Happy Halloween from Write on Nevada

The best thing about this Halloween is that we are finally going to learn where government jobs are going to come from.


Another amazing thing about Halloween is that it even has CNN reporters attacking socialism.

The segment also included an attack on socialism, pertaining to the redistribution of candy.

"Maybe this is why I'm a business reporter," Romans said. "My mom took all my candy - four kids - divided it up equally and then gave it all back to us in equal amounts and I was like [Romans threw both hands up in the air and gave a look of distain] ... It's not right. It's not right."

Both Roberts and Chetry labeled the candy redistribution as "socialism," as Romans told her story.

Happy Nevada Day

Here's the history of Nevada Day in case you need a little refresher.

Nevada became a state (admitted to the Union) October 31, 1864, so Nevada Day is October 31 of each year. However, with the passage of AB396 by the 1997 Nevada State Legislature, Nevada voters, on November 3, 1998 advised the 1999 legislature they wanted to celebrate Nevada Day on the "last" Friday in October beginning in 2000. The legislature, after much heated debate, complied.

Nevada Day is presently a state holiday recognized on the last Friday in October with the parade on the Saturday following.

Also, the Sun has a 10-question quiz to test your knowledge of our Silver State.

• 1. What year did Nevada become a state?
  
• 2. Who was president of the United States at the time?
  
• 3. Why is one of Nevada’s nicknames “Battle Born?”
  
• 4. Which states border Nevada?
  
• 5. What is the state bird?
  
• 6. What is the state song?
  
• 7. What is Nevada’s highest peak?
  
• 8. Las Vegas has the state’s largest population. Which cities come in second and third?
  
• 9. How often does the state Legislature convene?
  
• 10. Which professional sports teams call Clark County home?

How did you do? Head over to the Sun for the answers (on the right side of the page).

I'm embarrassed to say I only got five correct, but I'm ready for next year. Happy Nevada Day.

HSAs solve health care better than government

Jeffrey Miron of the Harvard Economics Department and the Cato Institute has it exactly right in his recent column regarding health care:

Government should not subsidize health insurance -- for the uninsured, the poor, the elderly or anyone else -- or regulate health insurance markets. Here's why.

Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of health care, so they utilize too much -- often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value hasn't been proven. This excess demand, along with technological progress, means rapidly growing deficits, so governments limit reimbursements to health providers or ration care. This kills innovation and creates its own inequities. The taxes necessary to fund subsidies are a drag on economic growth.

This phenomenon is known in economics as "moral hazard" and is endemic to most insurance markets. The principle is that when insulated against the costs of a particular behavior, individuals are more likely to engage in that behavior - precisely because they do not bear the full cost. This can lead individuals to take unnecessarily risky behavior or to take costly actions even if the individual would not value that action as the best use of limited resources in the absence of insurance.

For instance, comprehensive auto insurance can lead to more risky driving behavior (requiring government to enforce a glut of regulations in order to artificially re-introduce a measure of safety). Expectations of government bailouts can lead large banks to engage in risky lending practices that they would not likely engage in without the anticipation of government "insurance." So, too, in health insurance markets, individuals who are not directly invested in the cost of treatment are more likely to pursue unnecessary treatments - driving up the cost of health care.

This is precisely why free-market economists such as those at the Cato Institute have advocated for greater use of health savings accounts in combination with high-deductible insurance policies. These policies give the individual an incentive to better self-regulate the amount of health care he requires. A health savings account allows the individual to invest money he would otherwise spend on a higher premium into a tax-free savings account that he can later use to pay the higher deductibles when he decides that care is necessary. This allows the insurance policy to be used for its intended purpose - to insure against the event of a catastrophe - and overcomes the moral-hazard problem that drives up costs and drives down the availability of health care.

The alternative being discussed in Congress right now is to take decisions away from the individual. Under ObamaCare, a handful of bureaucrats would be forced to impose top-down decisions about health care expenditures onto Americans instead of allowing them to self-regulate. Both approaches are designed to overcome the moral-hazard phenomenon. However, one respects individual freedom while the other does not.

Talk on Nevada: More problems with Obama's health care plan

The enormous cost of socialized health care to the federal government has been well documented, but as Geoffrey Lawrence explains in this week's edition of Talk on Nevada, Obamacare would also negatively impact doctors and cause a budget nightmare in Nevada.

For more, check Geoff's commentary, "Putting a price on government-run health care: Cost to Nevadans could rival state tax burden," or Deroy Murdock's recent column, "ObamaCare's Medicaid explosion."

LVRDA giving away the farm...again

The Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency has renewed talks about how to take money away from local police, fire and education services in order to hand it over to private developers. The LVRDA has begun talking with the Baltimore-based Cordish Companies, a large commercial real estate development firm, about building a 20,000-seat stadium in downtown Las Vegas. This project was previously pursued in 2007 by another development firm, REI Neon, which failed to secure adequate funding for the project primarily because investors didn't consider the project to be profitable - despite the fact that the city had pledged to provide at least $265 million in taxpayer subsidies for the project. Now, in a maniacal attempt to ensure that the elitist politicians' centrally-planned vision for downtown becomes a reality, the city will likely offer a similar, if not larger, amount of free loot to Cordish for completing the project.

The project would ultimately be subsidized through a complicated mechanism called tax-increment financing (TIF). City planners claim that TIF is "free money" that would impose no extra burden on taxpayers. However, NPRI research has demonstrated how the TIF agreements used by the LVRDA take money that would have otherwise gone to fund schools, police and fire protection and transfer it to private developers in a corporate welfare scheme. Often, this can lead to tax increases in order to finance the services that taxpayers were paying for in the first place.

The real kicker in this debate is that, as was the case previously, the arena will be billed as an NBA arena, but there is not even an agreement with any NBA team. The project would likely impose a higher tax burden on local area residents and is being pursued on the purely speculative notion that an NBA or NHL team could decide to relocate there at some future date. It's entirely possible that the arena could just sit empty - a monument to mock the taxpayers who are forced into a higher tax burden in order to finance it.

In a time of economic hardship, this is government lunacy at its finest.

Maddow attacks, still no substance

Rachael Maddow, the dogmatic host on MSNBC, recently had Americans For Prosperity (AFP) president Tim Phillips on as a guest. AFP is currently touring the East Coast, talking about the dangers of Obamacare and building up grassroots support for real, market-oriented health care reform.

Maddow could have taken the debate down an intellectual path, discussing the problems or merits of Obamacare. But, as a typical ideologue, she instead resorted to personal attacks. For 10 minutes, Maddow attempted to grill the ever-so-cordial Phillips on the issue of who funds the AFP.

Maddow’s attack is particularly ironic considering the fact that Obama has the support of many major medical corporations (Democrats bought them off).

Maddow’s attacks are intended to discredit the AFP, but any reasonable person would see she fails to accomplish that goal. To discredit someone you have to prove his ideas are wrong, not attack who he is. That means debating the issue – something Maddow seems to regularly avoid.

Attacking the messenger, the individual, or the group, is always a good strategy if your own position is without merit.

Congress working to extend the first-time home-owner tax credit

The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. And in the case of the first-time home-owner tax credit, it may be growing.

The latest idea under discussion is a credit worth up to $8,000 for first-time homebuyers and up to $6,500 for homeowners looking to trade up to a bigger primary residence and who have already lived in their current home for five years.

To qualify for the full credit, however, homebuyers must have adjusted gross income of less than $125,000 ($225,000 for married couples filing jointly).

In addition, the credit would only apply to homes sold for $800,000 or less. Contracts to buy a home must be signed by April 30, 2010, and the deals must close by June 30 in order for a buyer to qualify for the credit…

Critics, while acknowledging that the credit has helped to generate additional home sales, say it has been poorly targeted and therefore not cost-effective.

They point to estimates that only 10% to 20% of the nearly 2 million homebuyers who will have gotten the credit by Nov. 30 bought solely because of the tax break.

In other words, a large majority of homebuyers who benefited from the credit would have bought their homes without it.

By one economist's estimate, the government may have spent $43,000 for each sale that occurred strictly because of the credit.

In a position paper published this week, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said making the credit available to existing homeowners would not help stabilize housing prices or reduce inventory.

Unfortunately for those who care about sound fiscal policy, Nevada's entire Congressional delegation has already expressed support for this idea. Congressman Dean Heller especially ought to know why this is bad policy.

Government shouldn't pick the winners and losers. And you shouldn't support something just because the government happened to pick you as a winner this time. Over time, everybody but the house (government politicians and bureaucrats) is going to lose.

We live in Nevada, for goodness’ sake. We're supposed to rip other people off using this logic, not get suckered in ourselves.

Adequacy lawsuits unlikely

Back in September, Senator William Raggio (R-Washoe) opined that budget cuts to education in Nevada could result in an “adequacy” lawsuit. Supposedly, such threats would compel him, and others, to increase taxes. NPRI responded with an article, “Inadequate? or Ineffective?” to relieve those concerns.

NPRI noted that the vast majority of states which lost adequacy lawsuits for public education and then increased spending saw no significant gains in student achievement. Only Massachusetts saw significant gains, but its students were outperformed by those of Florida, a state which spent about half as much per pupil.

Some good news on the adequacy-lawsuit front comes from Eric A. Hanushek and Alfred A. Lindseth. In an article for the Federalist Society, “Judicial Funding Mandates Related to Education Sharply Decline,” Hanushek and Lindseth report that a dozen adequacy lawsuits have been dismissed by state courts across the nation since 2005. Not a single case since 2005 has resulted in a judgment demanding increased funding to public education.

In Horne v. Flores the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower-court decision requiring increased funding to programs for English language learners in Arizona. The court noted that increased funding had little to no impact on student achievement.

According to the Pacific Legal Foundation "[t]he issue was whether the courts improperly declined to modify an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children."

Even though Nevada’s constitutional requirements of public education are written in a way that would make a victorious adequacy lawsuit improbable to begin with, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Horne v. Flores now makes that scenario even less likely. Senator Raggio, you have nothing to worry about now.

With the adequacy lawsuit monkey off Nevada’s back, maybe lawmakers can turn their efforts toward smart, effective and frugal education policies — rather than trying to figure out more creative ways of taking other people’s hard-earned money.

Live blog: IFC tax study firm selection meeting

Moody's wins the contract.

***Scroll for updates***

The IFC Subcommittee to conduct a review of Nevada's revenue structure is meeting today to pick the consultant that will actually conduct the tax study. The agenda is here. The meeting is not, I repeat NOT, being streamed online. More on that later.

The four contenders to conduct the tax study are Willdan, Moody's, Nevada Consultants, and UNR.

9:25 Willdan presents first. They have 45 minutes. With four groups presenting this is going to be a longer meeting, but that's why Write on Nevada is here.

9:30 Willdan says they are currently working on 3 dozen "revenue enhancement" projects. No doubt that will endear them to some members of the committee.

9:43 Willdan is talking about how to stabilize revenue (taxes). For their sakes, I hope they realize that this isn't about stabilizing taxes, it's about finding an excuse to increase taxes.

9:45 Willdan is now talking about rainy day funds. Rainy day funds are a terrific idea, but again, that's not what the IFC wants. I'm not liking Willdan's chances here, because they don't seem to realize this study is just a cover to raise taxes not govern responsibly -- although I'd be happy to be wrong.

9:48 Sen Townsend is once again wearing terrific suspenders.

9:52 Sen Townsend asks if the Willdan study will be revenue neutral.

Willdan says they'd be open to anything.

Sen. Horsford cracks on the way Sen. Townsend dresses. Good natured and funny.

9:57 Hmmm... Willdan and Sen. Weiner both say many states are looking for revenue.

Remember this: budget problems weren't just a Nevada problem.

10:02 Sen. Care says the IFC must consider an income tax in order to have a ... complete study.

10:06 Assemblyman Conklin cites the Tax Foundation on how much of Nevada's tax burden is paid by out-of-staters. He says it's almost half.

10:10 Sen. Horsford how do you build consensus on quality of life issues?

This is the crux of the problem. You can't. Individuals value different things at completely different levels. The beauty of freedom is that people are allowed to pursue their own self interest, so long as they don't impose on the rights of other individuals. Government has the awesome power of being able to take individuals' time and money, and that is why government should be limited to its core functions and not try to pick the winners and losers in an economy.

10:15 Willdan's done. Sounds like they know their stuff, but did they ruin their chances by mentioning things like rainy day funds and setting priorities?

10:21 Nevada Consultants is up. Sounds like they'll be playing up the "We know Nevada" angle. For instance, Nevada's flag is on the background of all its slides. Subtle.

10:28 NV Consultants did a survey on potential new taxes. Claims that two taxes had "substantive support."

10:31 Says Nevada shouldn't lose low tax environment.

10:35 NV Consultant presenter: "Tears have welled up in our eyes" when thinking about what's happening in Nevada.

10:38 "We don't need the money...It's because we love Nevada." "He's (Eric Hilton's) doing this because he loves Nevada."

Is this a business presentation or a Hallmark movie?

10:43 Sen. Rhoads' audio on the video conference is way too loud.

10:44 NV Consultants says they will hire (20 to 30) Nevadans to do work on the study.

10:52 NV Consultants says the viability of the study must be considered from the beginning. Says NV Consultants wants to do the study in a way to "protect" the legislature.

10:56 Says NV Consultants won't make fun of Nevada ... like those other (big, competing) companies. Says "we're the best for this task, because we're Nevadans."

And with that their presentation ends. Oh, did they mention they're from Nevada?

I have my doubts they'll be selected.

11:09 Moody begins its presentation.

11:16 Moody's presenter says Ne-vah-da and immediately catches himself.

11:20 Moody's presenter says sales tax states are usually less volatile , but Nevada is unique (because of dependence on tourism). Says personal income tax states are also experiencing large declines in tax revenue. Says just adding personal income taxes may not do the trick.

11:26 Moody's says they suspect revenues won't keep up in future years and that current taxes are becoming less effective. Adds that individual and corporate income taxes are also facing downward pressures.

11:31 New Moody's presenter compares the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group to herding cats.

11:36 Moody's asks, "Will improving quality of life require increased tax revenues?"

We already know Assemblyman Anderson's answer, "We don't have money. That's the reason we're doing the study."

11:42 Assemblyman Conklin says Nevada's tax revenue isn't keeping up with Nevada's income. I'll have to scan in the graph later today so you can see it, because tax revenue has stayed very consistant (with tax increases) with personal income. But more than that, why should government grow as income grows? Government should provide its core functions, not grow as the populace gets richer.

11:51 Assemblyman Conklin is still pretty excited about something. He's been engaged with Russ Guidon (Legislative staff) in an animated exchange for a couple minutes.

11:53 Moody's presentation ends. Up next are the presenters from UNR. I expect lots of talk about their vision for Nevada. It's worth remembering what Sen. Raggio pointed out at the last tax study working group meeting. It's a huge conflict of interest for UNR employees to be making the case for more taxes when they would (presumably) directly benefit from increased taxes that led to greater state funding for UNR.

12:02 On a completely unrelated note, it's noon and I'm starting to get hungry. There'll be a lunch break after UNR's presenation.

12:02 The UNR team includes 20 faculty members from UNR and UNLV and 14 grad and undergrad students. No wonder this proposal costs over $900,000. (The limit was suppose to be $500,000, but the IFC can spend what they want. Even though Legislators claimed to have "cut to the bone", they found money for this.)

12:06 UNR: "Will we be biased? Absolutely. Will we be self-serving? No."

They are also playing the "We are from Nevada" card.

12:09 Says they'll look at the "universe of tax options." Says the economic base is shifting away from the existing tax base.

12:13 UNR: Higher tax rates have several negative consequences.

Let's keep that in mind.

12:23 UNR is talking about the places Legislators can "invest" your (tax) money and the return they can get.

12:25 UNR's used 25 minutes and they still have two professors to go. With only 20 minutes left, I think they're going to run out of time.

12:31 UNR sped through its final two presentations and now has 15 minutes for questions.

12:32 Says they'd look at what California is proposing. Says CA is looking to lower the personal income tax and eliminate the corporate income tax, because they are too volatile. Suggests expanding the sales tax to services.

I had not heard about that about CA, but that proposal sounds quite interesting.

12:40 Assemblyman Stewart asks if UNR is going to be able to reduce the cost. One of the presenters says he'll take his salary out of the proposal and do it for free.

12:42 Break until 1:15.

1:34 Moody's is selected unanimously. Willdan is the second choice in case something doesn't work out. The next step is to negotiate and finalize the contract. The next meeting of the full IFC committee is November 19 and the subcommittee will meet afterwards to select the members of the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group.

1:41 Meeting adjourned.

Nevada Legislature mandates insurance coverage against robot attacks

Nevada has 55 health insurance mandates – one of the highest numbers in the nation. Each mandate requires health insurance consumers to pay for services they may not need, like counseling for drug abuse or treatment for alcoholism. It doesn't matter if you've never tried an illegal drug in your life and it doesn’t matter if you're a teetotaler ... you've got to pay for the coverage.

Legislators are told they are saving lives and helping people, but in reality they are helping to drive up the cost of health insurance coverage. Maybe in the not-so-distant future they will have a mandate to protect us against robots. Undoubtedly, someone will tell them it’s a great idea.

The Word: Education officials ban bake sales in NYC

Education officials ban bake sales in NYC

One way you can fix the problem of over-active school bureaucrats is to allow parents to choose which school their child goes to and empower schools, not education bureaucrats, to make these types of decisions.

This podcast features the song "Voice from Space" by Butterfly Tea (http://www.jamendo.com/en/artist/Butterfly_Tea), available under a Creative Commons Attribution, Share Alike license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/deed.en).

Should insider trading be legal?

According to Daniel Boudreaux, yes.

Prohibitions on insider trading prevent the market from adjusting as quickly as possible to changes in the demand for, and supply of, corporate assets. The result is prices that lie.

And when prices lie, market participants are misled into behaving in ways that harm not only themselves but also the economy writ large.

Remember the 1970s-era price ceiling on gasoline? By causing prices at the pump to lie about the scarcity of oil, that price ceiling led Americans to waste untold hours waiting in lines to fuel their cars. Similar wastes occur when corporate assets are mispriced.

Suppose that unscrupulous management drives Acme Inc. to the verge of bankruptcy. Being unscrupulous, Acme's managers succeed for a time in hiding its perilous financial condition from the public. During this lying time, Acme's share price will be too high. Investors will buy Acme shares at prices that conceal the company's imminent doom. Creditors will extend financing to Acme on terms that do not compensate those creditors for the true risks that they are unknowingly undertaking. Perhaps some of Acme's employees will turn down good job offers at other firms in order to remain at what they are misled to believe is a financially solid Acme Inc.

Eventually, of course, those misled investors, creditors and workers will suffer financial losses. But the economy as a whole loses, too. Capital that would otherwise have been invested in firms more productive than Acme Inc. never gets to those firms. So compared with what would have happened had people not been misled by Acme's deceitfully high share price, those better-run firms don't enhance their efficiencies as much. They don't expand their operations as much. They don't create as many good jobs. Consumers don't enjoy the increased outputs, improved product qualities and lower prices that would otherwise have resulted.

In short, overall economic efficiency is reduced.

So should insider trading be legal? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts in the comments.

Fraud costs government health care $60 billion a year

And by the government, I mean taxpayers, because you and I are paying for it. I wonder how much fraud there would be if government ran the entire health care system?



This story highlights a big difference between government and private health care. A government program can lose $60 billion a year, because there is no competitive pressure on government health care. If they run out of money they can get more from taxpayers or just cut service. And because they don't have any competition, there's really not a lot its "customers" can do.

If a private health insurance company was losing this much money to fraud, another company (that wasn't burdened by massive fraud) would put them out of business.

This is especially true, because, as the AP reported this weekend, health insurance companies profit margins are quite small.

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

Is capitalism the cause or the solution to the financial crisis?

A great video, featuring Thomas E. Woods, Jr. of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Steve Forbes, the President and CEO of Forbes Magazine.

A great defense of capitalism and a good reminder that contrary to popular opinion, government, not the free market, caused the housing bubble and the financial crisis.

From TARP to wage controls

President Obama has appointed Kenneth Feinberg as his new federal "pay czar," responsible for determining executive compensation packages at firms that accepted TARP bailout funds. Mr. Feinberg's plan is to limit executive pay to $500,000 and benefits to $25,000.

David Harsanyi sums up this evolving TARP quagmire quite nicely in the Denver Post today:

"What's more infuriating: a government "pay czar" who can dictate the salary of private-sector citizens or some corporate welfare queen having the nerve to complain about a salary cut?"

By now, it is a moot point to highlight the counter-productivity of bailing out failing firms in a market economy. However, the impact that these salary caps will have is obvious: Bailed-out firms will not be able to keep or hire top-level executive talent. The pay cuts will virtually ensure continued mediocre performance from the quasi-government companies as any talented workers who were left at these firms are now sure to leave in favor of other opportunities. Perhaps the administration's agenda is to ensure that the companies under its control operate as inefficiently as government itself.

'Low bidder loses out to county workforce'

Just another example of government efficiency at work.

In what one Clark County commissioner called a classic example of the sometimes ridiculous way government operates, the county solicited bids for a project only to decide Tuesday to do the work in-house at a higher cost.

But the part that really threw Commissioner Steve Sisolak — the only commissioner who voted against doing the work in-house — and the bidders was the admission by Richard Mendes, Clark County Water Reclamation District general manager, that he intended to contract for manhole inspections only if the bids were way below in-house costs. He said he sought the bids to establish a baseline cost.

Mendes contended that because government expenses rise more slowly than private sector expenses, it would cost the district less in the long term to do the work itself.

Sisolak, a businessman, scoffed at that. “This is the first time I’ve heard someone make the argument that we can control our costs better than outside companies,” he said…

The district will need to buy the equipment and plans to promote two people to do the inspections, leaving two entry-level positions to be filled.

Hoffman Southwest Corp. submitted the lowest eligible bid to do the first wave of inspections — $394,835, or $216 per manhole.

Mendes said the county’s in-house cost is $238 per manhole.

No wonder Nevada's city and county officials recently gathered at a Local Government Summit to try and figure out how to make it easier to raise your taxes. If you're trying to support waste like this, you can never have enough (of someone else's money).

Talk on Nevada: It's time to grade the teachers

Check out Patrick's recent commentary for more on Value Added Assessment and how it's used to grade teachers fairly.

Merit pay based on Value Added Assessment would be superior to the system we have now, which rewards longevity and advanced degrees, not teaching ability.

Eric Hanushek, of Stanford University, and Steven Rivkin, writing in the 2006 edition of the Handbook on the Economics of Education, cite the “most ... remarkable ... finding” from numerous studies “that a master’s degree has no systematic relationship to teacher quality as measured by student outcomes” (page 11 of the article, “Teacher Quality“). Advanced degrees are not likely to increase the quality of the teaching and, more importantly, there is no evidence that they increase student achievement.

Teachers in Clark County also received an additional $1,465 for each additional year worked. But teacher quality does not improve after the first few years.

The Word: Who should create jobs?

It's not the government's job to create jobs

Here's Rory Reid's vision statement for Nevada. The job creation quote from the podcast is on page 19.

Here are some more reasons why job creation isn't a job for Nevada's politicians (or any politician).

First, job creation isn’t a job for the government, on any level. Second, every dollar the government spends takes money from the private sector—money that would have been used to create wealth and jobs. Third, let’s not forget about wasteful government spending.

Via The Corner, here’s a visual aid to help you think about the futility of government spending as an economic stimulus.

I remember an epiphany I had as a child, suffering a muggy South Louisiana summer. "Why," I asked my mother, "can't we just keep the refrigerator door open and then it will REALLY cool the house." In her patient way, she showed me the back-side of the refrigerator, and had me touch the coils. "See how warm they are? The refrigerator takes the heat out of the air but has to dump it somewhere: the heat from the coils is where it goes. If you keep the door open, it will just move the heat right back into the same room."

If Nevada politicians want jobs to actually be created, the best thing they can do is get out of the way.

Nevada's unemployment rate is second-highest in the country

Your monthly reminder that the stimulus was and is an epic failure.

Nevada’s jobless rate, at 13.3 percent, was the second-highest among U.S. states behind Michigan, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Unemployment in Rhode Island reached 13 percent, and Florida’s rate climbed to 11 percent, the highest since data began in 1976.

The national jobless rate is 9.8 percent, even though President Obama promised (not that his word can be trusted) that with the stimulus, national unemployment wouldn't rise above 8 percent.



And early reports show that stimulus spending has benefited states with the lowest unemployment rates.



Just another reminder why the government shouldn't pick the winners and losers in an economy. Even if the government picks you as a winner occasionally, over time, everyone loses.

Casinos make billions of dollars off of this principle. We shouldn't be suckered by this game when our politicians play it.

Budget deficit for dummies

President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, but he sure won’t win any accounting awards for fiscal responsibility. With his administration’s record-setting $1.4 trillion deficit, Obama has just made George W. Bush look like a fiscal conservative.

Watch the Reason.tv video (about 1:30) above.

The problem with permanent campaign mode…

…is that it's real easy to contradict your own generic analogies.

October 16, 2009


August 7, 2009


Of course, believers in liberty and free enterprise, like those of us at NPRI, have offered plenty of health care solutions.

It's not just NPRI — check out these four additional free-market proposals that would improve health care in the United States.

Live blog: IFC vision stakeholder selection meeting

***Scroll for updates***

Today, a working group of the IFC subcommittee to conduct a review of Nevada's revenue structure is meeting to start figuring out who will be included the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group.

Click here to watch the meeting live.

Here's some very helpful background reading on the IFC and the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group:

IFC to hide behind unelected stakeholders
Nevadans deserve honesty from the IFC

9:10 The meeting hasn't started yet, but I do have a list of nominees to the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group (NVSG). Just over 70 people nominated. I'll be highlighting some of the nominees throughout the morning.

9:15 Alright, what percentage of the NVSG will be full time lobbyists? 40 percent? Half?

9:17 33 ,10, 13, 10, 9, The objective of the NVSG is to make recommendations to improve the quality of life in the five main program areas of Nevada's budget -- Commerce and Industry, Education, Public Safety, Health and Human Services, and Infrastruture. Notice there is no category for Taxpayer.

The real question is why do our Legislative leaders measure quality of life only in areas of government spending? Most people's quality of life has nothing to do with what the government's doing.

9:20 Chair (Assemblyman Conklin) recommends a committee of 16 - 18 members. 6-7 in commerce and industry and 2-3 in the other areas.

9:28 Discussion of the make-up of the group. Chair Conklin: "We can't get adequate representation with only 11 members."

But with 18 members, you'll be able to get adequate representation? Every individual is unique. Have government fulfill its core functions and then allow individuals and families to do the things that they believe improve their own quality of life.

Chair Conklin: No parent organizations in the education category. Sen. Rhoades: No rural ranchers.

9:30 Sounds like the nomination process will continue after today's meeting.

9:34 Sen. Townsend is wearing sweet suspenders.

9:35 Geoff Lawrence (here with me at the meeting) just summed up what's really happening here. "This is all about cherry picking special interests."

And you know who's not a special interest? Taxpayers. The people whose quality of life this group is suppose to determine how to improve.

9:37 Sen. Matthews is worried that small gambling will be left out.

This is exactly why the government shouldn't try and pick the winners and losers in anything -- someone is always going to be excluded. That's why government is suppose to provide a uniform and low tax and regulatory burden. That way no one is left out and all are treated equally.

9:41 Sen. Townsend suggests excluding elected officials. "Keep it as apolitical as we can."

9:43 Assemblyman Goicoechea: "One size doesn't fit all." Exactly.

Exactly why the government should try and determine what quality of life is. What makes one person's life meaningful, would make another miserable.

To quote an old cliche: One man's trash in another man's treasure. That's the beauty of freedom. With freedom, each individual is able to pursue the things that make their life meaningful. Which is why creating these arbitrary quality of life goals is bound to disappoint almost everyone.

9:51 NVSG members are required to work 20 hours a month.

9:52 Alright they're working through an initial estimate of the number of people from each category. Public safety: 2 members.

9:59 Infrastructure: 3 members

10:01 Sen. Wiener is worried that Education and Health and Human Services are going to get jobbed. She recommends four spots for each category.

As Geoff said, this is all about cherry picking special interests.

10:05 Health and Human Services, Education: 3 each. Although Sen. Wiener wants more.

10:12 Sen. Townsend: "We'll have an imbalance between taxpayers and tax users."

Exactly the right point, except -- where are the taxpayers?

Chair Conklin: I'm not sure there's anybody in this state who's not a payer. It's who pays the bulk. Some groups pay a larger burden ... I don't want to make this partisan ... We also have to sell these quality of live indicators.

Only problem is that it's an impossible sale. Everyone views quality of life differently. That's why government (and it's great power) needs to be limited to a few core functions.

10:17 Sen. Townsend: We can't be all things to all people ... I'm willing to pay for a high quality higher education.

"We believe this is what you (public) want."

Has money made higher education better? Has nearly tripling per-pupil education spending over the last 40 years made K-12 education better? No and no.

10:20 Have any of our politicians been following what California is going through? You can't spend your way to prosperity.

10:21 Motion to cap the NVSG at 19. No set number in Commerce and Industry. The 19 includes 2 bonus ("floater") members. Motion passes.

10:39 The working group started a 5 minute break 15 minutes ago.

10:42 And we're back. Chair Conklin suggests that the group continue to collect nominating applications and having their next meeting on Nov 16.

10:45 Next meeting is November 16.

10:58 Geoff's now giving testimony. I'll post his testimony sometime this afternoon. Update: Geoff's testimony is here.

11:07 A citizen named Ed is giving an awesome public comment -- the list is full of feeders. The commerce people want to use the government to limit competition.

11:10Meeting adjourned.

Some light, bedtime reading

The Senate health bill is online, and it's only 1,502 pages (PDF warning).

But hey, since many of our elected officials aren't reading the bill, who cares how long it is?

(h/t The Corner)

Global warming: Be even more afraid

When it comes to global-warming hyperbole, Brookings Institution scaremongers don't have anything on UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".

He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".

World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.

The United Nations (UN) summit will aim to establish a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto treaty as its targets for reducing emissions only apply to a small number of countries and expire in 2012.

Mr Brown warned that negotiators were not reaching agreement quickly enough and said it was a "profound moment" for the world involving "momentous choice".

"In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods," he told delegates. "The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths.

"On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades' time. And within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe."

Not only is PM Brown wrong on the science, he sounds more like a writer pitching a cheesy movie script than the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world. Let's count the cliches — "profound moment," "momentous choice," 50 days to save the world.

Fifty days to save the world!?!? Where's Bruce Willis when you need him?

Don't let these "leaders" scare you into accepting bad public policy. When December 9, 2009 (50 days from now) rolls around with no agreement and the earth still chugging along, just remember how wrong PM Brown was.

Rep. Dina Titus to hold a health care town hall next Monday

Better late than never:

Democratic Rep. Dina Titus will do this week what most Nevada lawmakers ably avoided during the long hot summer of Tea Party protests: She will host an open town hall forum on health care on Monday.

The freshmen congresswoman had publicly promised her constituents in August that she would return to her Southern Nevada district in fall with a full-fledged forum.

Titus is keeping good on her word with an event from 7-8 p.m. on Monday at Temple Ner Tamid, 55 North Valle Verde Drive in Henderson.

Yes, questions will be taken and answered.

Good for Rep. Titus for having the courage to face her constituents, unlike Sen. Reid and Sen. Ensign. This is democracy in action and a chance for those concerned about health care to have their voices heard.

I wonder if the crowd will look anything like this one.

Are you scared yet?

If not, you obviously haven't been paying enough attention to the Brookings Institution's global-warming scare mongering. Be afraid, be very afraid.

In glum terms, an expert on Arctic politics told an audience at UNLV this week that if nothing is done to combat climate change, the United States could be thrown into an epic battle for Arctic supremacy.

With the Arctic — the ice mass at the top of the world that separates Russia from Alaska, Greenland and Canada — melting at a rapid pace, its usually frozen waterways are opening up and sea levels are rising. This could expose the U.S. to a variety of problems, from oil wars to fights over territory to the inundation of dozens of major American coastal cities, said Charles Ebinger, director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security Initiative.

The melting of the Arctic ice cap could mean the submersion of entire countries and the relocation of tens of millions of people, including residents of American islands and territories who are vulnerable to the rising sea.

Because of Nevada’s untapped renewable energy potential, the state could play a role in the solution, Ebinger said before the talk. If adequate transmission infrastructure can be built, secure, emission-free electricity could replace the polluting power sources of millions of Americans, reducing the output of greenhouse gases and slowing climate change.

Do nothing and the consequences for everyone could be dire, he told an audience of students and academics Wednesday evening. The ice pack has shrunk nearly 80 percent since the 1980s, causing ocean temperatures to change. That could destroy the Gulf Stream and the stability of key allies such as Great Britain, which depend on it for its temperate climate.

At the same time, rising seas would flood islands from Hawaii to the Azores, threatening people, wildlife and even strategic military bases.

So, are you scared now?

I hope not, because there are quite a few things the article fails to mention regarding global warming. First, the earth's temperature has been decreasing for the past 11 years, and here's the chart to prove it:



If the ice is still melting while the earth's temperature is steadily decreasing, how is a job-killing, cap-and-tax bill that is supposed to lower the temperature going to help?

Second, the global-warming experts are predicting that this cooling trend will continue for the next 10 to 20 years.

Think about the double bind global warming alarmists are in. If the earth continues cooling — as they have predicted — man-made global warming looks more and more laughable. But if the earth warms unexpectedly, all they've shown is that their future predictions are completely unreliable.

There's a reason more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that do not believe that man is causing global warming.

Over at the NPRI homepage...

We've got some fine commentaries up at npri.org this week, and if you haven't seen them yet, you should check them out.

Here's Steve Miller on Nevada bureaucrats' attempts to destroy, er, help, child care in the state:

For several years, Nevada's state Bureau of Services for Child Care has been pressing for regulations that would change the ground rules for all licensed Nevada child-care centers, requiring them to shift to a more-expensive "developmental" model, even though it would price more low-income parents out of the child-care marketplace.

Here's Patrick Gibbons on the education establishment's habit of focusing on spending levels — rather than on, you know, actual educational achievement:

Over the current biennium the legislature has authorized the appropriation of over $3.6 billion to K-12 education and $1.6 billion to higher education. However, the total of all education spending — state, local and federal — in the Silver State will likely exceed $12 billion.

Unfortunately, the results suggest that the Silver State will, as it has in the past, waste millions of those dollars by continuing to provide a subpar and ineffective system of K-college education.

And here's Karen Gray on the most recent shenanigans of the Clark County School District trustees — namely, their attempt to suppress public criticism:

For better or worse, it is in public debate, through open and free discussion, that we glean an understanding. Likewise, it is through varying opinions and insights that truth is revealed.

And while no one is advocating personal attacks on school-board members, it is fair to also recognize that trustees are elected officials, who knowingly accepted the higher degree of public criticism and disparagement that comes today with public office.

Talk on Nevada: How CCSD trustees are attempting to silence parents

Talk on Nevada interviews Karen Gray, an education researcher with the Nevada Policy Research Institute, on how Clark County School District trustees are attempting to silence parents by considering a new rule that would ban certain types of speech.

For more, read Karen's recent commentary, Speak no Evil, or Thomas Mitchell's blog post, Is School Board's proposed policy on public comments at meeting overbroad?

Live blogging the IFC tax study working group

***Scroll for updates***

This is the working group, chaired by Sen. Raggio, that is tasked with recommending a group to conduct the tax study.

If you're wondering why this tax study matters, remember that it is going to be the excuse politicians use to try and raise your taxes in 2011. Consider this quote from gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid.

In announcing his candidacy, the Democrat also joined his Republican competitors in failing to articulate how he would plug the state’s estimated $2 billion budget hole. He’s reserving judgment on the state’s tax structure until an independent commission reveals its recommendations next year.

Also remember this isn't an unbiased study. As Assemblyman Anderson said in the first meeting, "We don't have money. That's the reason we're doing the study."

9:10 Meeting begins. The funding for the study has been approved by the Board of Examiners. The Board of Examiners recommended $500,000 for the study, but as we learned last time, that's only a recommendation. The IFC can spend as much as they want.

9:18 Sen. Raggio pulls a Gibbons. His cell phone goes off and he checks his missed call. Sen. Raggio says the study needs to be credible, meet requirements of the Legislature.

9:23 Alright, the top two or three groups will present at the next subcommittee meeting, which will be in approximately 2 weeks.

9:33 Sen. Kirkpatrick and Sen. Horsford both applaud UNR's visioning statement. Wouldn't UNR conducting this revenue "review" be a clear conflict of interest, because they are a publicly funded institution?

9:36 Here's the tally so far. Moody's is the clear front runner. Willdan is in second. And UNR's getting big points for its "visioning" statement.

9:41 Wow. Raggio sounds like a liberal ("We're not funding essential services") and then he knocks down the UNR proposal, because it could look self-serving (given that they are a public university -- and exactly the point I just made). He also likes Moody's the most.

9:47 Initial results 1. Moody's 2. Willdan 3. UNR/NV Consultants

9:52 A couple of things regarding Sen. Raggio's comments on state spending. First, per capita spending has increased by over 33 percent since 2005 and over 25 percent since 1994. Second, more spending does not guarantee better results. In fact, that study indicates that more spending decreases results.

9:59 Sen. Horsford has just requested and received a 10 minute recess. There's been some controversy over third place. UNR received 4 third place votes and NV Consultants received 2 second place votes. So they each had 4 points total. Sen. Horsford appears to really want UNR to make a presentation to the subcommittee or not want NV Consultants to make one. My guess is that Sen. Horsford is going to use this brief recess to talk off the record with some committee members to obtain the results he wants.

10:09 This break is a good chance to review SCR 37, which created this subcommittee.

RESOLVED, That in conjunction with the revenue stabilization study process, the consultant shall:
1. Collect independent data on Nevada’s national rankings in quality-of-life areas; and
2. Coordinate with the Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group to develop strategies to advance Nevada’s national standing in critical quality-of-life areas;

Remember that the Stakeholder Group is going to be drawn from the five groups that are the biggest spenders in Nevada. This is why it doesn't matter how independent or reputable the group is that prepares the tax study -- they have been specifically tasked with coming up with a proposal to raise taxes. So guess what? The study is going to recommend raising taxes.

10:14 The working group recommends Moody's, Willdan, UNR and NV Consultants.

10:23 Knight Allen, in public comment, also points out that UNR has a conflict of interest. UNR would be asked to judge the quality of Nevada's revenue structure and they would also benefit directly from higher taxes in Nevada.

I'm posting my thoughts in real time, so please forgive any spelling errors. I'm also going back through and proof reading it as I get a chance, so the text may change slightly.

Join us for a live blog tomorrow of the IFC tax study working group

The Interim Finance Committee working group that will select a group to conduct a tax study for Nevada is meeting again tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Join us as I live blog the meeting, and feel free to ask any questions you have in the comments section. You can watch the meeting over the Internet as well (this meeting is the first item on that page).

Another working group — which will attempt to provide political cover for the tax increases that the study is almost certain to recommend — is meeting next Tuesday at 9 a.m. I'll be live blogging that meeting as well.

Also of note, there is a meeting between state and local lawmakers happening right now at which city and county officials are presenting their case that they should be able to raise taxes without having to appeal to the Nevada Legislature.

In an unprecedented summit, city and county officials from across the state gather today in Henderson to discuss issues like whether they should have the power to tax and whether the Legislature should be allowed to take local government tax revenue…

"When they came to us during the session all they wanted was higher taxes, higher fees," said Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas. "It is good they have to come to the Legislature for approval (of tax measures)."

Ironically, Assemblywoman Kirkpatrick also voted for a record-setting, billion-dollar tax hike during this year’s legislative session.

How to grade teachers fairly using student achievement

When we want to know how good someone is at something, we make a judgment based on the facts.

A realtor is judged (and paid) based on how many properties she sells. A baseball player is judged based on his batting average and home runs. A defense lawyer is judged based on how many clients he gets acquitted. But teachers, who have the very important job of helping to educate our children, aren't judged on their students’ performance. Why?

Some people, like Betty Buehler, the author of this letter to the Review-Journal, argue that it's not fair to judge teachers by their students' achievements, because there are too many factors outside teachers' control.

There are factors affecting achievement over which teachers have absolutely no control. That's why individual student achievement is a terrible way to evaluate teachers. Some of these factors are the skills level with which the student enters the class (some are years below grade level; many are at least a couple of years below); student aptitude (which a colleague calls "the elephant in the room," because it's politically incorrect to suggest some kids have higher IQs than others); student transiency; student attendance; whether the kid does homework; whether the kid pays attention in class; whether the kid ever picks up a book and reads; whether the parent values education; whether the parent asks about school and helps the student to the best of his or her ability.

Buehler is right that simply testing students at the end of the year and rewarding or punishing a teacher based on those results isn't a fair or accurate test of a teacher's ability. But that doesn't mean we should abandon testing altogether. It means we should find a better test.

And a better measuring tool, called Value Added Testing, is available.

The value-added approach to testing is very simple. It focuses on changes in test scores over time, rather than on a single test score at a given moment. The whole point of school is for children to learn and progress over time. Yet, most current testing regimes do not measure progress. Virtually every city newspaper publishes the average test scores of local schools at some point during the year, often accompanied by an article that highlights the best schools (those with the highest average scores), and the worst schools (those with the lowest). But are the children in the schools with the highest scores actually learning more than those in the schools with the lowest? Not if the high-scoring schools are just taking in children with the highest IQs from the most enriched environments and simply spitting them out at the same advanced levels years down the road.

A value-added system can use the exact same tests as a standard system. The only difference is that the value-added system keeps track of every student’s previous scores (whether or not they were at the same school), so that the change in their scores from year to year can be calculated. In this kind of system, good schools are not necessarily the ones with the highest average test scores. They are the ones that show the greatest average increases in their students’ scores. They are the ones that are “adding the most value.”

Under their current systems, many states estimate and publish changes in schools’ average test scores at particular grade levels. But that is not the same as value-added analysis. They are making comparisons across cohorts. For example, they might show that this year’s seventh grade had higher reading scores than last year’s seventh grade at a particular school. That might mean the school is improving. But it might also mean that this year’s seventh grade was simply ahead of last year’s at the start. The essential element of the valueadded approach is that it measures the progress of each and every child as he or she moves through school.

Because of the need to keep track of students across time and place, even if they change schools, value-added regimes require a more sophisticated data collection system than most current regimes. But this problem is by no means insurmountable. Tennessee has had a value-added system since 1991 andhas been testing every student in grades 2-8 each year in math, reading, language arts, science, and social studies. (Testing high school students began in 1995.) Every year, each student’s results are calculated and compared to his or her scores from the previous year. Since 1993, school and district-wideaverages have been reported to the public. The average score increases of all the students taught by each teacher are reported to administrators for use in evaluations and personnel decisions.

Buehler also goes on to suggest that better-performing teachers should get paid more, which echoes the recommendations of Matthew Ladner of the Goldwater Institute in his recent report, New Millennium Schools: Delivering Six-Figure Teacher Salaries in Return for Outstanding Student Learning Gains.

Unfortunately, right now in Nevada teachers are rewarded for obtaining degrees that have little to no correlation with student achievement, not for being superior teachers.

The case for special education vouchers

Stuart Buck and Jay P. Greene make the case for special education vouchers in Education Next. The highly detailed article covers everything regarding this issue from the history to the very popular myths of special education to the real costs.

Some important things to remember:

1) Federal Law requires states to provide free and appropriate education to children with special needs – public or private.

2) Parents may unilaterally place their child in private schools and be reimbursed for the cost of tuition if they can prove in court that the public schools have failed to provide an appropriate education.

3) Costs for special education have not risen drastically enough to dry up resources for other uses in public education. In fact, the Federal government provides substantial support for special education programs.

4) The student population with severe mental retardation are on the decline. Students with autism make up only 0.3 percent of the student population and account for 0.45 percent of all public education expenditures.

5) The largest growth in special education has been from Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs) which are minor and inexpensive to provide care.

6) Special education vouchers have slowed the growth of SLD identification as public schools may have been diagnosing poor performing students as SLD in order to gain access to additional funds.

7) Special education vouchers are often cheaper than the cost of a public education. Florida’s McKay scholarships (special needs voucher) average just $7,206 while the average disabled student in Florida’s public schools costs approximately $17,000 per year.

On a side note: Senator Barbara Cegavske (R, District 8) has attempted (at least twice now) to introduce and pass a school choice program for special needs children. As the evidence in support of special education vouchers (and tax-credits) mounts, Senator Cegavske may find herself with more momentum in 2011.

The Word: Where's the warming?

Why isn't the earth warming up?

For more information, check out this BBC article, What happened to global warming?

Also George Will penned this excellent piece poking fun at global warming alarmists who are dismayed that temperatures aren't dropping and the world isn't ending as they had predicted.

This podcast features the song "Voice from Space" by Butterfly Tea, available under a Creative Commons Attribution, Share Alike license.

Massachusetts' socialized health care system moves to ration care

In 2006, Massachusetts passed many of the socialism-lite health care changes now being considered by Congress — including an individual mandate, new government subsidizes and an expansion of Medicaid.

And following right in the footsteps of socialized medicine in Canada and the UK, health care officials in Massachusetts are now proposing limits to health care to control rapidly escalating costs (also known as rationing).

The state’s ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price for patients: Controlling Massachusetts’ soaring medical costs, many health care leaders believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want.

Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers.

But a growing number of hospital officials and physician leaders warn that the new payment system proposed by a state commission would not work without restrictions on where patients receive care - an issue some providers say the commission and the Patrick administration have glossed over.

“You can’t reap these savings without limiting patients’ choices in some way,’’ said Paul Levy, chief executive of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “It’s a huge issue, it’s huge.’’ Dr. James Mongan, president of Partners HealthCare, a Beth Israel Deaconess competitor, agreed that it wouldn’t “work without some restriction on choice.’’

And that's not the worst of it. They also want to give doctors a financial incentive to not — I repeat, not — treat patients.

What the supporters don't mention is that it also creates a tremendous incentive for physicians and hospitals to render as little care as possible. Under the Massachusetts proposal, if your care costs less than the annual allotment, then they keep the unused portion. If your care costs more, then the difference comes out of the providers' pockets. Such a system thus pits your doctor's interests against your own.

For the sake of argument, suppose your annual allotment is $5000 and you've already spent $4500 for that year. Now you go to your doctor's office complaining of a severe headache. He examines you and says, "No, Bill, you don't need a $1000 MRI scan of your brain. Just take two Tylenol and call me in the morning".

Will you be 100% sure that he's giving you unbiased medical advice?

And even if your doctor consistently and conscientiously acts for his patients' best interests, he will inevitably find himself at odds with hospital administrators questioning whether this or that expenditure is appropriate[.]

Socialized medicine is a lose/lose: higher costs and less care.

Update: Tweaked the title

How politics raises your health insurance premiums

One of the biggest drivers of health insurance costs and premiums is health insurance mandates. When a state legislature requires insurance companies to provide certain coverage, the cost of insurance increases and that cost increase is passed on to the consumer (or his or her employer).

And these mandates are a significant cost driver.

· A family purchasing a health insurance policy in Wisconsin would pay about $3,087, but that policy would cost $10,398 in New Jersey.
· A similar policy in Utah would cost $3,259, compared to $12,254 in New York.
· A family policy in Michigan would cost $4,118, but an astronomical $16,897 in Massachusetts.

Thus, the difference in premiums is largely the result of state mandates that inhibit the creation of a national market, not regional variations in health care costs.

So why do states pass these mandates that drive up the costs of insurance on all plans? Because, as Dr. Joe Heck found out in 2008, voting against health care mandates can open lawmakers up to misleading — but effective — political attacks.

Last year in Nevada, state Democrats spent tens of thousands of dollars on a series of tough — and misleading — mailers targeting Heck. The glossy pieces featured a number of images depicting suffering cancer patients, with the slogan: “Heck Blames Cancer on the Victim.”

They accused him of voting against requiring insurance companies to include cervical cancer screenings. The claim was false. Insurance companies have been required by the state to cover screenings since 1989. The ad seemed to refer to Titus-sponsored legislation from 2007, which required insurers to cover Gardasil, the vaccine for the human papilloma virus, a precursor to cervical cancer.

Heck did vote against that bill, arguing that he opposes new mandates on insurance companies because they increase the cost of coverage. Democrats found their fodder in comments he made at a committee meeting where he said he had “philosophical” objections to mandating coverage of the vaccine because there were preventable risk factors, including multiple sex partners, that sometimes lead to transmission of the disease and then cancer.

The damage was significant. Heck lost by less than 1 percentage point to Democrat Shirley Breeden, who operated under a media blackout for most of the race. The ads were the centerpiece of the campaign. (Emphasis added)

These types of political attacks make voting against health insurance mandates politically risky. And a result is that there are almost 2,000 individual state mandates across the country.

· About one-fourth of states require health insurance to cover acupuncture and marriage counseling.
· More than half of states require coverage for social workers and 60 percent mandate coverage for contraceptives.
· Seven states require coverage for hairpieces and nine for hearing aids.

In all, there are more than 1,900 state mandates across the United States. Some legislators contribute to this excess by giving in to special interest demands that insurers cover their specific services and providers. The result is higher premiums for consumers — pricing an estimated one-fourth of the uninsured out of the market.

And that's how politics raises your health insurance premiums. And yes, the free market would provide superior personal and portable insurance, which would be a real solution to our health care problems.

Video: Karl Rove's speech at NPRI's annual dinner

In case you missed Karl Rove's speech at NPRI's 18th Anniversary Celebration, or if you just want to see it again, here it is.



To be the first to find out about our videos, subscribe to NPRI's YouTube channel here.

Obama's Nobel response: All about him

I just received President Obama's official e-mail response to supporters about winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

In just 10 sentences, he refers to himself (I/me/my) 16 times. And that count doesn't include the times he says "we."

I've reprinted the whole thing after the jump, but my favorite line is this:

But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

Which is why Obama keeps talking about himself, you see — he knows and that's all that matters. At least he's unified the blogosphere — in total disbelief.

The rest of the letter is after the jump.

Victor --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Update: Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the link.

"It's not April 1, is it?"

That was the initial reaction of White House officials when they heard the news that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Two key White House aides were both convinced they were being punked when they heard the news, reported ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.

“It’s not April 1, is it?” one said.

As ReasonTV reports, the Nobel Prize isn't the only thing President Obama has won.


Anyone else looking forward to SNL this weekend?

h/t (The Corner)

Talk on Nevada: Why more money won't improve Nevada's system of higher education

Talk on Nevada interviews Patrick R. Gibbons, an education policy analyst with the Nevada Policy Research Institute, on whether more money will improve Nevada's system of higher education. Patrick recently squared off with Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Daniel Klaich on this subject in the Nevada Business Journal.

For a more detailed breakdown of graduation rates at UNLV and UNR, check out a recent Write on Nevada post titled, “Big spenders, poor performance.”