Assemblywoman Flores ignores 50 years of education-spending history
Today the Las Vegas Sun had a Q&A with Assemblywoman Lucy Flores, where she made this statement.
We need to have some serious conversations about education and it being adequately funded, and what that means. ... Everyone always talks about how they are for education. You don't ever find anyone who is against education. So what I tell people is the question should not be: Do you support education? The question should be: Do you support funding education? Because at the end of the day, that's where the parties diverge. That's where you're either for education in action or you're just about education in words. I think for a very long time we've been about education in words. (Emphasis added)
So has Nevada supported education "in words" only or is Flores ignoring or unaware of 50 years of education spending history?
Here's Nevada's inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending over the last 50 years. As you can see, it's nearly tripled.
Sometimes I think people don't realize the significance of adjusting things for inflation, so here's Nevada's per-pupil spending over the last 50 years, not adjusted for inflation.
Also, state funding of education is at its highest level ever. While there have been some declines in local tax revenue, I repeat, state funding through the Distributive School Account is at its highest level ever. From NPRI's Solutions 2013 (p. 29 in the PDF, p. 27 in print):
While accurate information is always important in policy discussions, it is especially important to education policy where Nevada has the lowest graduation rate in the country and for 50 years has tried to solve our education problems by spending more. And if lawmakers like Flores get their way, we'll continue to try (and fail) to spend our way into a solution.
So what should Nevada do? Empower parents to choose the school that's best for their child through tuition-tax credits, Education Savings Accounts or vouchers. As the Friedman Foundation has detailed in a recent study, school choice benefits both students who use choice options and those who choose to stay in public schools.
- Ten empirical studies have used random assignment, the gold standard of social science, to examine how vouchers affect participants. Nine studies find that vouchers improve student outcomes, six that all students benefit and three that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. None of these studies finds a negative impact.
- Nineteen empirical studies have examined how vouchers affect outcomes in public schools. Of these studies, 18 find that vouchers improved public schools and one finds no visible impact. No empirical studies find that vouchers harm public schools.
- Every empirical study ever conducted in Milwaukee, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Maine and Vermont finds that voucher programs in those places improved public schools.
- Only one study, conducted in Washington D.C., found no visible impact from vouchers. This is not surprising, since the D.C. voucher program is the only one designed to shield public schools from the impact of competition. Thus, the D.C. study does not detract from the research consensus in favor of a positive effect from voucher competition.
It's time for school choice for every Nevada child.
Read moreHead of SBA claims she hasn't heard from any business owners who say Obamacare will hurt them
Since the election, there have been numerous high-profile examples of small business owners detailing how Obamacare and its employer-health-care mandate will force them to cut employee hours, raise prices or cut employees.
So certainly, Karen Mills, head of the Small Business Administration, would know all about this, right?
Nope, she claims that she's "not hearing that" from business owners and doubles down when pressed by Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.
Scarborough makes the right suggestion for Mills - get out of the bubble.
Yesterday's Nevada Journal story detailing the struggles Nevada restaurant owners will have with Obamacare is a good place to start.
Nevada restaurant owners - increasingly anxious about the future of their businesses under the Affordable Care Act - are echoing statements by national restaurant chains about the excessive costs the law will impose on them.(h/t Michelle Malkin)
"I don't know what secret [the politicians] know, where they just assume we can write them a check," said Sam Facchini, owner of Metro Pizza in Las Vegas.
"We can't pay for this. Most of us [restaurant owners] operate on a thin margin and trying to stay in compliance [with the law] will make things much tighter." ...
Todd Clore, owner of Todd's Unique Dining in Henderson, says the law encourages more employers to try to avoid its provisions than comply with them.
"We're all looking for ways to avoid it," he said. "It changes the way we operate, from hiring to payroll to pricing, and it hurts small guys the most."
Jim Rees, co-owner and partner of Hash House A Go Go, which has five locations in Nevada, says cutting employee hours below the 30-hour threshold may be the only way to avoid penalties.
"I'd hate to see great employees forced to work two or three jobs because a law makes it impractical for an employer to let them work more hours," said Rees. "The two things we hate doing are cutting employees and raising prices, but the way the law's written means we could have to deal with both of those outcomes."
Thanksgiving: The true story
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them. Just enter your email in the box on the top right.
Thanksgiving: The true story
I've always thought of Thanksgiving as the quintessentially American holiday, bringing together so many of the things - faith, food, football, family and friends - that make living in this country so wonderful, and so worthy of deep appreciation.
But one of my very favorite things to do at this time of year is to revisit the story of the very first Thanksgiving.
We all know the story of how the Thanksgiving tradition began - or at least, we know the version of the story that has been approved for official telling in the American classroom. And, having grown up only 30 miles or so from Plymouth, Mass., I got to hear the story not just from my teachers, but directly from the "Pilgrims" themselves on many a class field trip. In other words, it's a tale with which I became quite familiar.
It wasn't until many years later, however, that I finally learned the real story of Thanksgiving. That is to say, I discovered the reason why Thanksgiving represents not simply a timeless tradition, but also the triumph of what would become America's most fundamental values. In short, it's a story of capitalism prevailing over collectivism.
Many writers and commentators have offered their own takes on this story, but one that I especially enjoyed reading was a piece written by Julie Borowski and published one year ago. I urge you to read the whole thing, but I wanted to share the most relevant part here:
Centuries before the Communist Manifesto was even published, the Pilgrims set up an economic system that looked similar to the "utopia" advocated by Karl Marx. In the early years of the Plymouth Plantation, there was no such thing as private property. All property was held in common and it was forbidden for anyone to produce their own food. It was up to the plantation officials to distribute food and supplies to the Pilgrims based on equality and need.
The Plantation leaders showed their immense lack of knowledge regarding basic economic principles. Plymouth County Governor William Bradford wrote that, "the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing." That clearly was not the case since the Pilgrims experienced great despair and massive food shortages for several years.
The Plymouth Plantation lacked the appropriate incentive structure. As economics Professor Benjamin Powell writes, "bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims' shortages. Bad economic incentives did." Many Pilgrims faked illness or stole instead of working in the fields to produce food. William Bradford later wrote that the colony was filled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." He stated that the crops were so small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."
William Bradford finally decided to change course by implementing a new economic system in 1623. He assigned "every family a parcel of land" to do with it as they saw fit and the results were nothing short of miraculous. For the first time in the New World, families could enjoy the fruits of their labor. While it was not a complete private property system, the move away from collectivism saved the Pilgrims. As Governor William Bradford wrote that year, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty."I have much to be thankful for this year, but one thing for which we should all give thanks is that William Bradford was able to learn from his initial mistake.
And let's all be hopeful, too, that those who lead our nation today have the same capacity.
On behalf of all of us at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, I'd like to wish you and yours a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.
Warmest regards,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here. Enter your email address in the box on the top right.
The Medicaid crowd-out problem
That's because the network of Medicaid providers is already over capacity and results in long wait times for patients, with some patients unable to see a doctor until their symptoms become life-threatening and they are forced to visit the emergency room. The case of Deamonte Driver is just one well-known example out of thousands.
Many providers refuse to accept Medicaid because the reimbursement rates are insufficient to compensate for a physician's costs. Hence, Medicaid fits the very definition of health-care rationing: Price controls have led to a shortage of supply and so wait times have formed for appointments with the few providers who still accept Medicaid.
And although the number of providers in the Medicaid network will remain fixed (at best) due to these price controls, Nevada policymakers are considering whether to make an additional 71,000 individuals eligible for the program. That means those already enrolled in the program-the most vulnerable Nevadans, by definition-would face stiffer competition to receive an appointment with a Medicaid provider.
Allow me to provide an example of how this would play out under the proposed expansion. Meet Max: He's a 30-year-old, single, childless, able-bodied man who earns 130 percent of the poverty line. Under the proposed expansion, Max would have a claim to treatment equal to Todd's. But Todd is a 6-year-old handicapped boy whose family subsists at half of the poverty level. After expansion, the medical coverage that would have gone to Todd has an equal chance of going to Max instead.
Mock my example if you like, but this is exactly the type of scenario that will play out under a Medicaid expansion. The question to be asked here is whether the purpose of Medicaid is to provide a safety net or just a handout. Sure, an expansion might buy Max's vote, and Todd can't vote anyway (although his parents might), but is it really ethical to let Max take Todd's claim to medical care? Not only is Max capable of working...he's not even in poverty!
It's not my standard which says he isn't in poverty, it's the federal government's official standard. That's what it means to live at 130 percent of the federal poverty line. I understand that this income level still results in a very modest lifestyle and that the trade-offs one must choose with one's limited resources are substantial. But federal bureaucrats who, I'm continuously assured, are much smarter than I, have determined that Max doesn't live in poverty.
If Medicaid was designed for the poor and disabled then why should it now be taken from the poor and disabled, like Todd, and given to Max?
I'm glad this question is gaining some attention in the media. It should. But, strangely, the Las Vegas Review-Journal's Steve Sebelius argues in favor of Medicaid expansion and, yet, concludes that "Nevada's needy would give thanks for Medicaid." I agree, Nevada's needy would be thankful if policymakers protected Medicaid for them instead of giving it away to the less needy.
Sebelius does at least acknowledge the crowd-out problem, but says "a smart solution here is to make sure reimbursement rates fairly compensate doctors for their care" in order to eliminate Medicaid rationing. Okay. But, to be fair, that option's not even on the table. There aren't enough resources at any level of government to raise the reimbursement rates and expand eligibility. After all, reimbursement rates were cut, over the years, to their current levels as a cost-control measure. And this wasn't just in response to the Great Recession. Policymakers at the state and federal levels have been cutting reimbursement rates for decades, including during periods of strong economic growth.
And taxing the struggling private economy more to finance these objectives isn't realistic either. The magnitude of tax hikes that would be required to finance what Sebelius suggests would be crippling. Public agencies will always be constrained by limited resources just like everyone else on Earth. Their decisions must reflect priorities about how those resources will be deployed-will it be in favor of Max or Todd?
The only method that's been suggested, to date, for expanding the network of providers who accept Medicaid and alleviating Medicaid-rationing while also controlling costs, is the creation of Health Opportunity Accounts-an NPRI recommendation that's strangely derided by Sebelius.
Anyone who truly cares for the less fortunate in Nevada should be crowing about HOAs and downplaying eligibility expansion.
BONUS: Sebelius mentions a Harvard study that says Medicaid expansion leads to lower mortality. But, of the three case studies considered in that study, Nevada is specifically included and the study concludes that there is no impact on mortality rates in Nevada. The study's central finding is predicated an a single observation between New York and Pennsylvania. Read the full debunking here.
Video: The problem with the minimum wage
Do you want to hurt poor people? Then you should support raising the minimum wage.
Do you want teenagers, racial minorities and low-skilled workers to suffer? Raise the minimum wage.
Do you want to raise prices for society's poorest members? Raise the minimum wage.
Sound harsh? Well, as this video from the Foundation for Economic Education explains, that's exactly what the minimum wage does. Good intentions are not enough; in fact, laws based on good intentions are often the most destructive of all - for the very people they're intended to help.
Read more: Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?
Watch more: Milton Friedman explains how the minimum wage hurts the poor.
Guthrie: Reward teachers for effectiveness not degrees
Boom.
Nevada schools "waste" millions of dollars every year by awarding automatic raises to teachers for simply returning and taking courses beyond their bachelor degrees, argued Nevada Superintendent of Public Schools James Guthrie to the Nevada Association of School Boards on Friday.
He said the current teacher salary schedule, used by most of the state's 17 districts, needs to be eliminated. It includes the Clark County School District, which teaches almost 75 percent of all Nevada students, and must give returning teachers annual raises of $1,465 because of its contract with the teachers union.
"We need to pay for effectiveness, not things that have no bearing on student achievement," argued the superintendent partway through his first full school year at the helm, acknowledging his statements probably will cause a backlash from teachers unions.
As Guthrie is an incredibly accomplished scholar, it's no surprise that his analysis about the unimportance of master's degrees to teacher quality is right on the money.
As researchers like Paul Peterson have noted, "teachers with an M. A. degree were no more effective, on average, than teachers who lacked such a degree."
It is great to see Guthrie standing up to the educational establishment and the teacher unions (but I repeat myself) and push a reform that will reward Nevada's most effective teachers. Since teacher quality is the most important school-controlled factor in student achievement, rewarding effective teachers and improving or removing ineffective teachers should be job one.
How legislators handle this issue will show if they care more about the students or the adults in the educational system.
I, Pencil: The movie
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them. Just enter your email in the box on the top right.
I, Pencil: The movie
Imagine a pencil. You've probably bought and used hundreds of them. But have you ever thought about how a pencil becomes a pencil?
It's an amazingly complex process that involves thousands of people from around the world. People who don't know each other. People who don't speak the same language. People who may not even know what a pencil is. How does it happen?
Economist Leonard Read wrote a brilliant and short essay, titled I, Pencil, on this very question. It's a great read, demonstrating the amazing things people are able to accomplish when they are free.
But now, thanks to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I, Pencil is also a great short film. I encourage you to watch this video, but also to share it with your friends, email list or even your kids. Share it with anyone who needs to understand that free individuals are capable of accomplishing incredible things without being bossed around by government bureaucrats.
Know of any other short videos that cleverly explain free-market principles? Send them my way and we may feature them in the right-hand column in a future Week in Review.
Until next time,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here. Enter your email address in the box on the top right.
Tuesday's gone
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them. Just enter your email in the box on the top right.
Tuesday's gone
Our quadrennial tradition of choosing a president has once more come and gone.
The winner? Both nationally and here in Nevada, the status quo.
America's voters on Tuesday chose to stick with the same president and, basically, the same U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Voters in the Silver State more or less elected to go with the same state legislature.
It's a highly interesting development, given the widespread agreement, across ideological lines, that the status quo isn't working. Again, this is true both nationally and locally. We've got stubbornly high national unemployment to go with unfathomable debt, while Nevada's jobs crisis is the worst in the nation and our education system continues to fail our children.
Yet curiously, given the opportunity to force change, voters opted not to.
Well, here's one more thing that hasn't changed: Our task.
Let's not sugarcoat things. That task has become harder. As you know, we at NPRI don't endorse candidates or support politicians. But nor can we deny the fact that many of the people who have been responsible for the misguided policies of the past few years are still going to be in charge of policymaking. And now, they're feeling vindicated, validated and vigorous.
So what do we do? We continue to fight. We know that our principles and our policy ideas are every bit as sound and necessary today as they have always been. But we also need to recognize that we have a lot of work to do to make the case to our fellow citizens that limited government and individual liberty are the keys to opportunity and prosperity.
I'm reminded of something Scott Rasmussen said during his keynote address at NPRI's 21st Anniversary Celebration last weekend. He said that political change doesn't come until popular attitudes change. In short, it comes when the people start to demand it.
With that in mind, let's be sure to take note of the positive signs from Tuesday. All across Nevada, in county after county, voters faced ballot initiatives seeking to raise their taxes to expand government. And across the board, voters said no. They rejected tax hikes in Carson City and Nye County. And in Lyon and Washoe counties as well. In Clark County, voters said no to a property-tax hike that had been misleadingly promoted as a cure for Nevada's educational woes.
Nevadans want responsible government. They want government to live within its means just as families and individuals must. They want politicians to be held accountable to the people who hire them. They want these things, and they deserve them.
It starts with getting the policies right. At our anniversary celebration, during my remarks to the crowd, I said that no matter what the outcome of this year's elections, our state and our nation faced some daunting challenges, which meant that no matter what, you and I were going to have a lot of work to do.
Well, here we are. We know what we need to do. So let's do it.
Take care,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here. Enter your email address in the box on the top right.
CCSD's property-tax-increase proposal goes down in flames
In Clark County, which went for President Obama by a 56-42 margin, voters also emphatically rejected a tax increase pushed for by CCSD officials, 66 to 34.
The Clark County School District's tax initiative to fund school renovations has failed.It's great that voters overwhelmingly rejected more wasteful spending and saw through the district's "woe is us" spin.
The capital improvement plan lost steam even before the final votes were tallied Tuesday night, as more than two-thirds of voters said no to the tax increase in early voting.
That large margin persisted until the final results came in around midnight. The initiative was overwhelmingly rejected, 65.6 percent to 34.4 percent.
That didn't stop district officials from continuing that spin immediately after the election, however.
"Triage" is what the School Board will have to do on a school-by-school basis from here on out, Board member Chris Garvey said late Tuesday night.Yes, because the high school with 84 students just can't live without a new $11.9 million gym. Good grief.
Video: Price controls ensure fuel shortages
Last week, NPRI President Andy Matthews explained how anti-"gouging" laws ensure shortages for consumers and eliminate financial incentives for outsiders to bring in desperately needed supplies.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, that's not just an abstract theoretical argument for residents of New York and New Jersey. As this video from ReasonTV shows, gas shortages are a frustrating reality for many.
Ideas have consequences. And bad ideas have bad consequences - for the very folks these anti-"gouging" laws are supposed to help.
