstonflash Would u like to clarify now? Our proposal (http://bit.ly/bbXSuM) is still a great idea, happy for all the support it gets
RalstonFlash: NV narrow-think tank @NevadaPolicyRI says expanding sales tax base is not new tax -- now that takes some thinking! More Sunday in my column.Now, not being able to respond to that much misinformation in 140 characters (and wanting you all to be able to join in the fun), here's the deal.
RalstonFlash: @SteveSebelius Yes, the clever @NevadaPolicyRI suggested I proposed "magic" tax. But it's real magic to propose new one and say you didn't.
1. I still have no idea what new business tax and tax increase Ralston was referring to. And he, so far, has refused to share. If he was referring to NPRI's tax proposal, One Sound State, great! NPRI welcomes his support.
2. It's doubtful that he was referring to One Sound State, because it never called for a tax increase or a business tax. For those of you who haven't read it (you should), it is a revenue-neutral (read: not a tax increase) proposal to eliminate the modified business tax, eliminate the insurance premium tax and expand the sales-tax base to include services while lowering the rate. This proposal would collect the same amount of taxes as our current system, but do so in a more stable and fair way.
3. The sales tax isn't a new tax! Nevada already has a sales tax. Yes, the sales tax would be expanded to new things, but that's not a proposal for a new tax. It's a proposal for expanding an existing tax while lowering the rate.
4. Also, the sales tax is not a business tax. The sales tax is a consumption tax. A business tax generally refers to taxes like a modified business tax, a gross-receipts tax or a corporate-income tax. If Ralston meant expanding the sales tax when he was talking about a business tax, why didn't he just let me know when I e-mailed him? Why doesn't he say so now?
5. I'm not sure what this tweet is referring to: "NevadaPolicyRI says expanding sales tax base is not new tax -- now that takes some thinking." Seems like an attempt to change the subject (and see above for the difference between expanding an existing consumption tax and creating a new business tax that is a tax increase).
Anyway, if you enjoy a good disagreement and/or if you're annoyed at seeing NPRI and the ideas of fiscal conservatives/libertarians misrepresented, would you consider sharing this story on Facebook or Twitter?
I encourage you to do this, because nothing would upset liberals more than seeing their efforts lead to the truth spreading among the conservative grassroots.
Also, please consider "Liking" NPRI on Facebook. Because as Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
I don't know what Ralston's going to write in his Sunday column, but if it distorts NPRI's proposals and changes the subject as much as his tweets, it's sure to be a doozy. I wonder if he'll find space to mention what kind of business tax he was referring to in his original column.
California stealing Nevada's budget narrative and talking points
So I was reading about California's budget deficit this morning - now $26 billion - and noticed something interesting. If you tweaked the names and the numbers to reflect the Silver State, the whole article could have been about Nevada's current budget situation.
A new governor facing a substantial deficit that will force cuts? Check.
California has sunk back into yet another fiscal crisis, this time facing a $26 billion gap that is posing a major new challenge for the incoming governor, Jerry Brown, and seems almost certain to force deep cuts in a state already reeling from three years of financial turmoil.State officials bemoaning that government has cut to the bone? Check.
"There's no more easy stuff to cut," Susan Kennedy, Mr. Schwarzenegger's chief of staff, said Monday. "We are cutting into bone now."Past leaders using budget gimmicks to close the budget gap? Check.
California has a history of recovering from financial crises, riding the wave of national economic growth to fiscal health, and that is one reason state leaders frequently turn to stopgap solutions intended to push the problem up the road.Previous reductions in funding to public education, universities and social services and worker furloughs (although the cuts in Nevada have been greatly exaggerated)? Check.
This latest crisis follows three straight budgets characterized by deep cuts in aid to public education, the state university system and social welfare programs, as well as repeated worker furloughs as California has tried, in vain, to find its balance.Two-thirds requirement for tax and fee increases? Check.
The options on the revenue side of the ledger are constrained by a California voter initiative that requires a two-thirds vote by the Legislature to raise taxes; that two-thirds requirement was extended to fees in another initiative passed this November.Suggestions that local governments be given more responsibilities to provide services and the ability to raise taxes? Check.
Mr. Steinberg said that given all the restrictions the state faced, the best course of action would be a realignment of state services in a way that would require local governments - which might have more flexibility to raise some taxes - to provide them. He said he thought Mr. Brown would be more receptive to that kind of revamping than Mr. Schwarzenegger.Aside from budget difficulties, what else do California and Nevada have in common?
Is it their tax structure? No. California has an income tax, corporate income tax and sales tax with some of the highest rates in nation. Nevada only has a sales tax.
Well, if California and Nevada's tax structures are completely different, why are they facing the same budget problems?
As I've written before: It's the spending. Both states have increased inflation-adjusted, per-capita spending by more than 29 percent in the last 15 years.
It doesn't matter whether a state has a sales tax, a personal income tax, a corporate income tax or all three. When states pass unsustainable spending increases year after year, eventually they'll run out of gimmicks to employ in order to avoid deficits. Unsustainable spending increases simply become unsustainable.The proof that higher taxes can't solve the problems created by over-spending is literally right next door to Nevada.
Nevada's problems don't stem from a lack of revenue, either. As NPRI fiscal policy analyst Geoffrey Lawrence has noted, organizations as ideologically diverse as the Tax Foundation and the Brookings Institution rank Nevada's combined state and local tax collections per capita 25th-highest and 22nd-highest, respectively, in the nation.
The only question left is whether liberals will learn from the example of California - or copy its mistakes in Nevada.
Ralston calls for a magic tax increase
And what is a magic tax increase? A new business tax - one that doesn't have negative impacts.
I believe the key to any revenue package - which probably would have to include a tax decrease (repealing the payroll tax?) with a tax increase (some form of new business levy that would not crush folks in this economy) - is providing political cover for those potential GOP votes. [Emphasis added]A tax that doesn't hurt or "crush" businesses or individuals with unemployment over 14 percent?
Now why didn't NPRI - or anyone else - think of that? It's magic! Budget problems averted! Oh, wait ... and wait again.
Now I honestly have no idea what kind of tax Jon Ralston's referring to.
I e-mailed him and asked him to clarify his statement and received a reply that didn't address the question.
Regardless, there's an interesting trend developing here.
Nevada's liberals are acknowledging the negative impact of raising taxes and the positive benefits of lowering them.
It's not just Ralston. During the campaign I received a mailer from a Democratic incumbent bragging that she had lowered business taxes for 70 percent of Nevada's businesses.
Former assemblywoman and new Senator Sheila Leslie has also warned that allowing the tax hikes to expire will raise business taxes on small businesses (7:40 mark), because of the way the Legislature structured the tax hikes in 2009.
Of course, their implications are right. Lowering taxes in a uniform way has a positive impact on the economy, job growth and businesses, and raising them has negative effects.
As for a tax increase that, in this economy, doesn't "crush" businesses? That would indeed take magic.
Update: Added a link to Ralston's article that I had mistakenly not included with the original post.
Stagflation on the horizon?
Robert Murphy paints an interesting scenario today about how the Fed's monetization of federal government debt - oops, I mean QE2 - could inspire market panic that devolves into stagflation.
No wonder so many notable economists dissent from the Fed's new policy direction.
Where does money come from?
And sorry liberals, "other people" isn't the correct answer.
Watch, learn and enjoy as Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute talks about the origins of money.
The Origins of Money from FEE on Vimeo.
The video, from the Foundation for Economic Education, is long but very informative. Relive your college days and enjoy a great lecture.
Why is Nevda number 1 in home foreclosures?
Voting with their feet: Low-tax states gain residents from high tax ones
The census happens every ten years and one of the interesting things it shows this year is how people are moving from high-tax and spending states into states with less government.
There are eight states projected to gain at least one Congressional seat. Texas will gain four seats and Florida will gain two. Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington are poised to gain one seat each. The biggest losers will be New York and Ohio - both projected to lose two seats - while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are on track to lose one seat each.This is great news and quite a validation for fiscal conservatives, but it should come with a slight warning. People often move away from states once the impacts of liberalism are clear, but it doesn't mean they change their beliefs. If anything conservatives and libertarians are going to have to work even harder in the next ten years to help their new neighbors see the light.
The average top personal income tax rate among gainers is 116 percent lower than among losers. The total state and local tax burden is nearly one-third lower, as is per capita government spending. In eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.
