UNLV needs to get smaller says ... UNLV President Neal Smatresk
But [UNLV President Neal] Smatresk said it is very difficult for a university to compete with a community college and a state college for students when it charges two or three times as much.Smatresk is on the right track here. There's no reason that UNLV should look like UNR or a community college or any other institute of higher education. It should set its own unique goals and be able to pursue them.
A better model, he said, would be to shrink the university a little and improve upper division and graduate education so students will want to come to UNLV because of its quality.
There are a couple of problems in current system: Nevada's universities have to send the tuition they collect to the state, which then returns a portion to the universities, and the state heavily subsidies each school.
If Nevada's universities were allowed to keep their own tuition, have more self-governance and were weaned off government subsidies, it would help them become more entrepreneurial and innovative. Ultimately both students and taxpayers would benefit.
And this isn't a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream either. The University of Michigan has done something similar over the past 35 years.
In 1965, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (U-M) received 70 percent of its funding in appropriations from the state of Michigan. By 2003, U-M had reduced its dependence on the state to just 10 percent of total revenue. At the same time, U-M remained a top 25 institution according to the University of Florida's Top American Research Universities and U.S. News & World Report's annual rankings. U-M also tops Wall Street rankings, becoming the first public university to have its credit rating raised to an Aa1 ranking and its bonds trading at Aaa levels. Today, Michigan's flagship university is considered "Silicon Valley East" and has become a model for other large, public research institutions.
Read moreLet the healing begin: Firefighter sick leave drops by 80%
Is an 80 percent drop in sick leave for Clark County firefighter battalion chiefs a miracle or evidence that Clark County firefighter battalion chiefs had been gaming the system to increase their pay? From the Las Vegas Sun:
Previously, the department always kept three battalion chiefs - only nine firefighters have reached that rank - on duty at all times. When one "batt chief" called in sick, the department called in another one to fill that spot. The battalion chief called in would receive either overtime or callback pay; callback is overtime plus a contribution to his or her retirement fund, and results from someone calling in sick within 12 hours of the start of his or her shift.Commissioner Steve Sisolak, who has done a ton of good work on the firefighter compensation issue, thinks the answer is obvious.
On May 26, the policy changed. Now, when a battalion chief calls in sick, the department operates with two, saving overtime or callback cost of summoning a third.
At the time, the Fire Department expected this policy to save about $150,000 annually.
To see if it was working, a 12-week period was compared with the same period in 2009.
Officials found sick-leave use fell 80 percent.
"It's clear people were taking sick leave who were not sick."And now we know a big reason why firefighter compensation is so expensive in Nevada.
It'll be interesting to see what impact, if any, these revelations have on the binding arbitration about to get underway between Clark County and its firefighters.
Parental choice popular
A new survey by William G. Howell, a professor at the University of Chicago and Paul E. Peterson and Martin R. West both of Harvard University, find overwhelming public support for tuition-tax credit education scholarship programs to help parents afford private school tuition.
They write,
A number of states-Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, for example-provide tax credits for low-income families who send their children to private schools or to those who give to charities established for such purposes. Support for tax credits is much higher than for vouchers, especially if the question makes clear that credits may be used for school expenses at both public and private schools.
Today, 55 percent of Americans support the idea of tax-credits while only 20 percent oppose. The support continues to grow among African-Americans and Hispanic Americans. Allowing people and/or corporations to earn tax-credits for donations made to low-income student scholarship programs boosted the popularity further.
In other reform news, 47 percent of the American public opposes teacher tenure while just 25 percent support it. Additionally, 49 percent of the public supports merit-pay for teachers while just 25 percent oppose it. There was also strong public support for tougher standards and more testing.
Read the full article here.
Wrapping up the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group
The Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group held its final meeting on Friday. The NVSG's rough draft report was prepared by Moody's Analytics and adopted with minimal changes. (Our live blog of the meeting is here.)
NPRI has previously written about how the NVSG exists to provide political cover for politicians who want tax increases and about the numerous problems inherent in the NVSG.
Overall, I agree with Doug Busselman's (who was also one of the Stakeholders) take on the final report.
Also to be seen is what becomes of the goals, objectives and strategies that form the framework of the project. Some, rightfully in my opinion, are suspecting the report will form the basis for the pre-determined intentions of tax increases in the upcoming Nevada Legislature.This report could have been a lot more explicit in its calls for increased government control in the economy and in personal areas of our lives. As it is, the report definitely has some significant problems, but, as Busselman notes, its language is somewhat vague.
Actually, you could probably make a case for whatever you might want to make on the basis of various components and language contained in the report. Although it doesn't fit the model of a 5, 10 or 20-year strategic plan it does offer a window into areas and concepts that the Vision Stakeholders agreed to identify as being important for Nevada's future.
No doubt some leftist legislators will try to use this report to justify raising taxes or regulations, but they should keep in mind the underlying assumption of the report:
Although not specifically spelled out, the "do no harm" idea fits into the underlying foundation of the finished product.
Chavez Care
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a threatening letter last week to a health insurance company claiming that the administration has "zero tolerance" for spreading "misinformation." The health insurance company in question claimed ObamaCare would cause a 9 percent increase in their insurance premiums.
They aren't alone. According to Cato Institute, the Rand Corporation estimated a 17 percent increase and Millman Inc estimated 10-30 percent increase.
As the Wall Street Journal stated, ""The Health and Human Services secretary...warned that 'there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.' Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caracas."
The Cato Institute has a nice collection of reactions from across the country.
F.A Hayek has a refresher course on this very problem.
Live blogging the final (really) meeting of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group
Update: Report with minor changes is approved. Details (more than you would ever want to know follow)
So begins the final meeting of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group. (Important background: Four problems with the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group.)
Today the group is discussing and voting on its draft report.
9:08 Lang: Document is the start of a conversation. Provides baseline data.
Lang thinks Nevada will hold its self "accountable" using this report. Some elements of the report are "aspirations." This report gives Nevada its big, hairy, audacious goals.
This is exactly what's wrong with this group. The role of government isn't to create Big, hairy, audacious goals. (Note BHAGs are explained more fully in a great book called Built to Last.) Government's job is to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property) and on a more local level provide basic public services like police, fire, roads and education. Also it should pay for these services with an equally low tax and regulatory burden.
Since government only has money by taking it from other people, when government starts setting Big, hairy, audacious goals it -- by necessity -- has to take money or control from individuals to do so, which limits individuals natural rights.
That's the main objection to this entire process. Government is fundamentally different from businesses, individuals, educational institutions and non-profits. Businesses, individuals, educational institutions and non-profits should set Big, hairy, audacious goals. Government with its unique role (providing basic services and protecting natural rights) and its unlimited power to take its citizens money and regulate their lives should only do its job nothing more.
9:12 Lang: Not written in stone, flexible. Needs lots of private sector involvement. Doesn't want to let this conversation end. This document can set priorities -- where to cut less.
9:13 Calls for UNLV and UNR to keep its out-of-state tuition.
A legit idea.
9:14 Lang's taking public comment first. Up first is PLAN. Praises the report. Regrets that the tax study portion of the study won't be completed. Says most of these ideas will die, because of lack of money.
9:16 Business representative asks, "Please first do no harm." Notes the unemployment tax rate is going to increase and that Obamacare is going to cost businesses more.
Worth remembering.
9:19 Geoffrey Lawrence is now commenting. First point: How does the government know "high-growth" industries are actually high-growth. Second: Transportation -- report recommends building roads and also wants no one to drive on them, because the report encourages greater alternative modes of transportation.
9:22 Paul Enos up next. Look at cost benefit analysis on transportation. Look at high speed rail, look at cost per-passenger mile.
Note: High speed rail is crazy expensive per passenger mile.
9:26 Okay so here's how the meeting is going to work. 20 minutes of discussion per each section and then a vote up or down.
9:27 Don Snyder: This is the beginning not the end of the process. Praises the detail of the report. Doesn't like the one page summary of the summary.
And he's finally talking about the economy. Nevada needs a proper fiscal structure - spending and revenue.
Yes, everyone thinks we need a "proper" fiscal structure, but that means different things to everyone.
9:31 So how does the committee change the first page? Note that Moody's would be making these changes without approval of the NVSG unless the NVSG submits word for word changes.
9:34 Busselman suggests the NVSG rank the goals.
9:37 Terry Reynolds calls for more state spending on R&D. The report's very high on green energy, which Harry Reid has admitted need government subsidies to survive.
9:41 Someone suggests adding an emphasis on "clean" energy industries. Ugh. As I just said "Green energy" jobs often need government subsidies to survive. That won't grow the economy.
9:44 Moody's points out that there's not even a standard definition for clean or green energy jobs. And as the report points out (p 27) -- "Thermoelectric energy generation can be highly water-intensive." Which is funny, because one of the other goals is decreasing water use by 35% per capita (p 29).
9:58 After much discussion on land use, they're preparing to vote on the economy section without really talking about the economy or what makes it strong.
10:01 And it passes 19-0. Glad this group isn't in charge of the economy or we'd be in worse shape then we already are.
10:02 Up next environment.
10:04 Rene Cantu suggests all new state vehicles be hybrids/alternative energy vehicles.
Yep, we'll be paying more for the "make a statement." Wonder how many of the stakeholders know that global warming alarmists routinely fabricate data to make their case.
10:05 Rob Potter: Umm, what about snow plows, which are all powered by diesel?
10:09 Busselman notes what I noted above: "green" energy vs. water.
10:10 Lang: We should decide what we invest our water in. We don't want a Coca-cola plant here.
Unbelievable. Yep another example of the NVSG wanting the government picking the winners and losers.
10:17 Katy Simon recommends a goal of "maintaining the overall health of the environment."
10:31 Environment passes 19-0 with changes. Up next transportation.
10:32 Cantu: Move people as energy efficiently as possible. Hmmm... wonder if Cantu took public transportation here today? Doubtful.
10:33 Reynolds: Include a statement on looking at cost impact of looking at changes. Good idea.
10:38 Little discussion on transportation. No mention on the contradictory goals of building more roads and using them less.
10:43 Passes 19-0 with a good change by Doug Busselman on objective 2.
10:45 Up next education. Lang suggests setting the education goal higher. Doesn't want to set the goal as "average" after 20 years.
10:46 Lang notes Florida's done a great job with education reform and that that isn't included in the report.
Potentially encouraging, because Florida is the model to follow.
10:55 Lang: Should we change the graduation metric to a completion metric? Snyder and Williams: Better to stick with the norm.
11:03 Group adding the statement: Recognizing the state has a dropout crisis and the we need to dramatically the improve graduation rate.
11:16 Lots of discussion on formalizing a state high school honors diploma. The group also wants to make having an honors diploma benefit students in the state's financial aid formula.
Wish the discussion on Florida hadn't been lost.
11:20 Cantu wants more of an emphasis on Nevada's English language learning programs.
11:24 Marsha Irwin: We need to explain why the report only highlights ELL and not other categories low-level learners.
Good point. Just another example of the whole point of this report is to allow special interest groups to cherry-pick its findings to justify more spending for special interests.
11:25 Busselman suggests adopting the Nevada Education Reform Blue Ribbon Task Force recommendations
11:27 General agreement on adding the recommendations for others to consider.
11:38 Now talking about student to teacher ratio. Is it a metric or a strategy? It should be neither, because it has no impact on student achievement.
What ever happened to looking at Florida?
11:44 One hour later on education ... Cantu mentions tying teacher performance to compensation.
11:46 Paul Dugan, from the Washoe County School District, ties to object subtly -- We haven't really studied it., we don't want to give a false impression.
11:50 Katy Simon, Washoe County: We're not ready to make a statement on merit pay.
Government employees trying to kill merit pay? Shocking.
11:52 Busselman: I have a problem paying for poor teachers. Exactly!!!
11:55 To break the impasse, Lang takes a 10 minute break.
12:10 New language -- The teacher evaluation process should be evaluated to see how effective it is at rewarding good performance and identifying bad performance. (Not exact wording, sorry)
A good compromise maybe, but it's also a complete gutless statement.
12:21 Cantu wants to include that most ELLs are US citizens. Paul Dugan: Educators can't verify that.
12:23 Moody's now defending student-teacher ratio as a metric. Do none of these people look at data?
12:25 Education section passes 19-0.
12:33 Now discussing the Health and Well-being section. Sorry for the lack of comments, but I'm not too familiar with this area.
12:36 Busselman: How does extending health insurance relate to extending health care? Insurance only equals payment not care. There are other mechanisms for pay.
Yes, yes, yes. Exactly. Bernhard follows up - change the language to include other payment methods.
12:42 Groan, Packham wants to emphasize health insurance. Bernhard initiates a compromise.
12:46 Lang doesn't let PLAN offer a public comment at least not until the NVSG has taken a vote.
12:50 Passes 19-0. Last session is Public Safety.
12:52 Laugh out loud funny. Cedric Williams, a firefighter, "suggested" to Moody's that it include a new objective with a metric of "firefighters per capita."
The clearest example of what we've been saying all along: The real point of the NVSG is to allow cherry-picked special interests to create a spending wish list.
12:56 Katy Simon: Wait, why are we just focusing on firefighters?
12:57 Awesome. Lang mentions that Nevada's public employees are generally higher paid (in return for more productivity).
12:59 Williams, the firefighter, defends adding this Objective. Says firefighters have to work OT, because there aren't enough of them.
1:03 Lang: "States are states" and they can organize how they want.
Lang is so close here: States are states yes, but individuals are individuals too. Why in the world isn't the NVSG (or Lang) recognizing the freedom for individuals that they do for Nevada?
1:10 Snyder nails it: We are a high salary state and then we're going to double to headcount. I don't know that I'm going to be comfortable with that.
1:11 Williams tries to defend: Lots of OT in current system.
There is lots of overtime and there's also lots of reports of gaming the system.
1:14 Huh? Williams says this is one of the safest places in regards to fire. Then why do we need to double the number of firefighters?
Snyder: Maintain cost-effective firefighting.
1:20 Lang summarizes changes. Going to eliminate the metric. Flexibility. Ensure cost-effective firefighting.
1:28 The end is near! 18-1 (Rob Potter) pass it.
1:32 Vote on the document as a whole forth coming. Don Snyder is going to submit a revised opening.
1:38 All that needs to be said by ???, There's "one paragraph" on using resources efficiently.
1:39 19-0 it passes. Let the cherry picking of this wish list begin.
**** As this is a live blog please forgive any spelling or grammatical errors. ****
Oceguera calls for transparency reforms, including putting Nevada's checkbook online
Assembly Majority Leader John Oceguera (the presumed speaker if the D's maintain control of the Assembly) called for a couple of important transparency reforms Wednesday.
In addition to the bill requiring a cooling off period, Oceguera said he and other legislators are preparing a bill to put the state of Nevada's checkbook online so citizens can see how every dollar is spent and another bill to require all candidates for public office to report all their contributions within 72 hours of receipt. Names of donors and the amounts they contributed would be required in the reports.Hmmm, that first reform sounds familiar. From TransparentNevada's Candidate Survey:
Question #1: Do you support putting an itemized accounting of all state spending (a.k.a. Nevada's checkbook) online in a searchable format, as states such as Missouri and Texas have done?How much of a common-sense reform is putting a government agency's checkbook online? The bill that put the federal checkbook online was sponsored by conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, then-Sen. Barack Obama and Obama's future presidential opponent, Sen. John McCain.
It's such a popular reform that, as I've detailed before, it doesn't get opposed publicly - it just never seems to happen. Right now the Department of Administration has the information available to create this site and the authorization from an executive order by Gov. Gibbons to create this site, but it's lacking about $250,000 to put the information online.
The good news is that if Oceguera is serious about enacting this reform (note Ralston's take),
he doesn't even have to wait for the next legislative session. The Interim Finance Committee, which by chance meets tomorrow (although it's probably too late to submit it as an agenda item for this meeting), has an extra $401,000 in contingency funds. It had previously allocated $500,000 to pay for a tax study, but it only ended up paying $99,000 for a spending wish list.
Anyway, the news that Oceguera supports putting Nevada's checkbook online should be welcomed by taxpayers, and it also highlights why candidates, if they haven't already, should fill out TransparentNevada's transparency questionnaire (more than 60 candidates already have, and you can see their answers here).
Citizens deserve to know where candidates for Nevada's legislative and constitutional offices stand on various transparency issues. For instance, Oceguera has yet to complete his survey. Candidates should return their questionnaires ASAP, and citizens should ask candidates to fill out the survey and should insist that candidates reveal where they stand on issues relating to government transparency.
Until then, I'll keep an eye on the list of bill draft requests for Oceguera's transparency bills.
Obama stimulus doesn't work
Maybe government stimulus doesn't work because government doesn't know how to spend other people's money effectively. That is clearly evident from information revealed by Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
She states, "[t]he federal government has given far fewer stimulus dollars to states with high unemployment than it has to states with low unemployment."
Just take a look.
State/Unemployment Rate/Stimulus percapita
Nevada / 14.3 percent / $561.55
Michigan / 13.1 percent / $648.91
California / 12.3 percent / $546.34
Rhode Island / 11.9 percent / $164.83
Florida / 11.5 percent / $475.67
Vermont / 6.0 percent / $522.42
New Hampshire / 5.8 percent / $852.53
Nebraska / 4.7 percent / $591.17
South Dakota / 4.4 percent / $1,084.73
North Dakota / 3.6 percent / $1,059.95
"Does it make sense that the state with the highest unemployment rate, Nevada, is getting roughly half the per-capita amount of the state with the lowest, North Dakota?" she asks. No, it doesn't.
Even if government spending did make things better, couldn't they at least spend the money where it was needed most?
Rory Reid is not a racist
And neither is anyone else on the Clark County Commission.
Former Sen. Joe Neal, D-Las Vegas, says Reid and other commissioners acted "in a very racist manner" when they voted 5-2 against authorizing a proposal by Clark County judges to hire former Assemblyman Morse Arberry, D-Las Vegas, as a lobbyist. Reid spokesman Mike Trask called the racial remarks "disappointing."Background story here. Ralston had a good take on how ridiculous Arberry's actions were, and Eric over at TransparentNevada has covered the story as well.
Neal, who is black, says the vote against the deal for Arberry, who is black, shows Reid, the Democratic nominee for governor, isn't qualified for higher office.
The politics of personal destruction, especially labeling someone a racist, are disgusting, no matter whom the accusation is directed at - although, as Saul Alinsky has noted, they are very effective. I know in the real world we all can't get along, but could we at least debate and disagree on the merits of ideas instead of making false accusations about individuals and groups?
Former Sen. Neal apparently doesn't think so. And neither do many in the national media.
JFK says cut the taxes
More on the Laffer Curve (contrary to opinions of both right-wing and left-wing pundits, the Laffer Curve is not a ramp)
