ACLU misleads public, lawmakers

Nevada’s lawmakers this week were subjected to a few half-truths about the governor’s proposed education voucher program from school superintendents and the ACLU of Nevada. Vouchers are tax dollars that are given to parents so they can send their child to any public or private school they choose. School funding is thus directed by parents rather than central bureaucrats.

Vouchers do not result in discrimination as the ACLU claimed. In fact, private schools are better at serving low-income students, teaching mentally handicapped students, increasing racial diversity, and teaching tolerance and civility:

• One and a half percent of special-needs students are placed in private schools by public schools that cannot meet their needs.
  
• Public schools do not have to teach every child. Public schools expel 1 percent of their students every year and send another 0.6 percent to special schools for troubled kids.
  
• Seven respected academic studies have found that vouchers increase racial diversity.
  
• Thirty-three studies found that private-school students possessed more “democratic values” like tolerance, civic knowledge, political participation and volunteerism.

The ACLU misrepresented vouchers by claiming that the program would only help the wealthy because the voucher is not enough to cover private-school tuition. This is intellectually equivalent to claiming food stamps don’t help the poor because they don’t cover the full cost of food.

It is true that vouchers are set below the cost of traditional public schools, but several voucher programs require that private schools do not charge additional tuition. Nevertheless, in 2004 the U.S. Department of Education actually estimated that the average private school cost $3,300 less per pupil than traditional public schools. Furthermore, 15 states plus Washington, D.C., offer voucher/tax-credit programs that are designed specifically to serve special-needs students, foster-care students, autistic students and low-income students.

• The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program offers scholarships of up to $7,500, while D.C. public schools spend over $20,000 per pupil. Only low-income students are given access to the vouchers.
  
• Florida and Arizona offer special-needs scholarships. The average scholarship in Florida is just $6,500 — $3,000 less than the cost of a public school. The average scholarship in Arizona is $8,100 — roughly the same amount a public school receives per pupil.
  
• Florida and Arizona also offer low-income scholarships financed through corporate and personal donations. The scholarships average just $3,900 and $2,500, respectively — far less than what the public schools receive.

Furthermore, nine out of 10 random assignment studies have shown that vouchers improve student achievement. Studies also show that vouchers improve graduation rates and improve a student’s chance of attending college. Sixteen out of 17 studies even show that public schools improve when faced with competition from vouchers.

The reality is public schools have done a terrible job at serving those who need help the most. Fewer than half of low-income, black and Hispanic students in Nevada can read at grade level, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Clearly, public schools have failed these underserved communities as well as every other Nevadan.

While it is true that Nevada has a constitutional provision prohibiting tax dollars from funding religious schools – we note this amendment was added to Nevada’s constitution as anti-catholic bigotry swept the nation in the 19th century – Nevada can avoid a constitutional challenge by either offering vouchers for secular education or implementing a tuition tax-credit program, as no parental choice opponent has beaten tuition-tax credits in court. The Institute for Justice, however, is confident that vouchers could pass constitutional muster in Nevada. Afterall, vouchers are aid to parents and students, not to churches.

The governor’s voucher proposal is a workable solution that promises to improve student achievement by empowering parents with real choices.

Read more about parental choice programs at the Foundation for Educational Choice.

Dallas Tea Party pwns Keith Olbermann

The Dallas Tea Party politely takes Keith Olbermann to task for disparaging the Tea Party movement and even invites him to its event this Saturday. Watch the short video above.

Money matters, if you spend it on what works

*Money only matters if you use it in ways that produce results. Sometimes spending more money - like on education - doesn't produce a higher-quality service.

The legislature is rejecting the governor's proposed reductions to higher education - an amount that was a mere 5 percent of total state appropriations. The governor's prosal left higher education with about the same amount of money as in the 2005-07 biennium - a period when UNR spent over $30,000 per pupil and UNLV spent over $16,000 per pupil and neither university graduated even half its students within six years. See for yourself at The Education Trust's higher education database.

Race to the Top in question?

Nevada has to eliminate a provision in the law that prohibits student testing data to be used in teacher evaluations. Eliminating this prohibition puts Nevada in competition for between $60 million and $175 million in additional federal funds.

The legislature has approved a bill that allows student testing data to be used, but the governor is considering vetoing it because the law seems to say that teachers should not be disciplined if their students perform poorly (i.e., don't learn anything).

The provision reads,

The information must be considered, but must not be used as the sole criterion, in evaluating the performance of or taking disciplinary action against an individual teacher, paraprofessional or other employee.

So the question is whether or not the data can be used to dicipline bad teachers. At the very least, it appears that the new law would prohibit student testing data from being the sole criterion used to discipline teachers. If other criteria must be used, then what would be necessary to discipline or to get rid of bad teachers? Teacher attendence?

Still, legal writing can be confusing, so the main concern is whether or not teachers can be disciplined if they fail to actually teach their students anything. If teachers can't be disciplined (or fired) if they can't teach students, what is the point?

Additionally, the law needs to go a step further. Removing the old prohibition is meaningless if the school districts don't take action and use student testing data as part of teacher evaluations. In fact, we'd bet they won't do it unless ordered. Nevada needs to evaluate teachers using testing data because we need to know who the good teachers are and how to make average teachers even better. Importantly, we need to get bad teachers into a new profession.

Bad teachers fired in Rhode Island

A Rhode Island school district voted 5-2 to fire all the teachers at one low-income school after years of repeated failure. The school district wanted teachers to spend more time with students, and the teacher union demanded an extra $90 an hour for their teachers - on top of the more than $70,000 a year the average teacher in the district earns.

Bad teachers have to go, and it's good to see some school district leaders standing up for students.

Session-ese

In the bizarro world that is a special session of the Nevada Legislature, lawmakers adopt an entirely new language that is foreign to the rest of us.

So writes Geoff Lawrence in his commentary today, titled "The magical language of special session." Be sure to check it out.

Special session: Day 2

Day 2 at the Nevada special session and the politics continue. Gibbons and Raggio are having a spat and I haven't seen any bills hit the floor yet.

Unfortunately, Geoff, Patrick and I are going to have to take off soon, so we can get back for tomorrow's Health care policy luncheon with Sally Pipes. Especially with Obama's health care summit charade tomorrow, I am really looking forward to hearing Sally Pipes' speech. If you're in Vegas, you should check it out. It starts at 11:30 at the Las Vegas Country Club and you can find all the details here.

Anyway, for any breaking special session news, check out Elizabeth Crum's blog at Nevada News Bureau.

Or if you prefer twitter, search for #nvss.

Live blog: Nevada Special Session 2010, Day 1

And it's begun.

The special session is officially in session. Scroll for updates and forgive any spelling errors.

9:37 First, a programming note: Computer use isn't allowed in the chambers, so updates will be more sporadic than I prefer.

9:39 Liberals are out in force. Group of 80-100 students (Called: Save our Schools) here in the Assembly chamber. Funny how you "save" public schools by taking kids out of them.

9:44 Here's background on what's causing the special session.

10:35 Just got off a conference call with the governor. He has promised to amend the special session agenda to include the change to qualify for Race to the Top funds and a water rights issue.

The governor said vouchers will be added if there is legislative interest, but I doubt anything would happen on that (in this special session at least).

10:58 Twitter's abuzz with this line: "Established: Cut in state support for K-12 schools is 10%, $130 million in real dollars"

What no one's mentioning is that Nevada's nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending over the last 50 years while results have literally been stagnant. Instead of talking about reductions, legislators should be asking why Nevada's already enormous investment in per-pupil spending hasn't led to increased student achievement.



11:27 As they talk about the funds sweeps and budget reductions, a great quote from Nevada resident Donald Robak (via Muth's Truths)

“(Nevada’s government) just passed through seven fat years. And how did you (state legislators) treat them? You spent as if there was no tomorrow. You wasted and squandered. You treated our money as a personal slush fund. Not a cent came your way where you didn’t invent a new program or enlarge an old program. You betrayed the public trust. You were elected to represent the citizens, but you chose to represent the government, or even more insidious, your party.”

Well said, Donald. Joseph would not approve. And he's right, Nevada's inflation-adjusted, per-capita spending has increased by 30 percent over the last six years. We should not be surprised that Nevada is now forced to live within its means and that special interests are not happy about returning to more realistic spending levels.

12:25 Assembly is in recess until 3. Caucus meetings until then.

Patrick's thoughts on the morning: With the governor's new education proposals, Nevada will spend $40 million more on education than we did in the last biennium.

Geoff's thoughts on the morning: Governor's recommended adjustments on operations spending would amount to a 23% increase in inflation-adjusted, per-capita spending over the last six years. Currently it's a 31% increase.

Lesson: Don't believe the liberals who are pretending (or don't know any better) that Nevada's government is being crushed. Nevada's government isn't even going to be reduced compared to six years ago. It's just going to be growing more slowly.

2:15 Just got the new Democratic proposal. Instead of focusing on reducing waste and bringing Nevada's spending down to a sustainable level, they are adding back spending and increasing fees.

Geoff's calculating how much the D's want to add back and it's $173 million. To pay for that they want to institute $57 million in new fee increases, double the foreclosure notification fee for $28 million and they want to take another $50 million from the mining industry (on top of the $50 million the governor wants to take from them).

This proposal is definitely moving in the wrong direction, just like Nevada's inflation-adjusted, per-capita spending.



And remember, no matter what rhetoric you hear, the numbers show that after the special session Nevada is going to be spending over 20 percent more than we did six years ago.

3:08 Assembly should be starting back up here in the next few minutes. Education spending is up next, should be fairly contentious.

Instead of talking about accountability for the huge amount of dollars already being spent, I'm guessing we'll hear many sob stories.

Remember what Patrick noted above: "With the governor's new education proposals, Nevada will spend $40 million more on education than we did in the last biennium." Don't believe the scaremongers.

3:18 Assembly just started. A couple of UNLV students are going to testify first. And the first student is a ... Ph.D. student? Those are the people we should be subsidizing?

3:20 I should note that Ty Cobb is kindly hosting Geoff and Patrick on the Assembly floor. I know Geoff (and potentially Patrick) will be testifying. I'll certainly let you know when that happens.

3:21 Also Channel 5, KVVU, and 13, KTNV, from Las Vegas have interviewed NPRI on the special session. Check out their newscasts tonight.

3:46 More education administrators complaining about adjustments to their budgets. Great comment from @RalstonFlash: Also, choreographed "ed is dead" speakers tiresome.

3:47 Assemblywoman Smith asking about class sizes. Washoe Superintendent says HS classes are 30-32 currently.

Think about that. That's over $300,000 in that classroom. A large portion of that money isn't going into the classroom. Mismanagement and money not going into the classroom are a problem, not underfunding.

3:52 Complete garbage about class size reduction and early childhood education coming.

Assemblywoman Smith says "we passed empowerment reform and lost all the funding." Here's the problem, (aside from political considerations) empowerment schools don't require extra money.

3:59 Spin, spin, spin from the education establishment. If we had more money, we'd be happy to be held accountable.

What about being accountable for the near tripling of per-pupil, inflation-adjusted spending over the last 50 years? Results over the last 50 years have been stagnant.

I know I've put this chart up already, but it tells such an important story when it comes to the education issue.



Unless something different happens during this testimony, I've got to take a break from blogging about this. My blood pressure can't take everyone ignoring the near tripling of per-pupil spending.

4:16 Finally a breathe of sanity. Assemblyman Cobb notes that funding is not being decreased. Asks about institution reforms.

4:17 Answer is complete spin. "I love competition." We have a healthy charter school system. But we need a level playing field. Public schools have to take all children. Doesn't matter. Check out the experience of Washington DC, Florida.

4:27 Five minute break. Will hear from the teachers' union next. Wonder what they'll say?

5:52 Geoff and Patrick are preparing to testify. Some controversy over it, but Speaker Buckley lets them proceed.

6:01 Also, I'm going to be on the Casey Hendrickson Show with Heather Kydd at 6:20 tonight. Tune in at 840 KXNT in the Las Vegas area. If you're outside the Vegas area, you can listen live on their website.

6:06 Geoff and Patrick wrap up their testimony. Don't think Assemblywoman Kirkpatrick is our biggest fan. Will let Geoff and Patrick provide details later. Speaker Buckley asks them to wrap it up and they do.

6:33 Assembly and Senate have adjourned until tomorrow. Will be back with day 2 then. Thanks for reading.

Follow NPRI’s live-blogging of the special session

NPRI’s Victor Joecks will be live-blogging this week’s special session of the Nevada Legislature at writeonnevada.com, and he’ll be doing it on location in Carson City. The coverage begins tomorrow, February 23.

NPRI policy analysts Geoffrey Lawrence and Patrick Gibbons also will be in Carson City, providing Nevada lawmakers with their analysis on the state’s pressing budgetary challenges.

To get up-to-speed on Nevada’s budget situation heading into the special session, check out the following links:

• Nevada’s budget situation explained in 100 words (and four pictures)
  
• Wait … you say there’s a recession?
  
• About that TASC amendment
  
• Unsustainable spending increase leads to budget deficit

And if Twitter is more your style, follow NPRI’s updates at @NevadaPolicyRI.

There is no fiscal solution for education

Everyone agrees that Nevada's education system is a mess. What we don't agree on is how to fix it. One side claims (and always will) that the system doesn't work unless we give it more money.

But at some point Nevadans will have to ask,"how much is enough?" As you can see from the charts below, Nevada has increased education spending considerably. Where are the results?


*K-12 operating budget expenditures in Nevada (excludes capital expenditures and debt repayment). Source: Legislative Counsel Bureau. Each graph has been adjusted for inflation.

The total operating budgets from all districts have increased over 45 percent since 2001. Don't think population growth is the only reason for budget growth - education expenditures outstrip both inflation and population growth combined.


*"Current spending" per pupil (excludes capital expenditures and debt repayment). Source: U.S. Department of Education

Spending per-pupil grew 15.2 percent between 1998 and 2007. The tax increases in 2003 produced a rapid rise in education expenditures.


*K-12 operating budget expenditures in Nevada (excludes capital expenditures and debt repayment). Source: U.S. Department of Education

This final graph shows that Nevada's per-pupil spending has increased 180 percent since 1959. That means we've nearly tripled education expenditures PER PUPIL. That growth rate is so large that if Nevada had ONLY DOUBLED per-pupil expenditures, we wouldn't have a budget shortfall today!

Spending more money on education only funds the failed status quo. Fixing education is going to require some serious reform. Why not try to be more like Florida? Read NPRI's full report on Florida's education reforms here.

Did Gibbons propose a mining tax hike?

One component of Governor Gibbons' proposal to narrow the current $887 million budget shortfall is to raise an additional $50 million this biennium by eliminating a series of tax deductions currently claimed by the mining industry. This proposal has led local media pundits on both the right and the left to claim that Gibbons is resorting to tax hikes in order to balance the budget.

It is clear that Gibbons' proposal would amount to a rising tax burden for the mining industry and, hence, can be considered an effective tax increase. However, it technically is not a tax increase. Anyone who claims Gibbons' proposal is a tax hike misunderstands what that statement means. A tax increase means that the tax rate has increased or that a previously non-existing tax was levied.

Deductions, however, are highly politicized statutory exemptions from applicable taxes for engaging in certain behaviors. Usually, deductions are either the result of legislative ambitions for social engineering or successful lobbying efforts from privilege-seeking industries. (Regardless of what Gibbons says, however, they are not "inadvertent loopholes." They are purposefully defined statutory provisions.)

The foremost national authority on tax policy, the Tax Foundation, puts it best:

Those loopholes, called “tax incentives” by their lobbyists, are the enemy of tax reform. Some politicians, lobbyists and pundits will cry “Tax hike!” at the loss of their special tax breaks. And eliminating them does raise revenue, but the all-important distinction is that these base-broadening measures do not raise the statutory tax rate. In fact, they pave the way for a lower statutory tax rate, decreasing distortion in the economy and improving the stability of government’s revenue flow.

As the Tax Foundation highlights, the elimination of special exemptions should be regarded as a positive move on the path to tax reform that simplifies the tax code and makes it more transparent. However, the objective for such action should not simply be to increase government revenues; it should be a precursor to lowering statutory rates.

Santa, … errr, President Obama comes to Las Vegas

Forgive the confusion, but they both come bearing gifts.

Earlier today, Obama spoke to a crowd of about 1,800 at a town hall meeting at Green Valley High School…

He formally announced a $1.5 billion program for five states, including Nevada, to provide additional assistance to homeowners in foreclosure.

"We can help families who've done everything right stay in their homes," he said in his speech, which lasted about 20 minutes.

Of course, Santa's gifts are given to children, and Obama's gifts will be paid for by the children.

Today's Michael Ramirez political cartoon seems fitting.

Governor to support regulatory capture

Ed Vogel reports today on a proposal to have the gaming industry fund the Gaming Control Board's $63 million budget directly. MGM Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman's comments appear to be supportive of the idea and who's surprised? What regulated industry would not want to exert greater control over the agency charged with regulating it?

The governor's spokesman, Dan Burns, indicated that "the governor would support any fees, taxes or revenue increases that are backed by the affected businesses."

Doubtlessly, lawmakers are pushing this idea because they're trying to shake down everyone they can for money. However, regardless of the state's fiscal position, this is simply bad public policy. This proposal would create a huge potential for regulatory capture.

The solution that should be explored for the upcoming special session, but so far has not been, is to pare back inflation-adjusted, per capita state spending to levels that existed just six years ago. It seems that lawmakers and the governor are willing to implement what is obviously bad policy in order to avoid cutting back the growth in spending.

Once again, had TASC been in place, there would be no shortfall! Lawmakers created this crisis.

10 miles to everywhere

*The two red circles represent a 10-mile radius from the southern and northern ends of the Las Vegas Strip.

Moody's Analytics and Brookings West (a local affiliate of the left-of-center, Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution) are concerned about "sprawl" in the Las Vegas metro area. Brookings and Moody's seem to think we need a higher population density, with more high- and mid-rise condos and a light rail system. One of their main reasons is that 90 percent of the jobs in Las Vegas are located within 10 miles of downtown.

The problem is, downtown Las Vegas is basically the Las Vegas Strip (or right near it), and about 90 percent of Las Vegas is already within 10 miles of the Strip. Las Vegas hasn't sprawled (not that sprawl is a bad thing).

Next, building more high- and mid-rise condos is the wrong approach. The problem is that high- and mid-rise condos have been hit especially hard in this market. They're struggling because people don't want to buy them! People like single-family residences.

Finally, the population and size of Las Vegas aren't that large. The Las Vegas metro area has about 1.8 million residents spread out over 600 square miles of the valley - about 3,000 people per square mile (and about 4,100 per square mile within the city of Las Vegas itself).

The Phoenix metro area, by comparison, has a population of 4.3 million. Among the cities in the Phoenix metro area with populations of over 100,000 are: Chandler, which has 4,200 residents per square mile; Glendale (4,300); Gilbert (2,800); Mesa (3,500); Scottsdale (1,300); Tempe (4,000); Peoria (975); and Phoenix itself, with a population density of about 3,000 people per square mile.

The METRO Light Rail in the Phoenix area is projected to lose $28 million a year - and that doesn't even include repaying the $1.4 billion in bonds it took to build the rail. If Phoenix, with its much larger population, can't operate a rail system without pumping taxpayer subsidies into it, why should we even bother?

Las Vegas, like Phoenix, has moderate population density, but its density is still less than half that of dense urban areas like L.A. (8,200), Washington, D.C. (9,700), Boston (12,000), and New York City (over 27,000 people per square mile).

Is the goal to waste money on expensive projects and to build housing that people don't want?

Public education is its own tragedy

*Shakespeare could not have written a greater tragedy than what American public education has written for itself.

The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) is putting together a petition to raise taxes on mining. Apparently it is because Nevada's tax system is "a tragedy" for children and the poor.

PLAN has it all wrong. The tax code isn't the problem. In fact, take a look at the U.S. Department of Education's own figures on public education expenditures in Nevada from 1959 to 2007 - we've increased PER-PUPIL spending by more than 160 percent, and that is after adjusting for inflation.

The problem with Nevada's public education system is that is an uncompetitive, unaccountable, centrally directed bureaucratic monopoly. Spending more money and getting the same results isn't a PLAN - pun intended.

For reform ideas, check out these links:

Florida's education reforms
School Decentralization
Tuition Tax Credit Program (Parental Choice)

Happy Failed Stimulus Day!

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the stimulus bill, which President Obama promised would keep unemployment under 8 percent.

Did it work? I'll let you be the judge.



The stimulus didn't work. In fact, it was an epic failure. So what's a liberal president to do?

Try and pass another one!

Sen. Horsford flip-flops on transparency

During the 2009 Legislative Session, a core group of legislators, led by Sen. Steven Horsford, Sen. Bill Raggio and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, met for weeks behind closed doors to negotiate a record-setting, job-killing, billion-dollar (with the room tax) tax increase. As a result of these secret meetings, the public had only a few days to learn about, and give lawmakers their opinions on, the tax increases before the legislature passed them.

So I was greatly surprised when I read this last week.

When legislators determine state government spending priorities at their special session later this month, the decision-making process will be an open one if Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford has his way.

Unlike what occurred at several recent special sessions, Nevadans will be allowed to testify and decisions on what budgets and programs will be cut to make up for an $881 million revenue shortfall won't be made behind closed doors, his spokesman said Thursday.

"He wants open and transparent government," said Dave Berns, Horsford's spokesman. "He doesn't want to be accused of making the decisions behind closed doors."

As part of his open government theme, the Las Vegas Democrat encourages Southern Nevadans to speak up on the reductions Saturday during a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Berns said. [Emphasis added]

Now while I applaud Sen. Horsford for wanting "open and transparent government," his timing — wanting to highlight reductions to the unsustainable budgets of years past — is more than slightly suspicious.

Let's hope he's actually committed to transparency and won't just follow in the footsteps of another Democratic legislative leader who paraded around the idea of transparency for political purposes and then abandoned it when secrecy was politically convenient.

I've left a message at Sen. Horsford's office to get his comments on the transparency issue. I will let you know if I get a response.

Nevada's budget situation explained in 100 words (and four pictures)

If you prefer lots of words and details, please read one of Geoff's recent commentaries: Tax and Spending Control could have averted fiscal crisis, Unsustainable spending increase leads to budget deficit, Nevada’s budget woes are the result of increased per-capita spending, or Previously insulated public employees now feeling shock

But I understand why some people's eyes glaze over anytime there's talk about budget issues, so here's my challenge: Explain Nevada's budget situation in 100 words or less.

Here's your challenge: Stay with me for 100 words (and four pictures).

The payoff is that you'll understand Nevada's budget situation — why we're having a special session and where this approximately $890 million "deficit" came from — far better than most other citizens in the Silver State.

One hundred words, I'm serious. … Ready? Go!

Nevada has dramatically increased general fund spending over the last 18 years. (All numbers are inflation-adjusted.) [16 words]

Spending growth isn't just a result of population growth. Nevada’s legislature has increased real per-capita expenditures more than 30 percent in the last six years. [41 words]

If Nevada had enacted a Tax and Spending Control Constitutional Amendment in 1994 that limited government growth to increases in population and inflation, Nevada would have a budget surplus. [70 words]

Nevada has also spent $1.94 billion more than was budgeted in the last 16 years. [85 words]

Takeaway: Nevada's current shortfall isn't a crisis; it's the natural result of excessive spending. [99 words]

Governor Gibbons officially calls a special session

It'll begin next Tuesday. Prepare for another week of whining from public employees and big-government liberals.

Gov. Jim Gibbons issued the proclamation Tuesday that calls the Legislature into a special session Feb. 23 and released a series of plans that he said would cut state spending by $887 million.

Gibbons called for extracting another $50 million from the mining industry by changing the deductions mining companies now may take before computing their taxes.

He also recommended hiring a private company that would set up cameras along major highways to catch drivers who do not have required auto insurance.

He said the state has been promised $30 million by the vender who would set up the program by July.

In addition, Gibbons called for cutting state spending by all agencies, including the public schools and higher education, by 10 percent.

Virtually all state employee would be required to take a 10-hour unpaid furlough day per month, equivalent to a 5.75 percent salary reduction, as the state shifts to a four-day, 10-hour work week.

Here are the line-by-line changes that Gibbons is proposing and some notes on the changes.

Tickets available to Obama townhall meeting

Via the Review- Journal:

Several hundred people will get a chance to ask President Barack Obama a question during a town hall meeting Friday at Green Valley High School. Tickets to the 10 a.m. event are available free to the public on a first-come, first-served basis at the school. They can be picked up beginning at 4 p.m. on Thursday at the school's football field box office, located at 460 Arroyo Grande Blvd. in Henderson, the White House said…

The White House doesn't plan to pre-screen questions and if his previous town hall meetings are any indication, Obama will pick out people on a "boy, girl" rotation basis.

Now, I’m sure the event will be packed with union members and government employees (but I repeat myself) and planted questions.

But it will be a chance to enjoy some political theater — so far a tragedy in the making — or perhaps enjoy a tea party out front.

Why the New Deal was a colossal failure

A great speech from historian and author Burt Folsom on the New Deal. If you are a student of history or want to know more about why — counter to the conventional wisdom — the New Deal failed miserably, you'll enjoy this speech.

Added bonus: See how many parallels you can find between the New Deal and Obama's stimulus bill.



If you like this speech, check out Dr. Folsom's book, "New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America."

Gillespie takes Olbermann to school

I love this column by the Reason Foundation's Nick Gillespie reviewing the growing ideological rift between the American people and their political class. There is no better explanation for the rise of the Tea Party movement.

Here are my favorite lines:

American voters during this long and unhappy season of fatcat bailouts and seven-figure job losses have taken every available opportunity to give their elected leaders the collective finger.

Ever since then-President George W. Bush went on live national TV in September 2008 to declare that "under normal circumstances" he was "a strong believer in free enterprise," the economic policies favored by Official Washington have been tremendously unpopular.

Fiscal conservatism was last spotted in Washington during the 1990s, which also happened to coincide with a fondly remembered boom. Then George W. Bush jacked up spending at rates not seen since his fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson bestrode the economy like a deficit-generating Colossus, and Barack Obama decided to see his predecessor's irresponsibility and raise it up a notch.

Speaking of Sally Pipes

Here is a short video of Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, speaking at the Cato Institute about the differences between American and Canadian health care. Pipes will be in Las Vegas later this month for an NPRI policy luncheon.

Don't miss Sally Pipes on Feb. 25

Sally Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, will be the featured speaker at NPRI's upcoming Policy Luncheon, to be held on Feb. 25 at the Las Vegas Country Club. The event starts at 11:30 a.m.

Dr. Pipes will discuss the latest developments in the ongoing battle over health care policy.

For more information or to register, click here.

Competition is good, monopolies are bad

Why GDP doesn't matter

Frank Shostak has a great and easily comprehensible article up at the Mises Institute today, aptly titled, "The Depression is Not Over." The article explains why positive GDP growth in the third and fourth quarters of 2009 means absolutely nothing in terms of economic fundamentals.

There are several major problems with GDP as a metric that should also be considered when reading this article. First, as an aggregate number, analyses of GDP completely overlook the composition of economic activity. This oversight is what allows Keynesians (and monetarists) to arrive at their faulty conclusions. Monetary easing can boost the GDP measure but further deteriorate economic fundamentals by channeling available savings toward the same malinvestments that caused recession in the first place. Indeed, this is Shostak's point.

Aggregate numbers such as GDP also distort the dynamics involved in individual market transactions because they rely on uniform price values for similar goods despite the fact that every good possesses a different value to every individual. Hence, wealth-increasing aspects of exchange such as "consumer and producer surplus" (the difference between the value that a buyer or seller, respectively, places on a good and the price at which it is sold) are overlooked. At the same time, the full cost of delivering government services (which may be of no value to anyone) is counted in GDP. In other words, taking money (or credit) out of the private sector in order to create an entirely new government agency (let's call it the "National Recovery Administration" or, for the more adventurous, "General Motors") might contribute to GDP growth, but this action would also cause a decline in living standards because those resources would not be allocated to their highest-value use.

Hence, government can artificially boost GDP through monetary easing and fiscal "stimulus" and, at the same time, deteriorate the value of economic output.

Indeed, this is what has likely happened over the last year.

It's the end of the world! No wait, it's just a budget cut

*Yes, budget cuts signal the end of the world is near.

The Interim Finance Committee last week was subjected to a lot of hyperbole regarding cuts to education — some of it self-inflicted.

IFC meeting attendees heard that Nevada ranks 49th or even 50th of all the states in terms of public education expenditures. The reality: Nevada ranks between 26th and 47th, depending on which expenditures are counted and how the calculations are performed.

Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley claimed that the latest round of budget cuts would reduce spending per pupil by as much as $900. The representative from the Nevada Department of Education, however, corrected her, saying that it would only be about $30. Some confusion then ensued over whether the figure was $30 or $300, with the representative ultimately promising to check his math when he returned to the office.

Another committee member believed and worried that the budget cuts might bring education funding to levels not seen since 1930. The Nevada Department of Education was unable to determine which decade’s funding levels the new expenditure amounts would approximate, but even using Speaker Buckley’s (high) figure, the new levels would only take us back to the mid 1990s — hardly the stone age.

Even if Nevada were to eliminate every single penny of state appropriations to K-12 education, counties could still cut property taxes by as much as 20 percent and we’d only reduce funding levels to those of 1959 — a time that former Nevada System of Higher Education chancellor Jim Rogers has called Nevada’s golden age of education.

The current chancellor, Dan Klaich, claimed that the budget cuts would wipe out a decade of progress. To which nearly all Nevadans would reply: “What progress?”

NSHE enjoyed a 7.9 percent annual increase in funding from 2001 through 2008. By 2006 (the most recent year with available data from the U.S. Department of Education), the University of Nevada, Reno was spending $30,290 per pupil, while the University of Nevada, Las Vegas was spending $16,537 per pupil. The results? Fewer than half of the students at either school graduate within six years.

Yes, all of the spending bought big, expensive buildings, and it paid for the salaries of lots of adults. But what did it do for the students? The answer is: almost nothing.

Klaich also presented some scenarios that he claimed showed that the budget cuts were so large, they could result in the closing of Nevada State College, the College of Southern Nevada, the medical school and/or the law school. So on and so forth.

Remember last year? Jim Rogers claimed tuition would increase by 225 percent if the then-proposed budget cuts were implemented. That never happened. The claim was a strategy to tick off students, and it seems the latest round of doomsday scenarios was ripped right out of Rogers’ playbook.

Gettin' swindled by the Fed

The Washington Post today has an interesting story on the Fed's "exit strategy." The crux of the article is that, for an exit strategy to work, Fed officials will have to dutifully watch the impact that the Fed's short-term interest rates have on long-term rates. If Fed officials keep short-term rates too low for too long, they could spur fears of inflation that would manifest themselves through a rise in long-term rates. However, if short-term rates rise too quickly then they could stifle any economic recovery.

The Post casts this scenario as a fine line that must be walked by studious Fed officials to achieve recovery without spurring runaway inflation. Essentially, the Fed is trying to sell confidence in itself. As Karen Dynan of the Brookings Institution puts it, "You're trying to inspire confidence that you know what you're doing, which can help put the brakes on any incipient inflation without damaging the recovery." In other words, after more than doubling the monetary base in the last year and a half, the Fed recognizes that inflation is upon us but will now try to bluff the market.

However, as the article points out, the Fed has a new policy tool to use as a result of the TARP bailout legislation. In addition to targeting the daily Federal Funds Rate - its traditional policy tool - the Fed is now able to pay interest on deposits made by member banks. Because the Fed is able to print new money at will, it can now pay member banks not to make loans by printing new Federal Reserve notes and using them to pay interest on holdings. The policy goal of doing this is to take money out of circulation by encouraging banks to hold their assets at the Fed instead of using them to make loans. As the Fed offers higher interest rates, banks will take more money out of circulation and deposit it with the Fed where they bear zero risk and still turn a profit.

The outcome of this policy is a windfall for Wall Street. Whenever the Fed creates new money, it has effectively taxed the wealth of all dollar-holders by making each dollar less valuable. Traditionally, this backdoor tax has been used to profit the federal government with Wall Street serving as a middleman. The Treasury issues government bonds to be sold on Wall Street and Wall Street inevitably buys them knowing that they can later flip them to the Fed, which will print new money to purchase government debt. When the bonds come due, the Fed typically rolls over government debt, meaning that the Federal Reserve system serves as little more than a hidden taxation scheme that allows the federal government to monetize its debt with the assistance of Wall Street.

However, now the Fed can use its inflationary tax to reward Wall Street directly by paying interest on deposits. The result of this policy will be a massive wealth transfer from the bulk of Americans (and other holders of U.S. dollars) to Fed member banks.

It's the bailout that keeps on bailin' out!

Multiplier effects to no effect

*If focusing on jobs and spending was the smart thing to do, then we should hire people to dig ditches and fill them in again. But what does a ditch filled with dirt do for the economy?

If there was any doubt that government’s primary focus (whether conscious or subconscious) is on growing itself rather than on serving taxpayers, last week’s Interim Finance Committee meeting should lay those doubts to rest.

At least four times during the meeting, the term “multiplier effects” was mentioned. Multiplier effects are like ripples in the economy. Someone spends money and someone else gets the money to spend on something else, and on and on.

Senator Bob Coffin, Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Dan Klaich and Clark County School District Superintendent Walt Rulffes all worried that cutting jobs would have a devastating impact on Nevada’s economy. Eliminating those jobs would mean those people would not be able to spend money in other areas of the economy.

But this raises a question: From whom did the government take the money in the first place, and what are the negative multiplier effects that resulted from that loss of money?

Only Rulffes gave any indication he was on the right track on that issue. Rulffes argued that if the state took Clark County’s bond revenue to avoid laying off teachers, then the effect would be a need to lay off construction workers.

But he still didn’t go far enough. In order to pay back that bond revenue, the Clark County School District relies on special taxes. Every dollar spent by the district on school construction is a dollar that citizens can’t spend in the private sector on things they need.

This brings us to the major problem with focusing on spending and multiplier effects: production. Coffin, Rulffes and Klaich believe that cutting government jobs would be the worst possible thing for Nevada to do. Yet they believe this only because they’ve apparently forgotten where the money came from in the first place.

The only way their assertion could be true is if the money were used more productively by the government than it would have been by those who originally earned it.

Quite frankly, they’d have a hard time proving that. Today, the Clark and Washoe county school districts employ one adult for every eight students. Yet the results, as measured by quality of education, have been stagnant. And higher education does no better. The Nevada System of Higher Education saw its funding increase at a rate of 7.9 percent per year from 2001 to 2008, yet the quality did not improve. Fewer than half of all students at UNR and UNLV graduate after six years.

At the very best, funneling loads of money into education has done nothing for our economy. It certainly has done nothing for the quality of education. But since the government’s confiscation of that money means people in the private sector have less to invest in goods and services that improve their lives, it is most certainly the case that the increases in education spending have damaged Nevada economically.

And now for my next trick...

President Obama claims to be following a path of fiscal discipline by freezing spending over a whole 13 percent of the federal budget. And yet, he's still able to grow federal spending yet again in FY11. The federal budget for FY11 will amount to 25.1 percent of GDP while the deficit alone will equal 8.3 percent of GDP. What a trick! He manages to get fiscal discipline and outrageous deficit spending all at the same time!

I think I've read about this in a George Orwell novel.

Veronique de Rugy has all the details over at the Reason Foundation.

A drop in the unemployment rate, but …

Don't be fooled into thinking today's unemployment figure represents good news. Sure, the official unemployment rate dropped from 10 percent to 9.7 percent. However, as Reuters reports, that occurred because "[t]he number of 'discouraged job seekers' rose to 1.1 million in January from 734,000 a year ago."

"Discouraged job seekers" are those who have stopped looking for work altogether. And since those people aren’t factored into the calculation of the unemployment rate, an increase in discouraged job seekers has the effect of driving the unemployment rate down. In other words, the only reason the unemployment rate dropped is because more and more people have decided it's not worth it to even look for a job. We're moving backward, not forward.

Today's report comes about a week after President Obama announced in his State of the Union speech that "jobs” will be the major focus of his administration over the next year. So, clearly, the president understands the urgency of the unemployment problem.

What he doesn't understand, as I argued in my commentary on Monday, is how to solve it.

The Top 10

In response to Andy's challenge earlier today, I've compiled a list of who I think are the top 10 free-market economists of all time.

There are several distinct schools and periods of economic thought that have added to the body of thought and demonstrated the superiority of free markets to command economies. These have included the classical economists, Austrian School economists, Chicago School economists and public choice theory economists.

I've constructed this list primarily on the basis of new contributions to the existing field of economic thought that has swayed the scholarship in a free-market direction. (Read: No Marx or Keynes.)

Enjoy:

1. Ludwig von Mises: Mises is the godfather. Virtually all modern free-market economists are in some way influenced by Mises’ work. Mises single-handedly revived the defunct Austrian School tradition in economics while working at the Vienna Chamber of Commerce during the Interwar Period. As the Nazis rose to power, Mises recognized that his free-market theories and Jewish background would place the lives of him and his family in danger, so he left everything behind and fled to Switzerland and, later, to the United States. Many of Mises’ students at New York University went on to become famous economists in their own right. Mises’ magnum opus, “Human Action,” is arguably the greatest inquiry into the functioning of a market economy ever written.

2. Friedrich von Hayek: There’s a reason the term “Hayekian” is often used to describe the laissez-faire approach. One of Mises’ students, Hayek eventually won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his development of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory that explains how central banking and artificial credit are the primary causes of the business cycle. Another refugee from Nazi tyranny, Hayek is perhaps most well-known for his treatise against planned economies and the totalitarian states that they inevitably engender, “The Road to Serfdom.”

3. Murray Rothbard: Another Mises student, Rothbard is the most prolific of all free-market theorists. In addition to his further development of Mises’ Austrian School economic theories, Rothbard was a philosopher, historian and Nevadan. Rothbard is often credited with being the first to develop a comprehensively libertarian economic, historical, legal and moral worldview. While “Man, Economy and State” is Rothbard’s masterpiece on economic theory, he is also well known for: “America’s Great Depression,” “Conceived in Liberty” — a historical account of the American colonies — “An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought,” and numerous entreaties against the Federal Reserve.

4. Milton Friedman: Dean of the Chicago School, Friedman was easily the most influential of any free-market economist in the 20th Century. Friedman was a staunch supporter of free trade, low taxes and limited government. His ideas gained traction among political leaders across the globe. While Friedman and Anna Schwartz together won the Nobel Prize for their work in “A Monetary History of the United States,” Friedman was also known for his ability to convey complex theories in a manner comprehensible to the layman (see, e.g., “Free to Choose”). Had Friedman’s monetarist theories not led him to espouse the idea that government can efficiently manipulate the value of the currency through monopolistic central banking, he could have easily topped this list.

5. David Ricardo: The first classical economist to crack this list, Ricardo was an 18th Century British philosopher and statesman often credited with systematizing economic theory. Ricardo’s greatest gift to posterity was his ardent defense of free trade at a time when mercantilism still ruled much of Europe. He developed the theory of “comparative advantage,” which is still the bedrock of trade theory.

6. Adam Smith: For the uninitiated, it may seem odd that Smith would rank below Ricardo on this list. The Scotsman is widely regarded today as the “father of economic science.” However, if this list is about value added to the existing scholarship, then Smith does not really deserve top billing. To be sure, Smith’s contributions and authorship of “The Wealth of Nations” changed the world by unleashing a tidal wave of classical liberal thought that heavily influenced the founding of the United States. However, Smith’s primary contribution is that he was the first to articulate such ideas to the English-speaking world. While the classical liberal tradition of economic thought never enjoyed such purchase prior to Smith, many of his ideas had been previously developed elsewhere (see Rothbard’s account of the history of economic thought).

7. Carl Menger: Founder of the Austrian School, he was the first to develop a cogent price theory aided by his development of the theory of marginal value. Prior to Menger, the classical economists (as well as Karl Marx) errantly subscribed to cost-of-production theories of value, including the labor theory of value. Menger recognized that a good only possesses as much value as individuals place in its ability to improve their lives (utility) and that transactions occur at prices that reflect this value. The Las Vegas housing market has recently proved Menger right all over again — once a good has been produced, its production costs will not be inherently incarnate in its future market price. Menger’s “Principles of Economics” was, for decades, considered the text on economic theory.

8. Joseph Schumpeter: Schumpeter is best known for his coining of the phrase “creative destruction.” His primary contribution to economic science was on the role that entrepreneurs play in driving innovation. In “The Theory of Economic Development,” Schumpeter recognizes that technological advancement is the primary determinant for economic growth and that profit-seeking individuals provide the impetus to such advancement. Another refugee from Nazi tyranny, Schumpeter was perhaps the most influential intellectual opponent of John Maynard Keynes among his contemporaries.

9. Friedrich Bastiat: The French Bastiat was the first true “political economist.” Bastiat distinguished a dichotomy of the ways in which to acquire wealth, which he termed the “political means” and the “economic means.” The “economic means” is to produce wealth through industry, whereas the “political means” involves using the power of government to confiscate wealth from others. Modern theories of rent-seeking and “regulatory capture” all stem from the writings of Bastiat. It’s too bad so many of his countrymen failed to understand the lessons contained in “The Law.”

10. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The only living economist to make this list, Hoppe joins Rothbard as both a member of the Austrian School and a Nevadan. Hoppe turns conventional wisdom on its head by showing that monopoly power is not a natural outcome of markets and can only arise through government protectionism or interventionism. He has effectively dispelled such anti-market theories such as “natural monopoly” and anti-trust theory. In “Democracy: The God That Failed,” Hoppe asserts that the primary function of government is to exploit its subjects and that this tendency is, in fact, worse when those in power serve limited terms of office.

Honorable Mention: Thomas Sowell, Jacob Viner, George Reisman, Art Laffer, Gary Becker, George Stigler, Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, Walter Williams, James Buchanan

The top free-market economists of all time?

Whatever the topic - the BCS, the world's best cities to live in, or even the greatest drummers ever to pick up a pair of sticks - everybody loves a good debate over rankings.

So here's a challenge for Geoff Lawrence, NPRI's fiscal policy guru: Tell us, Geoff, who you think are the top 10 free-market economists in history.

(And since you also happen to be a sports fan, a world traveler and a drummer, I expect you to produce top-10 lists for those other three categories as well.)

Carin' about education?

No one covers the Clark County School District better than Karen Gray, and no one who's concerned with what goes on in Southern Nevada education should miss Karen's latest piece.

An excerpt:

Nationally and locally, public education has become a culture where the existing incentives often reward poor performance and outright failure. It seems that the worse a school or district performs, the more federal grant money it qualifies for, even without improvement. Just scoring poorly or having certain subgroups of student population will earn you extra money.

The culture rewarding underachievement is evident even within public education's own professional associations. Although the Clark County School District has one of the lowest graduation rates in the country, did not make AYP, and ranks at the bottom in just about every survey, poll or study performed, Superintendent Rulffes is one of four finalists in the running for the honor of "Superintendent of the Year" from the American Association of School Administrators.

Read the whole thing here.

Higher ed can survive budget cuts

*Why is Wal-Mart, which is run by men and women with high school degrees, still able to keep its doors open to customers, while higher education - run by men and women with doctoral degrees - can't seem to get its act together? Unfortunately, your local media didn't ask that question.

Education in Nevada has cried for two years that we’ve cut to the bone. It is time to drop the hyperbole and face the facts.

Nevada’s legislature raised taxes at the beginning of an economic boom. Those boom taxes spurred a growth in boom government. Then in 2009, the legislature again raised taxes in order to sustain that boom government.

We didn’t make any significant cuts last year. Truth be told, Nevada’s government is in need of liposuction still.

Last year Jim Rogers and Barbara Buckley complained about "large" budget cuts, which in reality turned out to be a fraction of a fraction of total higher-education spending in the state. The same is true today.

And it is not like the extra spending made UNR and UNLV any better. Both universities spend above the median level compared to other public universities and both still fail to graduate at least half their students AFTER SIX YEARS!

But what is more disturbing than the ballyhoo about the size of the budget cuts is how much higher education in Nevada has lost its focus on the students.

Here is a taste from the Las Vegas Sun:

Cutting $110 million from the budget will mean an estimated 15,750 students would be unable to enroll in the Nevada System of Higher Education, a decrease of 14 percent from 2009’s enrollment, Chancellor Klaich said. And more than 1,000 full-time faculty and staff would lose their jobs.

Think about this for a moment. What kind of business loses revenue and shuts its doors to 15,750 customers? None.

So why does higher education act like budget cuts mean fewer students can enroll? The answer is simple: Higher education treats students as a cost because higher education’s function for many years has been to employ adults.

NOT a parody

An employer in Britain looking to hire has been told not to advertise for "reliable" workers ... because doing so discriminates against the unreliable.

Via the Daily Mail:

When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days.

So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation.

However, she hadn't reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community — the completely useless.

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.

'In my 15 years in recruitment I haven't heard anything so ridiculous,' Mrs. Mamo said yesterday.

Next step: No more discriminating on the basis of one's qualifications for the job.

With real stories like this, what's left for the Onion?

2010 Education Conference

Less than half of low-income and minority students in Nevada can read at grade level according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress fourth-grade reading exam. Large achievement gaps exist between white students and minorities in math, science and reading across all grade levels tested. Achievement gaps also exist between the "haves" and "have nots." But what can be done to improve student achievement, regardless of race or income?

Learn more at the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Second Education Policy Summit: "Success for Every Nevada Child" on March 19 at the Orleans. Click here to RSVP for the conference. Below you will find a list of the speakers for this year’s education summit.

Anthony J. Colón
Education Consultant

Anthony J. Colón is one of the most widely recognized leaders in the school choice and education reform movements. His extensive experience designing cutting-edge education programs that target special needs and underserved students has put him at the front line of local and national education debates over the past 30 years. From 2005 to 2007, Colón served as Senior Manager for Education Investment Strategies at Fight For Children (FFC), a Washington, D.C.-based, local nonprofit organization dedicated to preparing urban youth for post-secondary education and careers.

Robert C. Enlow
President & CEO
Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

In January of 2009 Robert Enlow took over the role of President and CEO of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, an organization dedicated to promoting universal school choice. Previously he had been the Executive Director of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice since late 2004. He joined the Friedman Foundation when it first opened in 1996, serving as fundraiser, projects coordinator and vice president before being named executive director. Under his leadership, the Friedman Foundation has become one of the nation's leading advocates for school choice, working in dozens of states to advance the issue by disseminating research, sponsoring seminars, undertaking advertising campaigns, organizing community leaders and providing grants.

Howard Fuller
Director
Institute for the Transformation of Learning (ITL), Marquette University

Howard Fuller is Director of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning (ITL)at Marquette University, supporting exemplary education options that transform learning for children, while empowering families, particularly those of low income, to choose the best school options. He served as Superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools from June 1991 through June 1995, as Dean of General Education at Milwaukee Area Technical College from 1986-1988, and as Associate Director of the Educational Opportunity Program at Marquette University from 1979-1983. He is also Chairman of the Board at the Black Alliance for Educational Options.

Jay P. Greene
Chairman
Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas

Jay P. Greene is the Chairman of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, a position he has held since August 2005. He was a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research from January 2000 through August 2005, an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas, Austin from July 1997 through May 2001, and an Assistant Professor at the University of Houston from July 1994 through July 1997. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University.

Matthew Ladner
Vice President of Research
Goldwater Institute

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute. Prior to joining Goldwater, Ladner was director of state projects at the Alliance for School Choice, where he provided support and resources for state-based school choice efforts. Ladner has written numerous studies on school choice, charter schools and special education reform. Ladner is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and received both a Masters and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Houston. Ladner previously served as director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute and as vice president of policy and communications at Children First America.

Helen Littlejohn
Senior Regional Public Affairs Specialist
U.S. Department of Education

Helen Littlejohn, a native of Cheyenne, Wyoming, is currently the Senior Regional Public Affairs Specialist for the U.S. Department of Education, based in Denver, Colorado. She serves as a liaison to the department for several western states and is responsible for community outreach and engagement for federal education initiatives. She also serves as an advisor to the Secretary on Indian education and rural issues and promotes the department's efforts to support the academic success of under-served student populations throughout the United States. Her 30-year federal career includes service with the Departments of the Army and Air Force. She started her present position at the U.S. Department of Education in February 2000. She graduated from the University of Denver in 1976 with a degree in Education and Psychology.

Paul E. Peterson
Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution, Stanford University

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a member of the Koret Task force on K-12 Education, and editor of Education Next: A Journal of Opinion and Research. He is also the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government and director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University. His research interests include educational policy, federalism, and urban policy. He has evaluated the effectiveness of school vouchers and other education reform initiatives. He is the author of Saving Schools: From the Little Red Schoolhouse to Virtual Learning (forthcoming).

Origins of the "Great Recession"

Want to know how it all happened without thumbing the thousands of pages that have already been written on the subject? Jeffrey Friedman offers a great synopsis in the latest edition of the Cato Journal.