Nevada's Freedom Budget: Why tax increases aren't necessary in NV

Geoffrey Lawrence, fiscal policy analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, has just released a line-by-line budget for Nevada based on priorities and principle. Total cost: $5.1 billion. That's more than $1 billion less than the governor's proposed budget.

Read it for yourself. Or, if you're busy (or lazy), there's always the press release.

The Economic Forum meets tomorrow and is widely expected to project lower tax collections over the next two years than previously anticipated. The calls for tax increases are just beginning.

From Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford:

"I don't think any of us want to raise any taxes, especially in this down economy where businesses and individuals are really struggling to survive," Horsford said.

"That said, we have to raise $600 to $700 million of new revenue just to fund the governor's budget, which includes 6 percent cuts to teachers and state workers, elimination of health benefits for retirees, basically dismantling higher education because of 38 percent cuts, not to mention the impact to K-12 education."

No, Majority Leader Horford, you don't have to raise $600 to $700 million in new taxes. And here's the budget to prove it.

With more tax dollars Nevada's politicians will continue to fund their pet, well-intentioned but poorly performing projects.

Video: Visualizing Obama's $100 million in cost savings

No wonder it's taking them 90 days to make the cuts. It's hard to find something that small.

Bonus video: Gibbs says the $100 million is big money. Keep watching for the part where the reporter asks why Gibbs considered the $8 billion in earmark spending "minuscule" just a few weeks ago. Classic.

(h/t Hotair)

History shows government programs make things worse, not better

Recently, Nevada and federal government officials have failed epically with their green-tax-break scheme.

Does the problem lie with our current batch of politicians ─ or, as Jon Ralston calls them, our "collection of irredeemable nincompoops, borderline criminals and self-interested cowards" ─­ or is it that government regularly produces poor results when it attempts to pick the winners and losers in an economy?

Dr. Burt Folsom provides strong evidence that problems normally arise when politicians, whether virtuous or of the "nincompoop" variety, stray from the proper role of government.

For example, the first government subsidy in U. S. history was when President George Washington supported the funding of a government-operated fur company in the American Northwest. Its purpose was to allow the U. S. to trade furs with the Indians, earn their loyalty, and keep the British fur traders away from the Mississippi River. What happened? Just the opposite. The government fur company was incompetently managed; Indians mocked it because it sold farm equipment and jews harps instead of cheap and useful blankets, guns, and axes. The British, therefore, flagrantly expanded their fur trading deep into American territory.

In the 1860s, the U. S. began building transcontinental railroads to pull our nation together and give passengers cheap railroad fares across the country. What happened? Again, just the opposite. The country became more divided because (1) some states were left out of the transcontinental building, (2) the first transcontinentals were so poorly built they never provided cheap transportation, and parts of those roads had to be rebuilt later after bankruptcy hearings, and (3) the Irish on the Union Pacific fought with the Chinese on the Central Pacific, which sparked ethnic tensions nationwide. Furthermore, the costs of transportation were not so cheap because the transcontinentals went into receivership often, and their rates became highly regulated. Only when James J. Hill built a transcontinental road (the Great Northern) with no federal subsidy did the U. S. emerge with a competitive and unifying railroad.

As a final example, in 1971 President Nixon instituted wage and price controls to halt inflation. When the price controls were lifted a couple of years later, inflation skyrocketed, and remained in the double digit range for the rest of the decade.

All of these examples need to be discussed and debated to gain insight in how to make public policy. Let’s study a more recent example. The Brits and the Canadians instituted national health care with the goal of providing cheaper medical care for their middle-and-lower income citizens. What happened? The demand for health care skyrocketed, and the physicians in those countries had long lines of patients, some of whom died waiting for surgeries that never occurred. Wealthy citizens had the option of going to the U. S. for surgery, or using local surgeons during off-hours. However, the middle-and-lower income citizens, many of whom would have gladly paid for medical care, waited in lines and hoped to be treated as soon as possible.

Dr. Folsom's findings confirm NPRI's own research on tax dollar performance. Results decrease as Nevada spends more.

Land of the free...loader

Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, says the number of federal subsidy programs now tops 1,800. There seems to be no end in sight, as more and more Americans try to live off their fellow citizens. Don’t blame Obama, either: His round of new subsidies isn’t even included, which means the situation is only going to get worse.

As the 19th Century liberal philosopher Frederic Bastiat noted, “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

Looks like the fiction continues.

Government fail: Alternative fuel tax credit

When both the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun editorial pages agree (on the same day, no less), you know the fail was pretty epic. And it was. Unless you were one of the paper companies that received tax benefits of up to a billion dollars.

From the RJ:

To promote the development of alternative fuels, which unfortunately cost a pantload, Congress in 2007 expanded the tax credit for using non-fossil fuels, offering firms 50 cents a gallon to blend renewable fuels such as ethanol with traditional fossil fuels like diesel.

This caught the interest of a number of struggling American papermakers. Paper mills traditionally produce a liquid called "black liquor" as a byproduct of turning wood to pulp. The pulp is dried to make paper; the "black liquor" is used as fuel to power the mill.

What if they were to add small amounts of diesel to that black liquor, the paper manufacturers wondered. Wouldn't that qualify them for the tax subsidies, even though it actually meant they'd be using more fossil fuels than they used to?

It sure did. Although the credits were never intended for paper companies, they could end up being worth more than $3 billion a year, according to a congressional estimate. One company, Memphis-based International Paper, has already received $71.6 million in credits for a single month.

From the Sun:

The law seemed straightforward. It offered companies tax credits if they used blended fuels — fossil fuels blended with renewable fuels — in their operations.

As the Associated Press reported last week, the word blended was not defined. But who in Congress could have known about a substance called “black liquor”?

This is a byproduct produced at paper mills and used to power much of the mills’ machinery.

Although black liquor is renewable, it did not qualify for the tax credit because it is not blended with anything. What came next was predictable only to those familiar with paper mills.

Managers began adding diesel fuel to the black liquor. Suddenly, they had a blended fuel eligible for the tax credit.

The report being reviewed by the congressional tax committee was prepared by Goldman Sachs. According to the AP, it estimates that International Paper, based in Memphis, alone could qualify for more than $1 billion in blended-fuel tax credits this year…

Nevada ran into this problem in 2006. Officials were stunned to learn that a law offering tax breaks to developers of new buildings if they met “green” construction standards could cost $1 billion. The state had projected that it and local governments would be out only a total of about $250,000. Although the 2007 Legislature modified the law, it still cost about $500 million.

And don't think the program is going to go peacefully into the night. The RJ:

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, called the credit a "lifeline" for the struggling papermakers. "We should be doing everything we can to salvage this industry," she said.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., agreed the credits will not be allowed to expire without paper companies receiving some other relief, if he has anything to say about it. "I won't let that happen," the senator told The Associated Press.

So the alternative fuel tax credit program ended up costing billions more than anticipated, may cost billions for years to come and led to an increase in the use of fossil fuels. Epic fail.

Reminds me of something Milton Friedman once said.

There is a sure-fire way to predict the consequences of a government social program adopted to achieve worthy ends. Find out what the well-meaning, public-interested persons who advocated its adoption expected it to accomplish. Then reverse those expectations. You will have an accurate prediction of actual results.

Unfortunately, the RJ and Sun differ on the solution to the problem.

The RJ:

Here's a novel idea: What if the Congress were to enact modest taxes designed to spread the burden of government as evenly as possible, abandoning once and for all their hopeless ─ and often hilarious ─ attempts to reward favorites, punish the unpopular, and generally manipulate behaviors through "targeted tax breaks"?

The Sun:

The lesson is that green tax breaks, which we generally support, can be tricky. Legislation enabling them should be crystal clear about for whom and for what they are intended.

The Sun just doesn't get it. First, it isn't the role of government to pick the winners and losers in an economy. The government should instead establish a uniformly low tax and regulatory burden. Second, the Sun's own editorial shows why legislators passing tax credits can't always "be crystal clear about for whom and for what they are intended."

"But who in Congress could have known about a substance called “black liquor”?

Exactly: No one had a clue. No one could have had a clue. That's why it isn't the role of government to pick the winners and losers and why things go so poorly when the government strays from that principle.

Good news. We get to pay for Congress' and Nevada's mistakes.

Jon Ralston makes a strong case against higher taxes

Given some of the other stuff Ralston's written, I don't think it's intentional. But has there ever been a better reason to keep more money in the hands of the citizens and not in those of the politicians?

I want to believe that despite the collection of irredeemable nincompoops, borderline criminals and self-interested cowards, some legislators actually want to be thoughtful and responsible in dealing with the state’s budget problems. I want to be believe that some of the term-limited folks don’t see the end as simply a new beginning to search for other elective jobs. I want to believe that there are leaders in the capital who see beyond the numbers games, the right- and left-wing shibboleths and the external forces and won’t set the bar as low as simply performing better than The Man Formerly Known as Governor.

I want to believe, but then I open my eyes. And there it is — the legislative “process” that somehow allows inane measures to escape such as that silliness about disposing of the Electoral College or one assemblyman’s bill (and I am sure there are more) that will directly benefit a company that employs him.

I think there are plenty of other good reasons to support limited, accountable and prioritized spending, including this one from Milton Friedman.

There is a sure-fire way to predict the consequences of a government social program adopted to achieve worthy ends. Find out what the well-meaning, public-interested persons who advocated its adoption expected it to accomplish. Then reverse those expectations. You will have an accurate prediction of actual results.

But for anyone who isn't convinced by that, consider Ralston's words. Why would you allow the people Ralston described to take more of your money?

Bonus reading: Details about Assemblyman Mark Manendo's bill that would shut down a competing body shop that's about to open a location a half mile from Manendo's shop.

"Drive doctors out of Nevada" bill passes the Assembly

That's not the official title of Assembly Bill 495, but it may as well be.

That bill, passed last week by the Nevada Assembly, would remove a voter-approved $350,000 cap on pain and suffering damages juries could award in medical malpratice cases. The cap is on pain and suffering awards, not economic ones.

The cap matters because without it juries can award millions to victims in pain and suffering damages, which increases the malpractice insurance of all doctors. And when costs increase, there is less of an incentive to work and more of an incentive to leave Nevada. Hmmm, that sounds familiar.

Why was the cap originally implemented? Here's a letter explaining it, written by Keith Brill for the Review-Journal.

In 2002, there was a medical malpractice crisis in Nevada. I remember this because I was able to watch it happen while I worked as an active duty OB/GYN physician at Nellis Air Force Base. While civilian OB/GYN physicians were forced to leave Las Vegas due to skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums, and patients could not find doctors to deliver their babies in Las Vegas, I could not believe that our growing town would let this happen.

And then AB1 was passed in a special session of the Legislature in 2002. This provided some measure of tort reform. It wasn't perfect, but it did improve things. And because of this, I decided to stay in Las Vegas as a civilian OB/GYN physician when I separated honorably from the Air Force in 2003.

Then in 2004, the voters of Nevada passed Question 3, which improved tort reform here in Nevada. This sensible legislation stabilized the malpractice insurance market in Nevada, and many insurers came back to our state. Indeed, new insurance companies were started as well, including my own malpractice insurance carrier, Premier Physicians Insurance Company, of which I am one of the physician owners.

And doctors came to our state as well. When I joined my current private OB/GYN practice, Women's Specialty Care, in 2003, I was one of three physicians. As of today, my practice has 22 providers, including 17 physicians and 5 nurse practitioners. We have been able to attract some of the best doctors in the country because of the improved malpractice insurance climate and the desperate need for quality doctors after so many decided to leave in 2002.

The "Drive doctors out of Nevada" bill is now off to the Senate.

Local writers win Pulitzer and Sammie Awards

Congrats to the Las Vegas Sun for winning a Pulitzer Prize for public service. The Sun's article on the award offers a great recap of Alexandra Berzon's prize-winning reporting on construction deaths on the Las Vegas Strip, and takes time for some self-admiration toward the end:

The Pulitzer comes to a newspaper that offers a unique model of journalism in the United States, at a time when the industry is looking for answers to withering circulation, declining ad sales and corresponding layoffs…

The Las Vegas Review-Journal also printed a classy op-ed congratulating its rival paper.

Congrats also to local blogger Elizabeth Crum for winning a Sammie as the blogivist of the year. The Pulitzer may be more prestigious, but the Sammies do have a bobblehead.

Video: NPRI on Ralston

Video of my appearance last night on Jon Ralston's "Face to Face" is now available online, via the Las Vegas Sun's website. For your convenience, here are the links to all four segments: one, two, three and four.

Erin Neff of ProgressNow Nevada was on the program as well, and the discussion focused primarily on taxes and Nevada's budget situation.

Taxes are the price we pay for being uncivilized

"paying taxes is a privilege" - Brian Greenspun.



Las Vegas Sun publisher Brian Greenspun has it all wrong — again. In his latest diatribe against the good citizens of America and all those who protested at the Tea Party last week, Greenspun announces “Rather than look at our tax dollars as something confiscated by our government — that’s us, by the way — we would be better to understand that paying taxes is a privilege.”

Paying taxes is a privilege? Greenspun spent the first half of his article announcing that most Americans hate paying taxes. We hate it, yet it is a privilege?

Mr. Greenspun seems to be the type of person who dogmatically believes the government will always do the right thing and will always be responsible if we simply elect the right people into office (his people, of course). On this, Mr. Greenspun is dangerously wrong.

He is correct, however, to acknowledge that many people in the world would give a great deal to become citizens of this country. And many do, despite no universal healthcare, no protection from job loss, no right to a house, no living wages, and not even a 35-hour work week. For more than 200 years people have voted with their feet and moved from the Old World, with its ancient ways and outdated beliefs in the supremacy of the state over the individual, to come to this country where the philosophy was one of limited government and the freedom of the individual to pursue his own nonviolent self interest — rather than the interests selected for him by some officious collective.

Indeed, the best thing our government does to advance freedom and prosperity is to simply stay out of the way. While both Republicans and Democrats of late have recklessly expanded the size of government and the scope of its power, our country still remains freer, politically and economically, than the vast majority of states on the planet.

Sadly, American government has grown well beyond appropriate limits — protecting citizens from coercion and theft, and arbitrating conflicts. Today billions are taken from those of modest means and redistributed by government to the rich (rich people such as Mr. Greenspun), an infamy that is lighting grass-roots fires all across America. An increasingly petty state regulates businesses like never before, compelling more and more free Americans to procure government-approved licenses to even hold a job. Our coercive statist nannies demand that people wear seatbelts, helmets and don’t smoke, and if the people don’t listen, they unsheathe the iron fist behind their nagging.

For the last century Americans have waged a philosophical battle over how much or how little force should be used to compel the citizens to adopt one set of morals or another. All those who advocate the use of government to reengineer society are, in truth, advocates of violence against their fellow man.

Mr. Greenspun, the cliché has it wrong. In truth, taxes are the price we pay for being uncivilized. For the more we citizens move in the spirit of non-violent voluntary cooperation, the less government we actually need.

Me on TV

I'll be on Jon Ralston's "Face to Face" tonight, discussing taxes and the budget with Erin Neff of ProgressNow Nevada. The show airs on Las Vegas ONE at 5:30 p.m., 6:30 p.m., 8 p.m., 10:30 p.m. and, for you night owls, 3 a.m.

I hope you get a chance to check it out. In the meantime, keep busy by reading this recent commentary on legislative shenanigans from NPRI's Patrick Gibbons and Steve Miller.

The way back for Nevada

If you haven't already, be sure to check out Steve Miller's latest commentary over at npri.org, titled "Obama's multi-trillion-dollar cover-up."

Incisive as always, Steve argues that a national "house-cleaning" likely represents Nevada's only path back to economic prosperity.

An excerpt:

Recovery for Nevada's economy — so dependent on recreational tourism — clearly requires a return of prosperity to the underlying American economy.

Unfortunately, the policies embraced by the Obama administration are precisely those that will ensure a zombie U.S. economy for many years to come.

This observation comes from well-informed individuals at all points on the political spectrum. Free-market economists and big-government regulators alike point out how the Geithner-Summers-Obama "recovery" plan is actually designed to ignore the requirements of recovery and instead just shovel taxpayer dollars into walking-dead banks.

The whole piece is well worth reading, and is available here.

BOOM! Dan Lips brings the pain in NRO today.

Dan Lips and Lindsey Burke from the Heritage Foundation bring up a great quote from an open letter President Obama wrote to his daughters:

“In the end, girls, that’s why I ran for President: because of what I want for you and for every child in this nation. I want all our children to go to schools worthy of their potential - schools that challenge them, inspire them, and instill in them a sense of wonder about the world around them. I want them to have the chance to go to college - even if their parents aren’t rich.”

Happy Earth Day from Write on Nevada

Today, April 22, is Earth Day. Take a few deep breaths to relax and enjoy the day. Oh, wait.

Let's read about green jobs instead. There's a great new paper out by the Social Science Research Network called Green Jobs Myth. From the abstract:

A rapidly growing literature promises that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with green jobs. Not only will these jobs improve the environment, but they will be high paying, interesting, and provide collective rights. This literature is built on mythologies about economics, forecasting, and technology.

Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.

Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.

Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.

Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.

The whole paper can be downloaded here.

Let's hope our politicians learn the facts about "green jobs" before they decide they're important and that taxpayers should pay to subsidize them.

On Earth Day, what could be more fitting?

For a more personal account of Earth Day, this blog post by Diane Medved is really interesting.

Recycling, conservation, care for the environment, ecology are well and good. These are terms I've known since middle school. I've separated my newspapers and bottles and cans and wet garbage for decades, though last year our town told us to just dump all the recyclables into the same bin. I can't even bring myself to do it. I happen to be married to a fellow who famously swerves off the road and leaps out of the car to retrieve every stray Starbucks cup or Kleenex.

I reuse tin foil. I wear hand-me-ups. I eat expired food as long as it doesn't smell bad. Waste, in our home, is sin. If it's yellow, we do let it mellow, and some of our guests can, to our chagrin, verify this.

But there's a difference between prudence and thrift and this putrid Green Machine, this hype that throws itself in my face and sticks, dripping down my consciousness like a pitched lemon meringue pie.

Those twisted fluorescent light bulbs I bought? The color hurts my eyes, half of them don't work, and they become toxic waste when they die. Those "green" detergents and cleaning potions are a lot more expensive than white vinegar, Dutch cleanser, baking soda and water.

Broad-based taxes = disaster

*Nevada's legislature wants you to pay more taxes and then not complain during the next budget shortfall.

Recently Senator Horsford called for a broad-based business tax, adding his voice to a broad-based fantasy. As previously noted, a broad-based tax helps no state avoid budgetary collapse.

Looking at the whole nation, states with broad-based taxes were twice as likely as others to face a FY 2009 shortfall. On average, broad-based tax states faced shortfalls that were 7 percent of their operating budgets. States with no income taxes faced shortfalls of just 3.6 percent, on average.

More simply: States with broader taxes were twice as likely to face shortfalls, and those shortfalls were twice as large as in states that have foregone corporate and personal income taxes. Nevada not only needs to avoid expanding its tax code, it needs to avoid raising taxes.

While the evidence is clear, some still ignore it. One ploy is to point to Arizona, a state with a more diverse tax code, a slightly smaller projected shortfall for FY 2010 and a smaller unemployment rate. It implicitly is asserted that this single state proves that more taxes are better.

Of course, that’s nonsense. As it turns out, Nevada’s projected shortfall stems mostly from the governing class’ demand for a 17 percent increase in spending. We are told that 17 percent is necessary to “maintain services” over the next biennium.

Arizona, by comparison, requires less than a 6 percent increase to “maintain” services over the next fiscal year. Even when looking at Nevada’s individual years, the state is demanding more money to maintain services than Arizona, a state that is very similar to our own.

New taxes aren’t needed. We need a fiscally prudent legislature that figures out creative and innovative ways to solve budgetary problems.

Horsford: Nevada needs a broad-based business tax

Full quote from Senate Majority Leader Horsford:

"What I would like to do is have a conversation and provide outreach to those stakeholders in the business community. I think it's time to talk about a broad-based business tax, as difficult as that may be. I don't see how we balance the budget without broadening our revenue base. We need to talk about a lasting solution."

In other news, Nevada's unemployment rate is at 10.4 percent and traffic at McCarran Airport fell by 11.8 percent in March after falling by 15.7 and 15.2 percent in January and February, respectively (compared to the same months in 2008).

So Nevada needs a broad-based business tax like a man dying of dehydration needs a glass of salt water, like an anorexic teenager needs Nicole Richie as a role model, or like the world needs more people to watch this video.

Now, it's natural to have downturns in the economy. In the private sector, businesses and families prioritize and make the cuts necessary to survive and thrive in the future. But in government, it's all about the politicians taking your money to solve their problems — like this one facing the majority leader:

"Every one of the decisions that we are making are in public through the subcommittee process. Every day we debate the impact of these cuts. I damn near broke down crying (on Thursday) over the cuts to cultural affairs".

Funny. The Review-Journal described this process weeks ago.

For months, the bureaucrats and Democratic legislators have been making a show of tearing their hair, weeping and moaning about "cuts," lambasting Gov. Gibbons for submitting a budget that will supposedly leave schools and hospitals no choice but to close their doors, leave children and old people to starve in the streets, etc.What cuts? Where are the cuts? Most Nevada taxpayers are figuring out how to tighten their belts and live on less. But a 17 percent spending increase -- a revenue increase of 37 percent over what's now flowing in to state coffers, new or increased taxes to generate an extra $2.16 billion, to a new record income level of $7.96 billion -- is the minimum lawmakers will consider?

But maybe that doesn't matter to some people. Maybe what matters is that Sen. Horsford cares. Not about the businesses that are struggling to make ends meet, not about the workers who wouldn't get hired because of government taxes, and not about the families who will struggle financially for a longer time because the government has created a disincentive to hire workers.

But he cares. He almost cried!

Sen. Horsford may care, but does he care about the right stuff?

Picture: Obama's $100 million in budget cuts compared to the total budget

President Obama announced yesterday that he has ordered his cabinet to find $100 million in budget cuts in the next three months.

Now $100 million sounds like a lot of money. And it is — for an individual or most businesses. But the federal budget this year is going to be $3.5 trillion. That's $3,500,000,000,000. $100 million = $100,000,000. That's .0029 percent of $3.5 trillion.

To understand how comparatively small these cuts are, consider this chart put together by the Heritage Foundation.





I didn't even see that small dot the first time I looked at the chart.

Or as Harvard University economics professor Greg Mankiw said:

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.”

Yep, we're paying for it.

Tea parties: Small, but mighty?

So argues Dr. Burt Folsom:

What’s interesting here is that the original tea party was also the work of a minority, but within a few years that minority had skyrocketed in numbers and in power. When the Boston colonists tossed over 300 chests of tea into the Atlantic Ocean, they were protesting the Stamp Act, which brought the Americans taxation without representation. After the tea party, when the British blocked off Boston harbor and demanded restitution, most experts–even most Americans–thought the tax protest had been in vain. But three years later, the principle of taxation without representation had been written into the Declaration of Independence, and soldiers from all thirteen colonies were joining Washington to challenge the British. Fifteen years after that, we had a new nation, a new Constitution, and a new president in George Washington. A small start in Boston harbor helped a tax revolt grow to a dramatic finish.

In 1978, we saw something like the tea party emerge again. Californians were angry at their high property taxes and they led a ballot-box revolt through “Proposition 13,” which slashed the taxes inflicted on California homeowners. The California revolt started small but soon energized the whole nation. President Reagan picked up the torch of tax cuts in his 1980 campaign for the presidency; he sponsored the liberating income tax cuts (from 70 to 28 percent on top rates) that launched the economic expansion of the last twenty-five years.

I hope you were able to make it to a tea party near you. Over 350,000 Americans did — which, by the way, if you're Brian Greenspun, equals "a few thousand people who showed up across America."

The good news is you'll get another chance to party on July 4.

Until then, I hope this video of the Las Vegas Tea Party can keep you inspired.



(Update: Fixed video)

They'll spend money on anything, but they won't do that

We'll spend money to bail out big corporations but not to help poor kids go to private schools?

We will take money from hard-working Americans and give it to the jobless.

We will take money from hard-working Americans and give it to the homeless.

We will take money from hard-working Americans and give it the poor to buy food.

We will take money from hard-working Americans and help the poor receive health care.

We will take money from hard-working Americans to feed the world.

We will take money from hard-working Americans to pay the farmer.

We will take money from hard-working Americans and give it to the starving artist.

We will take money from hard-working Americans and pay off the environmentalist.

We will take money from hard-working Americans to bail out the automakers.

We will even take money from hard-working Americans and give it to multibillion dollar corporations that just destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth.

But we absolutely will not take money from hard-working Americans to help low-income children leave the miserably failing public school system and get a real education.

No, instead we will take money from hard-working Americans to help teacher unions destroy what is left of public education.

Questions for Leo-How do you like your "steakholders?"

In what is quickly becoming known as the "Cue Card Check Scandal" Elizabeth Green caught NYC politicians being scripted by teacher unions.

http://jaypgreene.com/2009/04/15/the-ufts-cue-card-check/

Video: Las Vegas Nevada Tax Day Tea Party

And a good time was had by all. And here's the video to prove it.



Don't just take our word for it. Here are reports from other bloggers around the state.

Chuck Muth: Scene and heard at Nevada Tea Parties
Elizabeth Crum: Nevada Press on the TEA Parties
Joseph Tatner: Click on the Las Vegas Tea Party link
Blah Blah Blog: Video of the Reno Tea Party

Las Vegas Tax Day Tea Party: Rousing success, video coming

After spending the last few hours there, I don't think there's any other way to describe it.


(photo from the RJ)

People lined the streets of Eastern and packed into Sunset Park to hear the speakers, including NPRI's own Geoffrey Lawrence. Organizers estimated the crowd at 2,000. The Las Vegas Review-Journal estimated the crowd in Carson City at 2,000 as well.

The crowd was energetic and upset about wasteful spending, and featured some very creative signs.

There was actually a lot of media there as well, which was great. I believe there was more than one TV station there, but I specifically saw KLAS Channel 8's van there. It'll be interesting to see how the protest gets covered. 840 KXNT had a big part in making the whole rally come together, so I imagine they'll be talking about it for a while as well.

Chuck Muth and Elizabeth Crum will probably have something on their blogs, too. Michelle Malkin has information on some of the other 800, yes you read that right 800, tea parties that took place across the United States.

If you have pictures, video or a report from any of the Tea Parties, post a link in the comments. I'm sure we'd all love to read and see other first-hand accounts.

I was able to take some video footage, which I am going to be feverishly editing so I can post it tonight or tomorrow.

Gibbons talks like a free-market, limited-government believer

Although just a few weeks ago Gov. Gibbons allowed the third largest tax increase in Nevada's history to become law, yesterday he was sounding a different tune.

Gov. Jim Gibbons confirmed today what has been widely speculated in legislative halls: If lawmakers fail to pass the budget in the 120-day regular session, Gibbons would seek to prohibit them from raising taxes in a special session.

Which isn't that surprising, since raising taxes hurts businesses, lowers state tax revenue and gives people a reason to leave Nevada. Even Keynesian economists say that increasing taxes in the midst of a recession isn't the best idea unless you want to increase unemployment.

And as a bonus, he's thinking about vetoing a Washoe County gas tax increase.

Describing last year's ballot question seeking voter approval for a gas tax hike in Washoe County was "vague," Gov. Jim Gibbons said today he is uncertain about whether he would sign the bill empowering the county commission to enact the hike.

Gibbons has said he wouldn't stand in the way of voter-approved tax hikes. But he's not ready to say that RTC-5, which passed with 56 percent of the vote in November, qualifies as a voter-approved tax increase. While the explanation for RTC-5 clearly stated transportation officials would seek a gas tax hike if voters approved the measure, the question itself did not contain the word "tax."

Now this may all be smoke and mirrors. Let's not forget that Gov. Gibbons first had legitimate concerns about taking stimulus money from the feds that would create a future unfunded liability. But then he took it anyway.

The governor's talking like a believer in the free market and limited government, but the real question is — will it last?

Mr. Stossel Goes to Washington

Stossel Goes to Washington (Part 1 of 3)
Uploaded by InTheClassroom

When our country was founded, the average American paid roughly $20 in today’s dollars to the federal government. Now, particularly on tax day, Americans are aware we pay much more than that. In fact, it now takes us four to five months to earn enough just to pay our taxes. As the government takes more of our money, it expands and creates new programs. The programs inevitably fail to produce results, but they continue to grow.

With no competition, little accountability, and no incentive to provide a high-quality service at a reasonable cost, government programs become more and more costly over time. That means higher taxes.

Watch this 20/20 special from 1999 titled “Mr. Stossel Goes to Washington.” In this three-part segment you’ll be reminded why government is not the solution to our problems.

Part II

Stossel Goes to Washington (Part 2 of 3)
Uploaded by InTheClassroom

Part III

Stossel Goes to Washington (Part 3 of 3)
Uploaded by InTheClassroom

Come on out to the Tax Day Tea Party

If you think this tea party is going to involved cheese and crackers, you may be a little behind the times. Here's some catch-up info.

If you're interested in attending a Taxed Enough Already (Tea) Party in Nevada — good news — you've got plenty of options.

The Nevada Appeal reports on Wednesday's party up in Carson City.

Lawmakers will see protesters outside the Legislature and Capitol April 15 as part of a nationwide protest against government waste and taxes.

Held on the deadline for paying federal taxes, organizers are calling it the Tax Day TEA Party.

Dorothy Peterson of Douglas County said TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. “It’s non-partisan, not supposed to be Democrat against Republican or anything like that,” she said.

“It’s just citizens who are tired of being taxed irresponsibly"…

The event is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Wednesday in front of the Capitol and Legislature.

And there's a big party in Las Vegas featuring NPRI's own Goeff Lawrence, Fox News business contributor Herman Cain, blogger Elizabeth Crum and several others. I can guarentee Geoff will be either the best or the baldest speaker there — looks like you'll have to show up to see which.

The Facebook page already has over 440 confirmed guests, so you know there's going to be quite a crowd.

It's going to be held at Sunset Park in Las Vegas on Wednesday, April 15. The official rally picnic goes from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and the speakers will start at 1 p.m.

Keynote remarks will be delivered around 1:00 pm by special guest Herman Cain. Cain is a national motivational speaker, a FOX News business commentator, and host of “The Herman Cain Show” on WSB 750 AM out of Atlanta, Georgia. He’s the former chairman of Godfather’s Pizza, as well as a former president of the National Restaurant Association. Cain also ran for the United States Senate in Georgia in 2004.

Additional scheduled speakers include:

* Susane Crawford, Las Vegas Tax Day TEA Party director
* Casey Hendrickson and Heather Kydd, talk-show hosts for KXNT-840 AM
* Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential candidate
* Chris Hansen, former state chairman of the Indpendent American Party
* Geoffrey Lawrence, Fiscal Policy Analyst for the Nevada Policy Research Institute
* Elizabeth Crum, award-winning blogger of “E!! The True Conservative Story”

Sunset Park is located at the southeast corner of Sunset and Eastern near the airport. Picnic Area F is located in the southwestern section of the park near the dog runs. Use the south entrance off Eastern into the huge parking area adjacent to Picnic Area F.

For additional information, contact Susane Crawford at (702) 374-7733 or by email at edirector@clarkgop.org.

I hope to see you there.

NPRI on the air

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority decided today to extend its contract with R&R Partners, despite the systemic problems with the relationship that NPRI has highlighted in its extensive report on LVCVA financing.

I’m going to be on Channel 13 in Las Vegas at 4 p.m. today, and on Heidi Harris’ program (KDWN, 720 AM, Las Vegas) tomorrow at about 8:45 a.m. with reaction.

Follow the leader

From Reuters:

As a deep recession strips Americans of their jobs, homes and investments, the 2009 U.S. tax season promises to see a large uptick in first-time delinquent income taxpayers.

No mention in the story of whether these delinquents are, you know, simply choosing to follow the lead of a certain secretary of the treasury.

Parental choice works, even for the poorest children on Earth

Dr. James Tooley has released a new book, The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves.

Dr. Tooley’s research has taken him across the globe, visiting several of the world’s poorest countries and studying the world’s poorest people. He finds, all over the world, that parents care for their children and that parents will make choices and sacrifices to improve the livelihood of their children.

Interestingly enough, he found that even families living on just a few dollars a day gave up a portion of their income to send their kids to local private schools, despite the availability of free, state-owned public schools. These parents believed the private schools, which charged as little as $2 a month for tuition, provided a better quality education than the public schools.

Not surprisingly, the parents were right. Dr. Tooley’s research suggests that the private schools, often ill-equipped compared to the public schools, outperformed the free, state-owned schools.

Visit this link on Wednesday to watch the book forum at the Cato Institute live: http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6015.

Hiding evidence...again

*The superintendent of Springfield public schools (from the TV show The Simpsons) is holding Bart Simpson's test and congratulating Bart for being a genius.

In the Simpsons episode “How the west was won” Bart Simpson is told he’s a “genius” after he “aces” a practice test. In reality, the school administrators were trying to hide bad students like Bart in order for the school to get a passing grade to prove the school actually teaches the children.

While this was just a cartoon on the Fox network, the parody isn’t far from reality. Except in reality, school administrators aren’t hiding evidence of failure, but hiding evidence of success — in particular, the success of a voucher program.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan likely buried evidence that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program improved student achievement while Democrats in Congress voted to all but kill the program. Interestingly enough, Arne Duncan’s kids attend very good public schools ... in Arlington, a wealth suburb in northern Virginia.

So while Arne Duncan is wealthy enough to afford a home in an affluent neighborhood near a good school, he makes it difficult for poor children to receive small scholarships to help them afford tuition at a local private school.

Helping the children or serving the teacher union? You decide.

Lessons from the Great Depression

And probably not the ones you learned in school or from the media.

Larry Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, is giving a lecture today at 4:30 p.m. (Pacific time) on why the popular account of the Great Depression is wrong and what lessons we should take from it.

The lecture is being held at Central Michigan University, but thanks to the Internet, you can watch a live webcast.

Reed has also written Great Myths of the Great Depression, which argues that the free market did not cause the Great Depression.

Old myths never die; they just keep showing up in economics and political science textbooks. With only an occasional exception, it is there you will find what may be the 20th century’s greatest myth: Capitalism and the free-market economy were responsible for the Great Depression, and only government intervention brought about America’s economic recovery.

The whole thing is well worth reading and passing on.

(h/t Students for a Free Economy)

Another reminder that raising taxes has consequences

Even though the New York Times has acknowledged that raising taxes hurts businesses and can lower state revenues, I get the impression that some people still want to increase taxes.

Dr. Burt Folsom, an economist and the author of New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy has Damaged America, examines how rich individuals are reacting to higher taxes in New York — by leaving.

As we approach the due date for tax returns, it’s useful to reflect on the current mania for raising taxes on the rich. We have the Obama tax hike from 35 to 39.6 percent on top incomes; we also have the cap on deductions for charity. Now states — led by New York, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut — are getting in the act with so-called “millionaires’ taxes.” These are state income tax increases that extract an extra 8 to 10 percent on incomes above $500,000. Thus, in those states, we have a combined federal and state tax of almost 50 percent on the rich–and that doesn’t include social security tax, medicare tax, telephone tax, and sales taxes, which put the tax over 50 percent for many wealthy Americans.

No wonder Rush Limbaugh speaks of his life in New York in the past tense. Donald Trump says he has spoken to a couple dozen of his New York friends who are also in exit mode. Many others are on the way out to tax-friendly states like Florida.

It shouldn't be a surprise that individuals will act in their self interest to avoid paying taxes. Bono did it. During the Great Depression, Nevada successfully advertised its low tax rate to California millionaires to convince them to move here.

By 1936, the state of Nevada enjoyed a budget surplus. It shared that news with the nation and world while promoting its modest taxes. Gov. Richard Kirman joined business leaders from throughout the state in a "One Sound State" campaign. The intent was to draw wealthy people to Nevada. California millionaires were particularly targeted because the state income tax had been increased by the California Legislature in 1935. The extensive national marketing campaign advertised Nevada as a state with "no income tax, no inheritance tax, no sales tax, no tax on intangibles, but with a balanced budget and a surplus."

Literally scores of millionaires — among them Max Fleishmann, LaVere Redfield, and E. L. Cord — established residency in Nevada. The taxes on all the property purchased at Lake Tahoe, in and around Reno and Las Vegas, and throughout Nevada, helped fill the state's coffers. By 1939, the state surplus was so large that the property tax rate, which had been raised by the 1937 legislature, was cut by 20 percent. (h/t Lower Nevada Taxes)

As legislators are considering raising taxes by a billion dollars, they should remember that individuals react to tax increases. And there is no way to determine what the tipping point for each individual is. All we know for sure is that increased taxes are a reason for individuals to leave Nevada, not to stay here.

Is that really what we want?

A personal account of why medical malpratice reform matters

I've written a little bit about medical malpratice reform, but check out physician Keith Brill's letter to the editor that ran in the Las Vegas Review-Journal yesterday and clearly details what's at stake in the current debate. Brill notes how medical malpractice reform led more doctors to choose to practice in Nevada.

In 2002, there was a medical malpractice crisis in Nevada. I remember this because I was able to watch it happen while I worked as an active duty OB/GYN physician at Nellis Air Force Base. While civilian OB/GYN physicians were forced to leave Las Vegas due to skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums, and patients could not find doctors to deliver their babies in Las Vegas, I could not believe that our growing town would let this happen.

And then AB1 was passed in a special session of the Legislature in 2002. This provided some measure of tort reform. It wasn't perfect, but it did improve things. And because of this, I decided to stay in Las Vegas as a civilian OB/GYN physician when I separated honorably from the Air Force in 2003.

Then in 2004, the voters of Nevada passed Question 3, which improved tort reform here in Nevada. This sensible legislation stabilized the malpractice insurance market in Nevada, and many insurers came back to our state. Indeed, new insurance companies were started as well, including my own malpractice insurance carrier, Premier Physicians Insurance Company, of which I am one of the physician owners.

And doctors came to our state as well. When I joined my current private OB/GYN practice, Women's Specialty Care, in 2003, I was one of three physicians. As of today, my practice has 22 providers, including 17 physicians and 5 nurse practitioners. We have been able to attract some of the best doctors in the country because of the improved malpractice insurance climate and the desperate need for quality doctors after so many decided to leave in 2002.

Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences — like not having enough doctors to deliver babies.

Why does healthcare exist?

Far too often, when people discuss healthcare, they ask: Why isn't healthcare affordable and accessible to all?

In my new commentary over on the NPRI homepage, I argue that the question we should be asking is: Why does healthcare exist at all?

The first question assumes that there's a supply of healthcare somewhere, and if we could just find it or stop the wealthy from hoarding it, healthcare would be as free and accessible as sunshine.

If you don't believe me, or if you're just too lazy to read, check out this video of MEP Daniel Hannan talking about the British socialized medicine experience.



(h/t Hotair)

Why does Sharon Dattoli decide where your kids go to school?

Doesn't it strike you as odd that an individual you've never met, who doesn't even know your child's name — let alone his or her hopes, dreams or ambitions — decides where your child goes to school if you live in Clark County?

Sharon Dattoli is the zoning and demographics director for the Clark County School District, and it's her job to redraw school district lines each year "to prevent crowding and maintain diversity."

What tools does Dattoli use to accomplish her goals?

Until two years ago we used data from the DMV. But that doesn’t tell us when people leave. The birth rate is a more important factor. The 2004 number helps us estimate how many kindergartners we can expect in September.

Think about that. The mating habits of your neighbors have a bigger impact on where your child goes to school than anything you as a parent can do, aside from moving or pulling your kid out of the public school system altogether.

This isn't an attack on Sharon Dattoli. She's doing her best to accomplish her goals — prevent crowding and maintain diversity. To achieve those goals, she must view your child as a number and a demographic statistic. As a parent, is that how you want your child viewed?

As you know, your child — and every child — is much more than a statistic. Children are individuals with unique personalities, special talents and different goals from any other child. And as a parent, you've invested hundreds of hours of your life raising them, providing for their needs (and some wants) and preparing them to learn.

And the decision about where your child will attend school, where your child will spend hundreds of hours every year, is based more on your neighbors' mating habits than on what would be best for your child.

Why do parents tolerate a system like this? Especially since there is a better, cheaper way that has proven itself around the country.

A way where Sharon Dattoli doesn't choose your kid's school based on your child's statistical value or your neighbors' fertility.

A way where parents choose the school their child attends based on what the school offers and how that matches their child's unique needs.

Isn't that a way we could all support?

Union prevents learning

No joke. And not just for D.C. voucher students, either.

“When I started in my early days, as a bus girl, I worked my way up, I learned to wash dishes,” said Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-Las Vegas. “Are we so ridiculous these days that we don’t cross-train people?”

But lawmakers were told that because of union rules and contracts, cross-training is limited in government offices.

“There’s no money to do it, and contracts will not allow you to do it,” said Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas. (Emphasis added)

Seriously? Seriously. Sometimes I read these stories and they just blow my mind. At a time when families and businesses throughout Nevada are having to adapt and prioritize, government continues on in its inefficient ways.

But remember, Nevada needs to increase spending by 17 percent or terrible things will happen — state employees may have to cross train!

We couldn't have that now, could we?

Cartoon: Pass the bill

Patrick posted a great video about all the federal spending earlier today.

Consider this political cartoon from Michael Ramirez a worthy follow-up.

Funny in an "oh-wait-that's-what-is-really-happening" type of way.



For more info visit StopSpendingOurFuture.org.

(h/t Powerline)

Drowning in debt

This video from Reason TV compares the current bailout program with a laundry list of massive government spending projects. Did you know our bailout spending spree will dwarf the federal expenditures for the New Deal, World War I and World War II combined?

Local businesses react to economic conditions. Why is government immune?

Anyone remember the brouhaha over the Chamber of Commerce's report that showed the average Nevada public-sector employee made approximately 28 percent more than a comparative worker in the private sector?

In response, several unions ran an ad attacking the salaries made by Chamber employees. The Nevada Taxpayer Guide had a good analysis on the distortions in the union's ad.

I wonder if the union will revise its ad after word came out yesterday that the Chamber is cutting its staff by 20 percent.

Why?

The organization, which had 58 employees prior to the cuts, cited declines in membership, event participation and sponsorship due to the economy for the need the [sic] trim the staff.

The Chamber, like all businesses, had to prioritize and react to the changing economy.

Why are politicians and government workers seemingly immune to the current economic realities? Instead of balancing the budget using available revenues, there's talk of a billion-dollar tax increase, increasing spending by 17 percent, and accounting shenanigans to make potential tax increases more politically feasible.

While Nevada's politicians are struggling to cut state workers' salaries by 6 percent, private businesses are having to make tough decisions like laying people off.

Looks like the Chamber's study was more accurate than anyone realized at the time.

Democrats kill school choice...again

Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress killed a school-choice bill called the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, which gave low-income students scholarships to attend private schools. Democrats told the D.C. public school system to be prepared to reenroll the 1,700 students currently accepting vouchers by 2010. The program cost just $14 million a year, peanuts considering the billions Congress gives to multibillion-dollar corporations. Interestingly, it turns out Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sat on evidence that the school-choice program actually improved student achievement — specifically in reading.

This is not something to ignore, considering the Obama administration’s promises of education reform, when the reforms have proven to work. Of course, it’s easier to kill a program that works if you hide the evidence.

Naturally, an eruption ensued in the news media and with education pundits across the country. Special thanks to Dr. Jay P. Greene and Dr. Matthew Ladner over at jaypgreene.com for collecting this information:

• Wall Street Journal — “Voucher recipients were tested last spring. The scores were analyzed in the late summer and early fall, and in November preliminary results were presented to a team of advisers who work with the Education Department to produce the annual evaluation. Since Education officials are intimately involved in this process, they had to know what was in this evaluation even as Democrats passed (and Mr. Obama signed) language that ends the program after next year.”

• Washington Post — The Post objected to Secretary of Ed Arne Duncan’s rush to shut down the D.C. voucher program in the face of positive results. “We had hoped that Mr. Duncan, who prides himself in being a pragmatist interested in programs that work, would have a more open mind…. So it’s perplexing that Mr. Duncan, without any further discussion or analysis, would be so quick to kill a program that is supported by local officials and that has proven popular with parents. Unless, of course, politics enters the calculation in the form of Democratic allies in Congress who have been shameless in their efforts to kill vouchers.”

• Cato Institute — Andrew Coulson emphasized the positive results at a fraction of the cost of D.C. public-school spending per pupil. D.C. public schools spend $26,000 per student, while the private schools accepting voucher kids charge just $6,600.

• National Review Online —Matt Ladner asks: “If you have any doubt as to whether this program should exist, ask yourself a simple question: Would you enroll your children in violence-ridden D.C. public schools with decades-long records of academic failure? Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t. Barack and Michelle Obama didn’t. Members of Congress don’t. What about you? Would you enroll your children in those schools?”

• Patrick McIlheran at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel — “The students were tested in the spring, the results analyzed in the summer and the preliminary findings given to the team working with the Department of Education in November. Why, then, didn’t the department chime in when Congress was ending choice?”

• Joanne Jacobs asks: “What did Education Secretary Arne Duncan know about the study’s findings and when did he know it? Duncan had to know during the voucher reauthorization debate that D.C.’s program is advancing students by nearly half a year, editorializes the Wall Street Journal. Why didn’t he speak up?”

• Michelle Malkin writes: “It would have been helpful to know about a Department of Education study on D.C.’s school choice initiative before the Democrats — beholden to teachers unions allergic to competition — voted to starve the innovative program benefiting poor, minority children in the worst school district in the nation. Somehow, the results of the study conducted last spring didn’t surface until now.”

• Lisa Snell of the Reason Foundation argues: “Kids in the D.C. Opportunity scholarship program deserve the same chance to go to a higher quality school as President Obama’s own children. The taxpayers of the United States deserve at least one education program that actually gets results in exchange for the money.”
Remember, school choice, parental choice and education reform are not Republican vs. Democrat issues. There are many Democrats who support serious education reform — indeed, an entire group called Democrats for Education Reform.

As Matt Ladner pointed out, even California’s regularly liberal Sen. Feinstein supported the program when it was created, saying, “Why should the poor child not have the same access as the wealthy child does? That is all he is asking for. He is saying let’s try it for 5 years, and then let’s compare progress and let’s see if this model can work for these District youngsters.”

Sen. Feinstein went on: “I have gotten a lot of flak because I am supporting it. And guess what. I do not care. I have finally reached the stage in my career, I do not care. I am going to do what I sincerely believe is right.”

Choice works because it provides strong incentives to reward success — while punishing failure. The status quo offers us only unaccountable public monopolies, and since when has a public monopoly ever served the public good?

The school choice movement is growing more and more popular as evidence demonstrating that these programs work continues to mount. So why on earth would an elite few destroy a program that helps the most needy among us?

As Sen. Feinstein said, this is about doing what is right.

New book by NPRI policy fellow

If you ask Doug French, he'll tell you how much he enjoyed the late Murray Rothbard's tenure at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, during the 1990s and how large an impact Murray's insights had on him. Now, years later, Doug works in behalf of Murray's vision as executive vice president of the Mises Institute , and even now has an extremely timely new book out: Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply

The book -- which began as Doug’s master’s thesis while a student of Professor Rothbard -- examines three of the most famous speculative bubble episodes in history through the lens of Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

From the review on Mises.org: "Although these episodes occurred centuries ago, readers will find the events eerily similar to today’s bubbles and busts: low interest rates, easy credit terms, widespread public participation, bankrupt governments, price inflation, frantic attempts by government to keep the booms going, and government bailouts of companies after the crash."

Why the government shouldn't pick the winners and losers in an economy

Las Vegas Sun headline: "How did so many experts get their forecasts so wrong? Difficulty, missed signs and lingering boom-time euphoria all contributed to inaccurate predictions".

And that's exactly why it isn't the government's job to try and pick winners and losers. There are no sure things. Every business decision involves a degree of risk.

And when politicians try to "create" jobs using TIF, STAR bonds or tax incentives, they are taking a risk, a chance, a gamble with taxpayers' dollars.

Legislators and governors aren't elected to try to win money for the taxpayers. They should create a uniformly low tax and regulatory burden that allows businesses to succeed or fail on their merits, not their ability to play politics, woo politicians and gain taxpayer subsidies.

Once the government gets involved with determining how money is distributed to businesses, decisions often get made for political decisions. Anyone remember Obama's Las Vegas comment and its negative impact on tourism? That is a perfect example of what happens when the government gets involved with businesses. Although Nevada's politicians complained about it, they're now in danger of making the same mistake.

Munchausen by Proxyocracy

Goldwater Institute economist Byron Schlomach and I argue that Americans suffer from battered taxpayer syndrome.

Remember the girl in the Sixth Sense whose mother, suffering from Munchausen by Proxy, poisoned her to gain sympathy and attention?

That in a nutshell is what much of American politics is like.

RJ asks: Where are the budget cuts?

The Las Vegas Review-Journal published a great editorial over the weekend that puts Nevada's budget situation in perspective.

Note the use of the term "situation" instead of "crisis" or "emergency." If you say Nevada's facing a budget "crisis," any debate about the budget is over, because the immediate question becomes, "How is the legislature going to fix the crisis?"

"Do something!" and "Save us!" are cries often heard from those on the state's political Left, who believe sincerely that there is a huge crisis but are often ignorant about the true budget situation.

From the RJ's piece:

The bottom line, as the accountants have taught us to say, is that -- despite the fact both population growth and school enrollments have leveled off -- even the "maintain services at current levels" spending Carson City Democrats apparently consider "as low as they'll go" represents 17 percent more spending than the budget enacted by the Legislature two years ago -- 26 percent more than actual spending of about $6.3 billion.

For months, the bureaucrats and Democratic legislators have been making a show of tearing their hair, weeping and moaning about "cuts," lambasting Gov. Gibbons for submitting a budget that will supposedly leave schools and hospitals no choice but to close their doors, leave children and old people to starve in the streets, etc.

What cuts? Where are the cuts? Most Nevada taxpayers are figuring out how to tighten their belts and live on less. But a 17 percent spending increase -- a revenue increase of 37 percent over what's now flowing in to state coffers, new or increased taxes to generate an extra $2.16 billion, to a new record income level of $7.96 billion -- is the minimum lawmakers will consider?

They plan to enact spending measures to raise and allocate at least that much extra loot, yet they still won't say what taxes they plan to raise in order to increase state revenues by 37 percent?

That's right: Nevada's politicians have convinced many people that a doomsday is approaching, because legislators refuse to live within their means and want a record amount of spending.

Families and businesses all over Nevada are having to prioritize spending and cut back on their expenses. Our elected officials in Carson City should do the same.

DC vouchers work

As Dr. Ladner mentioned in his blog (below) the US Department of Education did not release the results of an academic study on the DC voucher program until well after the program was killed by Congress. In case you forgot what the DC voucher program was all about, just watch the video above.

What Did Arne Duncan Know, and When Did He Know It?

The United States Department of Education has been funding a scientific evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship voucher program. They sat on the report while Congress voted to suspend the program, and then released it on a Friday afternoon with a negative press release in an attempt to bury it. Nice try, but it didn't work...

Read about it in today's Wall Street Journal and in a piece yours-truly wrote for National Review Online.

Pay no attention to the tax increases behind the curtain

Last week, Nevada’s legislative leadership held a press conference about the state’s budget situation. And said nothing. Or maybe their performance is reflecting their pay. Has there ever been a stronger case for merit pay?

The only attendee who said anything noteworthy was John Ritter, CEO of Focus Property Group, and his suggestion was hardly a wise one: He said the state needs a $1 billion tax increase.

The ironic thing is that Ritter should know better. He understands what a private company must do to deal with a downturn. As the Las Vegas Sun notes, “His workforce is just 10 percent of what it was at its peak.”

Here’s a man who cut 90 percent of his employees. Not, presumably, because he wanted to, but because he reacted to the economic realities, prioritized and then cut back.

Why, then, is he proposing that legislators take measures that would allow them to avoid making the kinds of responsible, adult decisions he has had to make in the private sector? While they'd be wise to disregard Ritter's words, legislators should pay close attention to his actions, particularly as they fret over the need to implement 6 percent pay cuts.

Hard times have forced Nevada’s citizens and businesses to prioritize and eliminate some spending. Nevada’s government should be expected to live within its means as well.

Wrapping up a busy week

I hope nobody out there missed any of the great content over at npri.org this week.

We’ve got Patrick Gibbons writing on Nevada’s need for more charter schools and on the folly of assuming that more money equals better education.

We’ve got Steve Miller on the ongoing shenanigans at the Fed.

And we’ve got Geoff Lawrence on the governor’s push for hidden energy taxes and on the supposed “failures” of the free market.

Nice work, guys, as always.