If you think attack ads are vicious now...

You probably wouldn't have enjoyed John Adams and Thomas Jefferson's 1800 presidential campaign.

Reminder: Al Gore's an enormous hypocrite

Just in case you're sick of stressing about election results, think about this: No matter who wins or loses, Al Gore's hypocrisy will remain for years to come.

Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore toured again. Or maybe he does that all the time. This time, he turned up in Gothenburg (Sweden) for the usual alarmist talk. In advance, all distinguished guests were politely advised to – if possible – use any form of public transportation to go to the event, in order to minimize CO2 emissions.

Intriguingly, the Master of World Climate himself arrived in a rental car (with or without driver is unclear), from the airport, and subsequently left the engine running for the entire lecture. That is to say, about one hour. Incidentally, local legislation prohibits – for very good environmental reasons, i e pollution – any car engine running on empty for more than 60 seconds. Fines are severe. As far as I know, he was not fined. ...

After the ceremony in the Norwegian capital Oslo, it is customary that the laureate is invited to the Swedish capital Stockholm, for a cordial visit. The train ride, supposedly the environmental choice according to Mr. Gore, is approximately four hours. However, he opted for the cosier ride with one of the Swedish government aircrafts.

The real question is, which of Gore's four luxury homes did he return to after this conference?

European court rules Spanish dads get breastfeeding leave

Alternative headline: What political correctness leads to.

The new legislation means that both the mother and father are allowed to leave work for an hour during the day or reduce their working day by half an hour during the first nine months following the birth of a child.

The European Union Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled on Thursday that the Spanish law caused an "unjustified discrimination on grounds of sex" because fathers do not have the same rights as mothers.

Fathers are currently only allowed to apply for breastfeeding leave if the mother is employed full time.

Not giving dads the same right as mums in this case "is liable to ... keep men in a role subsidiary to that of women in relation to the exercise of their parental duties," the court ruled.

Wow. Welcome to the liberal utopia.

Best two-paragraph description of Nevada's budget situation so far

It's been encouraging to see many of Nevada's most respected political journalists accurately describing Nevada's budget situation since NPRI pointed out that the claim of a "$3 billion budget deficit" contained a 30 percent increase in spending.

Rarely, though, is Nevada's budget situation spelled out as clearly as the RJ's Ed Vogel did today.

A $5.2 billion budget would be about $1.2 billion less than current state spending.

Some legislators have contended that the revenue shortfall facing legislators is $3 billion. That is based on their view that revenue should be $8 billion to maintain current services and expected caseload growth over the next two years.

There it is — the truth in three sentences.

This accurate description of Nevada's budget situation doesn't mean the debate's over, however.

Now fiscal conservatives need to make the case that it's better to decrease spending by about 20 percent and live within our means than to increase spending by 30 percent and continue Nevada's pattern of unsustainable spending increases.

Sandoval: Reset the baseline to 2007 levels

Last night Brian Sandoval and Rory Reid held their third gubernatorial debate.

Aside from both candidates seeming to agree that colleges and universities should have increased autonomy, starting with keeping their own tuition, the big news of the night was about Sandoval's budget plan.

Sandoval's plan is to roll back the spending baseline to 2007 levels.

The gist of Sandoval's plan is to roll back general fund spending to about $5.2 billion during the upcoming biennium, less than the $5.8 billion spent in the 2005-07 budget. He justified it by saying the population in Nevada has fallen 2.6 percent since 2007 and demand for some state services has declined or remained flat, yet spending has increased 38 percent.

It only got better, because Sandoval also explained how baseline budgeting works — take the previous year's expenditures and increase. This has led to the unsustainable spending that is causing the problems Nevada is facing right now. For example, this is why Nevada's projected budget deficit contains a 28 percent spending increase (or check out the video version).

Correcting the baseline budgeting process (or, ideally, replacing it with a Budgeting for Outcomes approach) is a central element in fixing Nevada's budget problems.

Sandoval's campaign issued a press release after the debate, which provided a few more details.

“Since 2007, Nevada’s population has declined by almost three percent while state spending has increased by 38 percent,” Sandoval said. “It is time for a fundamental correction in how we build the state budget. For as long as anyone can remember, we have created the state budget by using the prior two years as the baseline and simply increasing spending. For many years this method worked; growth was constant and there was always more money available. The recent economic downturn, however, has changed our state revenue projections to such a degree that we must completely rethink how we budget going forward.”

Describing his plan for bringing state spending in line with available revenues, Sandoval said that most Nevadans don’t know the Legislature has operated under the false assumption that increased population and increased caseloads will make future spending increases necessary. The facts do not bear that out:

• Since 2007, Nevada’s population has actually declined by 2.59 percent. More than 70,000 residents have left the state.

Read more »

Davy Crockett on charity and government redistribution

Davy Crockett wasn't just a famous soldier and frontiersman; he was also a courageous politician, as this story demonstrates.

And with a legislative session looming in 2011 that will feature much hyperbole about how Nevada has to raise taxes or children will die, this story is a must read.

There are two important takeaways here. First, it's much easier to give away someone else's money than your own. Second, the people who are eager to give away someone else's money are often the stingiest with their own (and the people who won't give away someone else's money are more likely to give away their own).

Make sure you read the whole piece, because the second takeaway doesn't come until the very end.

From The Life of Colonel David Crockett,
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

Read more »

LV Sun inaccurately reports the size of NV's government...

To justify raising taxes and growing government.

Unfortunately, this election cycle has been steeped in the Tea Party’s rhetoric, and as a result, there are too many candidates who proudly think they have the “solution” to the state’s problems — slash the “bloated” budget and curb “big” government. Those candidates who make such claims fail to see through their narrow ideology to understand the facts: Nevada has a paucity of services and one of the smallest governments per capita in the nation. [Emphasis added]

Fact: Both the Tax Foundation and the Brookings Institution report that Nevada's per-capita tax revenues for state and local government are above the national median.

NPRI's fiscal analyst Geoffrey Lawrence explains:

Yet, the context to this debate [about Nevada's budget] has been convoluted by frequent misrepresentations about Nevada's status as a relatively low-tax state. A more accurate characterization is that Nevada is a relatively decentralized state.

On a per capita basis, total state and local tax revenues are above the national median. According to the Tax Foundation (Table 6, page 9), Nevada ranks 25th in terms of per capita tax collections. The Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, ranks Nevada even higher — 22nd, with almost $6,000 in per capita annual revenue.

Clearly, there is no lack of tax revenue in the Silver State, even if most revenues do go to local governments. This decentralization of services was a conscious decision made by state lawmakers who — this being a Dillon's Rule state — have ultimate authority over the allocation of tax revenue. Due to the state's far-flung population centers, decentralization has historically been seen as the most efficient method of delivering public services.

Understanding the true context of current debates over the next state budget is critical for lawmakers, who should make informed decisions.

When you're just plain wrong about the facts, it's easy to come to incorrect conclusions. The real question is will the Sun's editorial staff admit it?

I'm not holding my breath, but I do have faith that Nevada's citizens and lawmakers won't be as blind to the facts as the Sun is.

How do governments die?

There are many ways, but as our friends at Citizens Against Government Waste show, it's the prospect of being crushed under our own debt that America needs to be the most concerned about.



(h/t Hotair)

Reminder: "Waiting for 'Superman'" opens today in Las Vegas

It's playing at Regal Village Square 18 at 2:00, 4:35, 7:15 and 9:50. The address is 9400 W. Sahara Ave., Las Vegas, NV.

To hold you over, check out this animated version of "Superman" from the Taiwanese animators who've been making waves on the Internet animating current U.S. events.

Harry Reid claims he saved the world from a depression, Las Vegas unemployment hits 15 percent

This is one of the biggest disconnects from reality I've ever seen.

First, here's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claiming he prevented a worldwide depression.



And then there's the news today that Las Vegas' unemployment rate has hit a record 15 percent.

Unemployment in Las Vegas jumped to a new record and an important statistical -- and emotional -- threshold in September.

Joblessness rose to 15 percent locally, up from 14.7 percent in August, according to numbers released this morning by the state Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation.

And what was the basis for Reid's claim that he saved the world? The failed, $787 billion stimulus.

Reid stuck by his remark.

His campaign noted that the Senate majority leader had maneuvered the $787 billion economic stimulus bill to passage in February 2009.

The problem is that by the standard Obama-Reid-Pelosi set for the stimulus — keeping unemployment under 8 percent — the stimulus has been and is an epic failure.

If Sen. Reid had said he made a mistake and misspoke, this wouldn't be a big deal. Every politician misspeaks occasionally.

But Reid's defense of this statement shows that he actually believes it, which reveals a huge disconnect from the reality those in Las Vegas and Nevada are now living in.

Siena hotel in Reno shutting its doors

Say, didn't the Nevada Legislature increase the room tax on hotel rooms by 3 percent during the last session? Why yes, yes it did.

Surely there's no correlation between higher taxes on hotel rooms and the news breaking today that the Siena hotel in Reno has closed, though.

Of course there's a correlation! You can't raise taxes on a product or a business and not see a negative impact on the business or its employees. And this isn't the only hotel that's had to close its doors after the Legislature hiked the room tax.

On the other hand, you can't say that the tax increase alone caused the hotel to close. As I've written before, the factors influencing a business' success or failure are numerous and complex. What we can say with certainty is that the room-tax increase made it harder for the Siena to stay in business, and when the room tax was combined with all the other factors in the business, the Siena chose to shut its doors.

Let's just hope Nevada's legislative leadership learns this lesson before the next session.

Charity and the free market

David Schwartz has a story in today's Las Vegas Sun that attempts to tug at your heart strings and make you feel guilty for not supporting tax increases in the next session. He details how eliminating personal-care attendants would negatively impact some disabled Nevadans.

Meanwhile, Hawley, who is paralyzed from the chest down since a 2008 motorcycle accident, is clear about what the loss of his personal-care attendant would mean for him — a nursing home.

He prizes his independence and time he spends on the Internet connected to the outside world, his nightly dinner of rice, beans and exactly 20 bits of meat he portions out from a roast to make it on his budget of food stamps and Social Security. Hawley is excited that his shower was refurbished recently to accommodate a special wheelchair so he no longer has to have his baths in bed, given by his personal-care attendant.

If he ends up in a nursing home, that will cost taxpayers more than twice what it costs now for his attendant, Social Security and food stamps combined. (He pays half his mortgage on the condo he bought with a friend, who pays into it as an investment.)

What’s missing from the piece is balance, i.e. any consideration of what might be the alternative to government redistribution. Schwartz even ends the story with Paul Gowins, chairman of the Nevada Services for Persons With Disabilities Commission, challenging candidates to find waste in the current system.

If only some Nevada organization published a Piglet Book recently detailing millions in government waste or offered tens of millions of dollars in specific budget reductions ... but I digress.

The question I want to answer is: How do believers in the free market address the real needs of the disabled?

The short answer is family and charity. Family is the first and most important safety net. And when it comes to charity, conservatives give much more than liberals, highlighted by this astounding fact.

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

This fact underscores the liberal mindset — the political position of redistribution can eliminate the need for personal charity.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." ...

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

And who loses in all of this? The ones liberals claim they want to help.

[Arthur C.] Brooks [a professor at Syracuse University], however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

When reading a story that tugs at the heart strings, like the one Schwartz wrote, it's liberals who should feel guilty.

Conservatives/libertarians are more likely to be off doing something to actually help needy individuals than lobbying for the government to give the disabled more of other people's money.

Reminder: Check out TransparentNevada's survey

With early voting underway and Election Day fast approaching, I thought it would be a good idea to remind everybody to check out TransparentNevada's 2010 transparency survey.

The survey has responses from over 60 candidates who shared their opinions on a range of transparency issues. Issues included online checkbooks, expanding open meeting laws for public unions negotiations and the Legislature, requiring 72 hours for the public to review bills before they're voted on and opening up campaign finance reports.

To see how the candidates responded head on over to TransparentNevada's 2010 transparency survey.

Foreclosure moratorium

It's not very often that the White House opposes a particular intervention into the economy on the grounds that it could produce "unintended consequences." However, Mark Calabria at Cato points out why the president is right on this issue.

New Jersey toll worker earned $321,985

There's a reason New Jersey toll workers collect much more than 10 cents per car.

Of course, that's nothing compared to the Clark County firefighter who earned $474,559.97 last year (as a volunteer coordinator, no less). But it looks like Nevada isn't the only place with widespread government waste and inflated salaries.

Auditors say the New Jersey Turnpike Authority wasted $43 million on unneeded perks and bonuses. In one case, an employee with a base salary of $73,469 earned $321,985 when all payouts and bonuses were included. ...

The audit shows turnpike authority employees got bonuses and overtime for working their birthdays and holidays.

That's right — a bonus for working on your birthday. And what's the impact of all this waste?

Comptroller Matt Boxer says tolls are set for another increase in 2012.

Government waste isn't funny, because they're spending your money.

Nevada doesn't have toll roads, but we do have many examples of government waste. Remember this when Nevada's leftists propose raising your taxes in 2011.

Awesome: 101st Airborne soldier parachutes into the Big House

Who's up for something that's a) awesome and b) non-political?

Wish granted.



My two favorite moments are when you can first hear the roar of the crowd and the soldiers who snatch up the American flag before it hits the ground. Hooah!

Related: A great Airborne cadence.



(h/t Cranky Hermit)

United States of Japan?

Stop me if this sounds familiar.

A country with a previously roaring economy (due in part to an economic bubble) hits an economic downturn. A recession results. In order to "fix" the economic problems the government spends billions of dollars in economic stimulus and keeps interest rates artificially low.

And that country is ... Japan in the late 1980s. What's happened as a result of this Keynesian approach to the economy?

But the bubbles popped in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and Japan fell into a slow but relentless decline that neither enormous budget deficits nor a flood of easy money has reversed. For nearly a generation now, the nation has been trapped in low growth and a corrosive downward spiral of prices, known as deflation, in the process shriveling from an economic Godzilla to little more than an afterthought in the global economy.

Now, as the United States and other Western nations struggle to recover from a debt and property bubble of their own, a growing number of economists are pointing to Japan as a dark vision of the future. Even as the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, prepares a fresh round of unconventional measures to stimulate the economy, there are growing fears that the United States and many European economies could face a prolonged period of slow growth or even, in the worst case, deflation, something not seen on a sustained basis outside Japan since the Great Depression.

 The parallel with the United States and the governmental attempts to fix the economy should be obvious, from the failed stimulus to the record-low interest rates. So what to do?

If you're Paul Krugman, you call for even more government spending and intervention, because if doing something the first time didn't help, the solution is to throw more money at it. That's what we've been doing for K-12 education for the last 50 years, and look at how well that's turned out.

But Japan's mistake is that it intervened too much, not too little.

Read more »

Government gone wild: Nevada agencies request a 30 percent spending increase

Of course, in this economy, who isn't increasing spending by 30 percent? Oh, wait. The answer is everyone … except, it seems, for Nevada's government.

I know budget numbers are boring, so here's a quick overview.

Nevada's General Fund budget for the last biennium was $6.4 billion after reductions made in the special session. For the next two years, government agencies now want to spend $8.34 billion — a 30 percent spending increase. And this is at a time of minimal inflation and little to negative population growth.

Seriously. Look at the numbers yourself.

Now of course, liberals will start making excuses — caseloads went up, the stimulus money ran out, etc. — but in debating the details, don't lose sight of the main point: The government wants to increase spending by 30 percent.

Almost every family and business in Nevada has had items in its budget increase over the last few years while earnings have stayed the same or even decreased. These individuals in Nevada have been forced to prioritize and cut back. Nevada's government needs to do the same.

And that "$3 billion deficit" you've heard so much about? You guessed right — it contains this 30 percent spending increase.

If this all seems familiar, it should. Liberals use the same playbook every year to try and increase spending and take more of your money. Don't be fooled again.

To read the text, you might need to click on the picture to enlarge it.

"Waiting for 'Superman'": A monumentally important film, says ... Alec Baldwin

Oh yes.

Davis Guggenheim's Waiting for "Superman" is unforgettable.

Guggenheim directed An Inconvenient Truth and It Might Get Loud. However, even more so than the issue of global warming (somehow), the questions and concerns raised by Waiting for "Superman" are deep and effect us all. Public education in America is collapsing. Students are not being served, and neither are tax payers. Whether or not teachers' unions are partly to blame is open to discussion, but Guggenheim's film casts a light on that perspective.

And once you get a peek at New York City's "Rubber Room" for outcast teachers, you may never view the NEA and the AFT the same way again.

This is a monumentally important film. My father was a public school teacher for 28 years and I can think of few other areas in our society that deserve this type of urgent scrutiny right now.

Even better is that this isn't the first time a Huffington Post writer has praised "Waiting for 'Superman.'"

“Waiting for ‘Superman’” opens next weekend in Las Vegas at Regal Village Square 18. Sadly, I don't think it's showing anywhere in the Reno area.

Once again, here's the trailer. I can't wait to see this film and I hope you'll see it, too.

"I Want Your Money" opens today

"I Want Your Money" is a documentary that compares the competing visions of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.

As you can see from the trailer, it looks both economically informative and highly entertaining.



The film is opening today in more than 500 theaters, including four in Nevada.

• Rave Town Square 18
  Las Vegas, NV
• Century Suncoast 16
  Las Vegas, NV
• Colonnade 14
  Las Vegas, NV
• Horizon Stadium Cinema 9
  Laughlin, NV

If you enjoy good, free-market film making I encourage you to see this movie.

Nevada businesses facing a 50 percent tax hike

And this is before leftists like Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford try and impose a massive, job-killing, $1.5 billion tax hike in the next session.

Nevada's unemployment tax is about to double.

Happy New Year, Nevada employers.

Starting Jan. 1, you will be hit with a 50 percent increase in the taxes you pay to provide unemployment benefits to workers, the state Employment Security Council decided Tuesday.

But that won't be the last of your increases.

As early as September, your unemployment taxes are expected to be boosted again to help the state pay back another $300 million it will borrow from the federal government.

Nevada has already borrowed $526 million from the feds to supplement its unemployment insurance fund.

The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce has pointed out that increasing the tax rate will force some businesses to lay off employees. The Chamber is certainly right that increasing the tax rate will cause some individuals to lose their jobs, but there really isn't another immediate alternative here.

The real lesson is that that Nevada's legislators should think twice before raising taxes — again — on businesses, because taxes can't simply be passed on to businesses. Tax increases on businesses will negatively impact employees and consumers.

Terms of proposed contract for CCSD Superintendent Dwight Jones revealed; Updated with audio

I spent this morning at Linda Young’s District C Village Meeting, where I learned information on the proposed terms of the contract for new Clark County School District Superintendent Dwight Jones.

Jones’ contract is on the agenda for tomorrow night’s Board of Trustees meeting and, to the best of my knowledge, the terms of his contract — aside from his initial salary of $270,000 a year — haven’t been reported anywhere else.

Young shared this morning that the Clark County School Board of Trustees was briefed on proposed terms of a contract with Jones. The five-year contract starting at $270,000 a year will be subject to annual renewals. His contract would contain several perks, including $15,000 in moving expenses, a $700-a-month car allowance plus mileage (typically 50 cents a mile), and seven more vacation days than other administrators. If Jones' contract is not renewed by CCSD, the contract provides for one year in salary and benefits severance pay.

I’m concerned about the contract length. Nevada law states that an initial contract for a superintendent cannot exceed four years. I’m not legal counsel for CCSD, but I have questions.

Trustee Young should get credit for transparency and openness in this matter. I had previously contacted school board staff to get background materials on the contract that will be discussed tomorrow night, and they had told me that there weren’t any. Hmmmmmmmm.

Check out the Parents’ Sounding Board later today for a full report on Linda Young’s Village Meeting.

Update: Audio of Trustee Young discussing the contract is here and my full Off-the-Cuff report is online as well.

Obama’s $787 billion teachable moment

From the New York Times:

He [Obama] realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works. Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.

That's right. There's no such thing as a "shovel- ready project." And we've got the unemployment rate to prove it.

After spending another trillion dollars, I wonder what Obama will learn next.

The chicken and the egg

In contemporary American culture, socialist ideals are frequently met with popular praise. The "Progressive" movement promises abundance for all by penalizing "greedy capitalists" and "fat-cat bankers" who earn "obscene" or "wind-fall" profits which are supposedly earned at the expense of the little man.

My object here is not to address the "abundance for all" fallacy. However, we do live in a world constrained by limited resources where it is impossible to provide everyone with every conceivable pleasure and where the distorted incentives created by a redistributionary regime inevitably distort the production process and lead to lower standards of living for all.

Nor is my objective to address the capitalist "exploitation" fallacy. Yet, it is clear that, under a system of voluntary exchange, no transaction occurs unless both parties perceive a net benefit because their subjective value judgments lean in opposite directions. As such, it is but a small logical step to realize that those individuals who earn high profits under a system of free exchange do so only because their work provides great benefit to their fellow humans. Indeed, this recognition was the foundation of Ayn Rand's Objectivist School, which assigns a moral imperative to profit-seeking because of the benefit that such activity bestows upon society.

The object here is to explore the link between socialist idealism and state control. While many pundits today praise the ideals of a socialist utopia, they simultaneously deplore the police state tactics used by the socialist republics of the Twentieth Century. This viewpoint naively overlooks the fact that, in a world constrained by limited resources, civil liberties MUST retreat in proportion with the growth of government's role in economic planning.

A perfect example to illustrate this point is the health care industry. Even prior to passage of the health care "reform" bills this year, the American health care industry was already dominated by government - with public funds paying 50 percent of all health care costs directly, and extensive government regulation effectively controlling the remainder of the industry. This effective socialization of the industry has imposed low direct costs on individuals for treatment - health care for most individuals is predominantly financed by either tax dollars or through insurance payments. Individuals rarely bear the costs of health care directly. In nearly all cases, there is some socialized risk pool.

Socialized risk gives rise to moral hazard. When one can offload the potential costs of a risky activity onto others, he or she becomes more likely to engage in that activity. Individuals with government-financed health insurance might be more likely to take up smoking, for instance (private insurance companies can at least impose higher premiums on smokers; government-financed plans are compelled to offer care to all on equal terms).

In a world of unlimited resources, this would not pose a problem. However, in a world constrained by limited resources, a government-financed health plan must devise methods of controlling costs, and this means controlling behavior. Hence, we have seen rising health care costs used as justification for punitive cigarette taxes. Proposals have likewise emerged for a "soda tax." Other proposals are now being propagated for some type of "fat tax." After socializing the costs of health care, government is seeking to minimize the impact of socialization and this has a negative impact on civil liberty.


Certainly, this is not the most extreme example. During the 1930s - the Progressive movement's heyday when the federal government controlled virtually all economic activity - the National Recovery Administration established fixed prices and wages for nearly all industries. Entrepreneurs who attempted to sell at prices lower than the official NRA prices were jailed. In a famous case, Jack Magid was thrown in jail for charging 35 cents to press a pair of pants instead of 40 cents.

In another case, the Supreme Court convicted Roscoe Filburn of violating the Interstate Commerce Clause under a regime of agricultural price-fixing because he was growing wheat for his own family to eat. Filburn's non-commerce, according to the Court, affected supply and demand and therefore undermined the government's price-fixing scheme. Filburn was required to pay punitive fines for trying to feed his own family.

The lesson of history is clear: civil liberty declines in direct proportion to the degree of socialization. Constrained by limited resources, the provider-government must control costs and this means controlling behavior. It is inconsistent to offer praise for socialist idealism while simultaneously deploring police-state tactics. The two must go hand-in-hand.

Arguing that one can exist in isolation is tantamount to arguing that the chicken can exist without the egg.

Off-the-cuff: Karen Gray's analysis of CCSD's Superintendent search

NPRI's Karen Gray is an expert on the Clark County School District and its Board of Trustees. She's also broken several stories involving open-meeting law violations.

Karen's been attending Clark County School Board meetings for years. In order to facilitate a discussion among parents about education in general and the School Board specifically, recently she's decided to write brief summaries of the meetings for the thousands of parents who aren't able to attend the meetings, but are enormously interested in them. Also, if you're interested in Clark County education, check out the Parents’ Sounding Board — a free discussion forum for parents to discuss education.

These are Karen's thoughts on the School Board meeting on September 29, 2010, which was the meeting where the School Board selected Dwight Jones as CCSD's next superintendent.

Bizarre, just bizarre…

Tonight, trustees are picking the next superintendent to lead the nation’s fifth largest school district — no doubt one of the most important decisions they will make over the next five years. And yet, trustees are hurrying through their comments. Of course, that’s been the theme for this search process all along, so why should tonight be any different? But it just seems weird that trustees would be rushed, giving their own input.

OMG, I can’t believe what I’m hearing. Three trustees did due diligence and actually investigated the finalists on their home turf. And now, Board President Terri Janison just told them to make their reports to the board short.

If you regularly watch school board meetings, you’re going to find this next item really funny: Young just set the speaking timer on herself.

Ah… now I get it. It appears that Mr. Jones, our next superintendent, wasn’t entirely “transparent” during his interview with trustees. One might even opine that he lied.

When asked whether he had met with CCSD personnel or community members prior to his interview, Jones told Trustee Linda Young he hadn’t had that opportunity, really, but he did speak with two people not in Clark County. In reality however, we learn tonight, Jones had plenty of opportunity to research the district. In fact, Jones had traveled to Vegas and met with some local people. Who were they? No one has shared.

But this, say trustees, really is a non-issue. After all, Hinojosa visited Vegas too, says Janison. Is she serious? Jones came to town and met with stakeholders and then lied about it when asked by a trustee in his job interview. Okay, so Jones fessed up after getting caught. But, really, is that the honesty and trustworthiness CCSD is seeking in a superintendent?

I guess so because trustees voted to hire Jones tonight. Only Linda Young voted no — because she was uncomfortable with the process.

I don’t know what’s more bizarre — Jones’ prevarication, the trustees’ whitewashing it, or Linda Young setting the speaker timer on herself.

Karen's insights on previous board meetings are at the Parents’ Sounding Board. Check it out.

Vouchers and regulations

School vouchers have long divided the free-market/libertarian movement.

On one hand, vouchers grant greater choice to parents regarding the education of their children and can break up the state-controlled educational monopoly in favor of a dynamic educational environment that fosters efficiency and innovation.

On the other hand, vouchers are a grant of state money and, as such, could conceivably inspire lawmakers to attach numerous conditions to their use. Many libertarians regard the impact that federal funding and loans have had in fostering an onerous regulatory framework within the higher education arena as a warning for the K-12 sector. From this viewpoint, the voucher movement is a threat to the integrity of private education.

Recognizing this divergence of opinion, Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute has authored a new study that is the first to empirically examine the impact of voucher programs on private school regulation. Coulson's findings show that:

While vouchers impose a substantial and statistically significant additional regulatory burden on participating schools, tax credit programs do not.

This study should command a central place in the school reform debate as it indicates that reform-minded individuals should place a higher priority on tuition tax credit programs as a method of increasing school choice in lieu of direct vouchers.

Fittingly, Coulson, in a 2009 study for NPRI, has already modeled the impact that a tuition tax credit program would have on Nevada. He shows that such a program could save Nevada taxpayers $1 billion over its first 10 years of operation while dramatically expanding the choice and quality of public education in the Silver State.

Thoughts from the gubernatorial candidates’ debate

Rory Reid and Brian Sandoval had their second debate last Thursday. You can watch the whole thing here.

A few thoughts:

First, I was disappointed that neither candidate took the opportunity to accurately define Nevada's budget situation as I had hoped someone would do. I'm not really surprised. Each candidate's goal is to win the debate, not correct a false narrative. Still, it was disappointing, and if either candidate is serious about his repeated promises not to raise taxes, he needs to correct the false beliefs about the size of Nevada's projected budget deficit.

Second, the first question of the debate was once again based on faulty information. The first question (6:45 mark) was: "Andrew Clinger, Republican Governor Jim Gibbons' state budget director, said in order to balance the budget without raising taxes you'd have to eliminate all funding of state government except K-12 and higher education. That means eliminating health and human services, taxation, gaming enforcement, even the legislature and the Supreme Court. He says he doesn't know how to balance Nevada's budget without raising taxes. Both of you have said raising taxes isn't necessary. Do you know something that the state budget director doesn't know?"

The quote is based on testimony that Clinger gave at a hearing in August. The problem is that statement wasn't true then and isn't true now — according to Clinger's numbers!

Also, Clinger has said that he is creating "a two-year budget of about $5 billion, about $1.5 billion less than the current two-year budget."

Believers in limited government may not know more about the budgeting process than the state budget director, but we are aware of the numbers, not just the rhetoric, he's using.

Third, NPRI's tax study was mentioned at about the 24-minute mark. It's good to see that the public is continuing to recognize the good work NPRI is producing. Sure this is shameless self-promotion, but it's also a very good proposal.

October (not really a) surprise: Unemployment numbers worse than expected

Another month, another reminder that the stimulus was and is an epic failure.

Payrolls fell in September by 95,000 jobs because of layoffs by the government while the unemployment rate remained stuck at 9.6 percent, the Labor Department reported Friday. The news drove stocks higher with investors betting the government will do more to boost the economy.

The jobless rate has now topped 9.5 percent for 14 straight months, the longest stretch since the 1930s. The private sector added 64,000 jobs, the weakest showing since June.

The drop in payrolls disappointed many economists, who expected payrolls would be about even for September compared with the previous month.

This chart is originally from Innocent Bystanders in June 2010. I've added the last four data points myself, because I can't find a more updated chart on their site. Innocent Bystanders should get credit for the original chart and idea.

Also, the AP reports that 72,000 stimulus checks went to dead people. What? Sending money to dead people doesn't improve the economy? I'm shocked, shocked.

Higher-education bubble

Table 1: U.S. housing price index vs. U.S. higher education tuition
Source: Dr. Mark Perry, George Mason University

My latest article on higher education budget cuts and financing shows that 1) the budget cuts have been smaller than advertised (10 percent rather than 30 to 50 percent), 2) smaller than the dramatic growth in revenue in the preceding 17 years (at least) and 3) financing is being crowded out by declining state revenues and new spending priorities (like ObamaCare).

A previous article highlighted how Nevada's universities use new revenue to hire highly paid non-educators (read: administrators) and luxurious ameneties for students (nicer dorms, better cafeterias, massive gymnasiums). UNLV, for example, actually decreased the number of educators while increasing the number of administrators.

So even though Nevada's universities are mispending scarce resources on non-educators they are facing a tougher financial time than they're used to; but that doesn't mean we should hand over more tax dollars or dramatically increase tuition and fees on students.

Just looking at the last 10 years alone shows a large spike in tuition and fees for higher education. From the 2000-01 school year to 2009-10, UNLV's and UNR's published tuition and fees increased 73.9 percent and 64 percent, respectivly (inflation-adjusted). The most dramatic jump has been in student fees.

Note: total price includes tuition, fees, books, supplies and the cost of living on campus.

Table 2: Inflation adjusted price increase in Nevada higher education from 2000 to 2010.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, IPEDS database

Worse still, tuition and fees continue to rise. Even though the Consumer Price Index fell by 0.4 percent between 2008 and 2009 and has only grown 1.76 percent since last year, the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents approved a statewide 5 percent increase in undergraduate tuitions. The hyperinflation in higher education is simply unsustainable.

This rapid increase in revenue has not increased the quality of either UNR or UNLV. No student is learning 60 to 70 percent more, even though students are paying 60 to 70 percent more in tuition and fees than students from just 10 years ago.

Both universities must learn to live within their means while providing a higher-quality service at a reasonable (and probablay lower) cost/price. If we don't fix the problem now, then the higher-education bubble burst will - and the situation will be even more painful then.

Will Reid or Sandoval accurately describe Nevada's projected budget deficit during tonight's debate?

Gubernatorial candidates Rory Reid and Brian Sandoval will meet tonight for another debate. The Nevada Broadcasters Association is hosting the debate and said today in an e-mail newsletter that the most important part of the debate will be finding out each candidate’s specific plan for addressing the state's budget situation.

While each candidate's budget plan is important, what's even more important is for Reid and Sandoval (or even the moderator, if he/she cares about accuracy) to accurately describe Nevada's projected budget deficit.

As NPRI reported last month and State Budget Director Andrew Clinger confirmed two days ago, Nevada doesn't have a $3 billion projected budget deficit. Nevada only has a $3 billion deficit if you assume a massive, $1.8 billion spending increase. That's a 28 percent spending increase from our current $6.4 billion general-fund budget.

Both Reid and Sandoval have publicly stated that they do not support raising taxes, but this position is less tenable politically if the general public believes the widespread lie that Nevada is facing a $3 billion, 50 percent budget deficit.

If either candidate is serious about implementing a budget without tax increases, he must redefine how the budget discussion is being framed, and tonight's debate — with a large portion of the electorate watching — is the best time to do that.

As I wrote on Tuesday:

If politicians and the media can convince the general public (like they have been trying to do) that increasing spending by 28 percent — from $6.4 billion to $8.2 billion — will keep services at existing levels, they win. It's that simple.

It's all about the assumptions the public is making. If the public believes that a $1.8 billion spending increase is "keeping services at their current level," tax increases are inevitable, because a spending increase is assumed. But if the public discovers the truth — that a $1.8 billion spending increase is, in fact ... a $1.8 billion spending increase, believers in a limited, accountable government have a chance to begin the debate about the size of government on equal footing. [Spending increase numbers updated from $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion to reflect the latest from Clinger.]

Reid and Sandoval are opponents in the election and the debate, but on this one issue they should have agreement. Tonight, both have a chance to provide the clarity that Nevada's budget debate so desperately needs.

Reid and Sandoval should clash and have a vigorous debate — but only after the terms of that debate (Nevada's projected budget deficit) have been defined accurately.

Firefighters in Clark County receive pay in 73 different categories

After I posted a video yesterday showing Henderson firefighters getting paid to work out, my colleague and firefighter-salary expert Geoffrey Lawrence came over to my office and informed me that there was something wrong with my post.

The point of the post was to show how misleading is firefighter union spokesman Ryan Beaman's statement that "[T]he average pay for a firefighter in Clark County is $23.80 per hour and that is not unreasonable." The post pointed out how the hourly rate for the 24-hour shifts that firefighters work isn't comparable to the wage the average person makes for an eight-hour shift, because firefighters get paid to sleep and workout.

"Uh-oh," I thought. "What kind of mistake did I make? Did I misrepresent what Beaman was saying?"

Nope. The problem is that I didn't fully explain how misleading Beaman's statement is. Geoff told me that Beaman was only referring to base pay.

Firefighters, he informed me, earn pay in 73 — yes, 73 — different categories, including overtime, call back, premium pay for certifications, merit pay and remote areas.

The pay the average firefighter receives in these 73 different categories doubles the firefighter’s base-pay salary.

That's right: Even while working 24-hour shifts and getting paid to sleep and workout, firefighters in Clark County make more than $47 per hour, plus $30,000 to $50,000 in benefits a year.

As for Ryan Beaman ... at least he knows a lot of firefighters for when his pants catch on fire.

Clinger finally publicly admits that Nevada's projected budget deficit contains a huge spending increase

Finally, finally, finally. After six months of distortions and factual inaccuracies, Nevada's budget director Andrew Clinger has finally been clear, honest and upfront about Nevada's budget situation. (Of course, if you watched 90 for 90 or read “The $3 billion deficit myth” you'd already know the truth).

In an interview on “Face to Face” yesterday (props to Ralston for citing NPRI and asking Clinger directly about the budget number), Clinger said this: "What you're talking about and what NPRI is talking about is the current two-year budget when we look at general fund appropriations ... So when you look at just the general fund appropriations we're going from [$]6.4 [billion] to [$]8.2 [billion]. So we're increasing appropriations $1.8 billion."

Clinger's statement comes during Block 2 of the 10/05 episode at 1:11 mark.


What's ironic about this exchange is that NPRI has never disagreed with Clinger's numbers — in fact, Clinger is the source of our numbers!

What Clinger had not been making clear, and what we had objected to, was that the "$3 billion deficit" he talks so much about assumed a $1.8 billion increase in general fund appropriations, a.k.a. a $1. 8 billion spending increase.

I'm grateful that he clarified this and I hope that every reporter, politician and citizen in the state begins to fully understand and accurately frame this debate.

Win, lose or draw, this is a fair debate: Should Nevada increase spending by $1.8 billion (28 percent!), should we reduce spending by $1.5 billion as even liberal Sen. Majority Leader Steven Horsford has suggested, or should we do some combination of both?

If you or Sen. Horsford is looking for ideas on how to reduce spending, there are plenty available.

Video: Firefighters getting paid to workout

Firefighters in the Las Vegas area are grossly overpaid. The average Clark County firefighter made $129,476 last year. The average Las Vegas firefighter made $123,427 last year. The average Henderson firefighter made $115,963. And none of these salary numbers include the $30,000 - $50,000 benefits package each firefighter earns.

To justify these inflated salaries, firefighter union spokesman Ryan Beaman is often quoted as saying, "[T]he average pay for a firefighter in Clark County is $23.80 per hour and that is not unreasonable."

It doesn't sound unreasonable, until you realize that firefighters in Clark County work 24-hour shifts, which means they are paid to sleep, eat and workout — like the firefighters in the video below.



Yep, those firefighters are on the clock. And this isn't a rare occurrence. I've seen them at that 24-Hour Fitness many times before.

I don't mind that firefighters work 24-hour shifts or get paid to workout while on those shifts. What I do mind is Beaman attempting to mislead the public by pretending a firefighter's hourly rate is comparably to the general public's.

Fortunately, the public is getting wise to how firefighters are ripping off Clark County taxpayers.

90 for 90: Nevada's projected-budget-deficit myth

Welcome to the debut of a new video series that we here at Write on Nevada will be breaking out for the most important issues facing our state.

The series is called “90 for 90,” and its premise is simple: You give us 90 seconds and you'll know more about a certain issue than 90 percent of Nevadans.

This video explains what is the most important issue facing the legislature in 2011 — Nevada's projected budget deficit. Widely reported distortions from Andrew Clinger, the state's budget director, have led many to believe that Nevada faces a $3 billion, 50 percent budget deficit. As you'll see in the video below, though, that isn't the case — you give us 90 seconds and you'll know more than 90 percent of Nevadans.



If you need more proof of how important the framing of the budget deficit is, check out the opinion poll being reported by the RJ.

In funding human services programs such as food stamps, welfare and children's programs, what would you do?

Raise taxes to improve human services such as these: 17.8%
Raise taxes just enough to keep these services at existing levels: 46.8%
Eliminate or reduce these services rather than raise taxes: 31%
Don't know/undecide: 4.3

First, given that there's no option for reform or eliminating waste, it's impressive that 31 percent selected less government. Second, nearly half want to maintain the current level of service.

But what is the current level of service? If politicians and the media can convince the general public (like they have been trying to do) that increasing spending by 23 percent — from $6.4 billion to nearly $8 billion — will keep services at existing levels, they win. It's that simple.

It's all about the assumptions the public is making. If the public believes that a $1.5 billion spending increase is "keeping services at their current level," tax increases are inevitable. But if the public discovers the truth — that a $1.5 billion spending increase is, in fact ... a $1.5 billion spending increase, believers in a limited, accountable government have a chance to begin the debate about the size of government on equal footing.

But for conservatives and libertarians, the first debate to be won is the debate over the terms on which the debate takes place. And that's why this “90 for 90” video is so important.

If you agree, please pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

(h/t to The Sports Guy for inspiring the great title idea)

Can we call them socialists if that's what they call themselves?

Many on the left accuse those on the right of name-calling, when conservatives, libertarians and/or members of the TEA Party movement call leftist politicians “socialists.”

Looks like someone forgot to give that memo to the leftists attending the labor-union-organized "One Nation Working Together" rally. The rally was held last Saturday, and socialism was proudly displayed by many, many leftists.



Fortunately for those who value freedom and liberty, the "One Nation" rally couldn't touch the attendance of Glenn Beck's recent rally.

Gibbons earns a B

Governor Jim Gibbons may have lost a primary election to Brian Sandoval and he may be out of the office with a broken pelvis, but at least he will officially leave office having received some high marks for his actions as governor of Nevada.

The Cato Institute graded Governor Gibbons with a "B" (yes, it was on a curve) for his work on the state budget. Gibbons' score of 61 was enough to rank him tied for eighth best among U.S. governors, according to the Cato Institute's metric. Governor Gibbons tied with Rick Perry (R) of Texas, Bob Riley (R) of Alabama and Brian Schweitzer (D) of Montana.

The Cato Institute writes,

Nevada is enduring tough economic times, and government tax collections have fallen substantially. Governor Gibbons has generally refused to increase taxes to make up for the shortfall because that would make the economic situation even worse. In proposing spending cuts rather than tax increases to balance the budget, Gibbons noted, “It is not the role of the state government to put people out of work.” He said the government would be “piling on” the difficulty that citizens and businesses are already having if it raised taxes. Gibbons has proposed business tax cuts and opposed and vetoed numerous tax increases. In 2009, he vetoed a big increase in sales and payroll taxes, but the legislature overrode his veto. Gibbons has supported some modest tax increases, but he seems to understand that broad-based increases would damage the state’s pro-enterprise environment.

And in case you are wondering, yes, three Democrat governors scored higher than Governor Gibbons: Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Dave Freudenthal (Wyoming) and Brad Henry (Oklahoma).

"Bring on higher taxes"????

The lead story in today's print edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal boasted the provocative title "Bring on higher taxes." The article refers to a new statewide poll commissioned from Magellan Research by the R-J in conjunction with 8NewsNow and PBS. Poll results supposedly demonstrate statewide support for higher taxes, but this claim is based upon a pyramid of misrepresentations.

For those who have not followed the Great Budget Debate of 2011, many policymakers have overblown the size of the reported budget deficit that the legislature will face next year, ballooning the number to $3 billion. What is often not reported, is that this figure assumes that state government should increase spending by more than $1.5 billion. The new spending, financed through tax dollars taken from struggling Nevadans, would be used, in part, to provide across-the-board pay raises for the privileged class in government. This overblown figure is a direct result of Nevada's flawed budgeting process and further underscores the need for immediate reform of the budgeting process itself along the lines outlined by NPRI.

To be fair, poll respondents were apparently not informed of the frequent misrepresentation of the state's fiscal position. It appears they were asked how they would prefer the state respond to a (false) $3 billion shortfall. Even given this false premise, however, respondents overwhelmingly declared a preference for spending reductions at the state level.

Responses to the very first question indicate that Nevadans prefer, by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, spending reductions to tax increases. Respondents selected some form of spending reduction as their first preference in 57.1 percent of cases while only 32.3 percent wanted to "raise taxes and fees for both individuals and corporations."

Of course, this simple polling result is misconstrued by breaking up the preference for spending reductions into various sub-categories while leaving the tax increase option as a whole for comparison purposes. This manipulation will no doubt allow the state's leftist advocates to trumpet the poll's results as support for tax increases. However, the results to this poll are undeniably clear: Nevadans overwhelmingly prefer some form of spending reduction to tax increases.

One can only imagine what the results may have been had respondents been provided with the correct information - that the $3 billion shortfall is a product of lawmakers' desire to increase spending by more than $1.5 billion. Had respondents been informed of the blatantly disingenuous charade designed to misrepresent lawmakers' desire for increased spending, it is likely that jaded respondents would have shown an even higher preference for spending reductions.

Klaich: We're not fat, we're big boned

*To Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Klaich, employing one person for every 5.9 students is not bloat.


News 4 in Reno lets Chancellor Dan Klaich get the last word in on university bloat, which is unfortunate, because I had such a good comeback line.

Klaich claims, accurately, that UNR and UNLV are less bloated and more efficient with staffing than other universities. NPRI has never disputed that.

But like almost all universities, UNLV and UNR have been dramatically increasing the size of staff - specifically, highly paid non-educators (whom NSHE does not want to call "administrators"). In fact, UNLV and UNR are increasing the number of highly paid non-educators faster than the student body.

Worse still, they've increased the number of employees per student and the dollars per student, but neither UNLV nor UNR can graduate 50 percent of its students after six years.

But back to Klaich's bragging about the bloat - or non-bloat, as he see's it.

Is being more efficient than the average four-year university really something to celebrate? As I told Victoria Campbell from News 4, what Klaich is doing is akin to "bragging about being 150 pounds overweight instead of 200 pounds."

There is still a lot of work to be done - namely, graduating educated students rather than providing university jobs for adults.

Recognizing journalists who have accurately reported Nevada's budget situation; UPDATED

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article showing how almost everyone in Nevada — elected officials, media members and citizens — has been incorrectly describing Nevada's budget situation.

Read the article for more details, but basically my point is that Nevada's widely reported $3 billion, 50 percent budget shortfall is a myth: Nevada's projected budget deficit is $1.5 billion, or about 20 percent.

In the introduction of my article, I listed a handful of the many media outlets that had misrepresented Nevada's budget situation. (Note: I don't think most media members intentionally tried to mislead the public. They were either reporting the common narrative or the distortions of Andrew Clinger, the state budget director.)

Since the truth about Nevada's budget situation is now readily available, I'd like to list the reporters who have either accurately described Nevada's projected budget deficit or acknowledged that the $3 billion figure is disputed. They deserve praise. In the interest of accuracy, I hope the rest of Nevada's journalists follow their examples.

• Matt Kozar, “Is NV's $3 bil projected shortfall a gross overestimate?” KVBC, September 14, 2010
• KKOH 780 AM, Reno, September 14, 2010
• Barbara Kusak, News stories on KDWN 720 AM, Las Vegas, September 15, 2010
• Ed Vogel, “Think tank sees inflated shortfall,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, September 16, 2010
• Sean Whaley, “Assembly Majority Leader wants to eliminate Nevada revenue volatility, teacher tenure,” Nevada News Bureau, September 20, 2010
• Editorial board of the Lahontan Valley News, “Recession has ended - or has it?” Lahontan Valley News, September 21, 2010
• Steve Sebelius, "Finally somebody in the governor's race shows some ba... oh, wait, no, nevermind," Las Vegas CityLife, September 23, 2010
• Jon Ralston, “The taxing elephant in the room,” Las Vegas Sun, September 29, 2010
• Ray Hagar, "Brian Sandoval, Rory Reid agree on taxes, but economic visions diverge," Reno Gazette-Journal, October 16, 2010
• Stephanie Carroll, "Commissioner wrap-up," Lahontan Valley News, October 21, 2010
• Editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal, Consolidation is critical to the future of Washoe County residents, Reno Gazette-Journal, October 30, 2010

I don't agree with everything these reporters have written, not even in the articles listed above, but they need to be recognized for bucking the easy, widespread and false budget narrative and reporting on this issue with greater accuracy.

This list is probably — I hope — missing quite a few names. Know of any other journalists who deserve public recognition for being accurate? List their names and links to the articles in the comments and I'll add them to the list.

Update: Added Steve Sebelius to the list.

Update (10/18/10): Added Ray Hagar to the list.

Update (10/22/10): Added Stephanie Carroll to the list.

Update (11/12/10): Added Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board to the list.

Also as Andrew Clinger has now publicly and clearly stated that the budget deficit is $1 billion, I'm going to stop updating this list. The truth is no longer hidden or confusing and reporting it should be the norm.

Congratulations and thanks to the journalists on this list for recognizing and reporting on this accurately before many others did.