Pardon our dust: NPRI's moving

Sorry, liberals: NPRI's not moving out of Nevada or Las Vegas. Nor are we even moving any of our terrific websites like npri.org (our homepage), TransparentNevada.com, WriteonNevada.com, NevadaJournal.com (our site for investigative journalism) or TweetNevada.com (the easiest way to track twitter conversations about the Nevada Legislature).

Instead, we're moving into a new and bigger office just a few miles from our current office in Las Vegas. I'm sure we'll make a more formal announcement in the near future. All that is to say: For the next couple of weeks, blogging here at WriteonNevada might be a bit slower than I'd prefer. There are about a dozen stories I want to write on right now, but you just can't do it all when you're packing and unpacking.

As an organization, we're excited to move and have a little more space, and we're also grateful. Whether you are a faithful reader or donor (or both!), thank you. We wouldn't have this opportunity without your support.

Thank you for sharing our research. Thank you for calling your lawmakers with our research and asking them questions. Thank you for your financial support. Know that the research NPRI is doing is making a huge difference. For instance, witness the reaction of these citizens to the 2010 salary data on TransparentNevada that we launched last week.

By the second week in August we should be back to full speed here at WriteonNevada, but even with the move, keep checking npri.org. We've got some great stories and commentaries coming in the next two weeks, including today's report on how the Horsford-led IFC may have illegally plundered millions from the College Savings Plan. That is a must-read story with the potential for significant legal implications.

Cook on Oceguera

Glenn Cook had an excellent story in the Review-Journal this weekend following up on NPRI's recent reporting on Assembly Speaker Oceguera's double-dipping with the North Las Vegas Fire Department. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out!

Saving the government money heals the sick

The benefits of good government aren't just financial. If you're a Clark County firefighter, they also have a remarkable healing power.

For years, many firefighters in Clark County were gaming the sick-leave system to boost their overtime pay. One firefighter would call in "sick," which would allow another one to cover his shift while receiving overtime or callback pay. The favor would then be returned at a later date. This practice was so widespread, firefighters called in sick almost twice as often as other county employees.

The Clark County Commission, led by Commissioner Steve Sisolak, started cracking down on this rampant abuse of sick leave last year. And after comparing the amount of sick leave taken this year to the same time period last year, lo and behold, the healing has begun.

About six months after an arbitrator pointed out what he thought was obvious misuse of the sick-leave system, and after Clark County adopted stricter rules, firefighters aren’t calling in sick nearly as much as they used to.

New county numbers show significant declines in sick-leave use across the board, but especially in the more isolated fire stations at McCarran International Airport and Laughlin.

The average number of sick-leave hours totaled at the Laughlin station fell 61 percent per pay period compared with 2010. At McCarran, sick-leave use per pay period fell 59 percent.

Across the department, sick-leave use this calendar year has fallen 32 percent on average per pay period. County staff estimates the declines will save taxpayers about $2.5 million if they continue. Meanwhile, it could cut into the average Clark County firefighter compensation package that averaged more than $180,000 each in 2010.

This sharp decline in sick leave offers even more evidence that abuse of the sick-leave system was rampant throughout the Clark County Fire Department. Let's hope the ongoing Metro and FBI investigations leave no stone unturned to find those firefighters who misused the sick-leave system to boost their pocketbooks. Their punishment should be swift and severe.

The public should remember this as well, especially the next time someone from the firefighters union tries to excuse this kind of abuse by claiming it was just a few bad apples or that it was management's fault. This was a systemic problem perpetrated by firefighters — but paid for by the public .

We shouldn't forget commissioners like Tom Collins or Chris Giunchigliani, either. Both tried to turn a blind eye to this problem.

Other commissioners aren’t so sure. Commissioners Tom Collins and Chris Giunchigliani said if a problem [with the sick leave system] exists, it is management’s responsibility to curb it.

“If they really think people are doing this, then they have to address it. And if they don’t address it, then shame on them and shame on us,” Giunchigliani said.

Most of all, the public should thank Sisolak for having the courage not to back down from this issue. Taking on a corrupt but politically powerful group like the firefighters union is risky politically, but certainly the right thing to do. Taxpayers always need someone to stand up for them, and in this case, Sisolak did that.

As a result, he's not only saved the county money, he's "healed" countless firefighters.

Tanner on debt limit debate

Those following the national debate on whether Congress should raise the federal debt ceiling will find this article from Cato's Michael Tanner extremely interesting.

Tanner criticizes the obstinance of Congressional Democrats and President Obama in failing to give consideration to the modest proposal for spending reform offered by Congressional Republicans even though they have failed to produce one of their own. I find Tanner's remarks extremely poignant and have quoted them at length below:

The president did announce a budget back in February, but he has since disavowed it, and the Senate voted against it 97-0. The president also delivered a budget speech in May. But as the director of the Congressional Budget Office noted, "We don't score speeches." The president still has not submitted a new budget proposal to Congress.

Of course, he's in good company. Senate Democrats haven't produced a budget in two years. This year, in fact, for the first time in memory, even the Senate Budget Committee couldn't come up with a budget proposal. After all, time spent proposing a budget is time that can't be spent denouncing Republican "intransigence" for standing in the way of a deal.

Even if we don't know what the president is for, we certainly know what he is against. And when it comes to "Cut, Cap, and Balance," that's just about everything.

The House Republican plan is surprisingly moderate. First, it would impose $1.5 trillion in budget cuts over the next ten years. That's less than the federal government will borrow this year. Second, it would cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP by 2020. That would still allow the federal government to spend 1.5 percent of GDP more than it did when Bill Clinton was president. And, finally, it would send a constitutional balanced-budget amendment to the states for consideration. The amendment would require that the federal government live within its means except during times of war or when supermajorities waive its provisions. In many ways, it is less strict than the balanced-budget provisions in place in every state except Vermont. In fact, the Republican proposal doesn't even amend the Constitution by itself; that would still require 38 states to approve it.

2010 government salaries now available on TransparentNevada

Head on over to NPRI's TransparentNevada and check out the redesigned site featuring salary data from 2010.

In no particular order, here are my top five most unbelievable salaries received in 2010.

1. James M. Jackson, Chief Marshall, North Las Vegas: $792,834.99

2. Joseph K. Forti, Chief of Police, North Las Vegas: $773,136.12

3. Monica M. Simmons, City Clerk, Henderson: $628,430.48

4. The 147 fire department employees who made over $200,000 last year

5. Billie M. Bastian, Director of Leisure Services, Las Vegas: $348,140.76

I don't know what the Director of Leisure Services does, but for $350K you sure could get a lot of leisure.

There's a whole bunch more at TransparentNevada, including State of Nevada contracts, congressional disbursements and Clark County School District warrants (payments made by CCSD), so check it out.

You can also become a fan of TransparentNevada on Facebook.

So which salary is your "favorite"? Remember, you're paying for it.

VIDEO: Unionized auto workers smoking pot and drinking beer on lunch break ... at union hall parking lot

Wow. Just wow. If you don't think union job protections are detrimental to companies and governments, I urge you to watch this.

Chrysler Auto Workers in Trenton Caught Smoking and Drinking During Lunch Breaks: MyFoxDETROIT.com

What's most amazing here is that the same reporter busted a different set of unionized auto workers for drinking on their lunch breaks just a few months ago.

And because of the billions in bailout cash Chrysler received, taxpayers had a direct role in paying those workers to get high.

Bankrupting cities, protecting the jobs of incompetent teachers, and getting high on their lunch breaks while their company receives government subsidies — what will unions do next to "help" America?

North Las Vegas being 'eaten alive' by its public-sector unions

So reports Business Insider, and the evidence is pretty compelling.

• North Las Vegas, a rapidly growing Las Vegas suburb, faces an $8.6 million budget deficit after the city's police and firefighters unions won a court decision prohibiting layoffs that would have closed the city's budget gap.
• The city now has an ending fund balance of just $7.2 million, or 4.8%, which is just enough to make one payroll. If the balance falls below 4.1%, it could trigger a state takeover of the city's finances.
• A state takeover would raise taxes on North Las Vegas residents to the maximum levels allowed by law. Residents already pay the highest property taxes in the region.

North Las Vegas' problems, including paying Assembly Speaker and NLV Assistant Fire Chief John Oceguera for "work" he did while in Carson City, are well known to Nevadans, but the woes of some of the other cities facing union-induced crises probably won't be.

My "favorite" is Chicago.

Guess who's standing up to the unions destroying the city's payroll? Noted union buster and evil conservative ... Mayor Rahm Emanuel? Yep, that's how dire the crises caused by out-of-control government salaries have gotten. Even liberals like Emanuel have to face reality.

• Employee compensation make [sic] up 83% of Chicago's spending. Despite major layoffs, worker costs have risen nearly 10% since 2007 due to cushy union deals that increased wages and benefits for the city's public employees.
• Chicago's unfunded pension obligation is $44.8 billion — nearly eight times the city's annual revenue.
• Mayor Rahm Emanuel has threatened to lay off 600 city workers if unions don't agree to cost-cutting concessions. He has also proposed opening up some city services, like sanitation, to competitive bidding.

Good news: NV government getting a little smaller

It's a start.

Gov. Brian Sandoval today agreed to eliminate 18 executive branch committees, councils and advisory panels as recommended by a task force, including the clearly outdated State Year 2000 Coordinating Council, among others. ...

The 18 committees, councils, commissions and task forces Sandoval will eliminate are:

Read more »

Video: Education spending made simple

A great new video from the Heritage Foundation that explains, in terms of a simple analogy, why it doesn't make sense to keep increasing education spending — at least if your goal is increasing student achievement.

The bridge to "outer" nowhere?

In his Washington Examiner column today, Cato's Gene Healy calls the space program the "biggest bridge to nowhere."

In light of the space shuttle program's cancellation, Healy points out that the average American enjoys little benefit from a federally-funded space program and that space exploration should be the domain of private enterprise. In fact, in a 2010 Rasmussen poll, the majority of Americans agreed with that statement.

As Healy points out, defenders of the space program primarily point to the program's value as one that provides national glory, calling it "spacecraft as soulcraft."

Healy doesn't get into the flawed basis of the standard rationale for a subsidized space industry - that the space industry leads to the development of new commercial technologies. This tired argument, however, is as flawed as any other argument for government to provide anything other than "pure public goods." I could point out the standard Austrian criticism that value is subjective and, because of this, policymakers can never make an unambiguous claim to improve social welfare through any type of government spending.

However, without getting into a pedantic discussion of economic theory to prove the wastefulness of a government space program, I can simply highlight that every dollar spend (or credit used) by government is a dollar (or unit of credit) that must first be taken out of the private sector. This pilfering limits the capital formation that would otherwise finance private-sector research and development on technologies that consumers actually demand. Public-sector R&D spending is typically far less efficient than private-sector R&D precisely because each dollar spent does not have to be justified by an anticipated consumer demand. Hence, government is free to waste R&D money on projects that may have no ultimate value to most consumers, even if a relatively small proportion of technologies developed through public R&D spending are eventually adapted for commercial use.

The lesson here: R&D should always be the realm of private enterprise because individual entreprenuers are subject to market discipline over their expenditures whereas government bureaucrats are not.

Government bureaucrat: Beauty of taxes is citizens don't decide how they're spent

A short quotation, from Malcolm Ahlo of the Tobacco Control Program at the Southern Nevada Health District, that's a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with government in general and many bureaucrats in particular:

“The beauty of our taxes is you [taxpayers] don’t decide how they are spent,” Ahlo said. “Someone might say ‘I don’t want my tax money to pay for welfare or go to the war because I don’t agree with it,’ but you can’t decide that.”

That's right, taxpayers — your only job is to pony up your dough, so bureaucrats like Ahlo can decide how it's spent — and how they're spending it in this case is unbelievably wasteful.

All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. At least that's what some government bureaucrats want you to believe.

Has Ahlo never heard of elections? Or is he so used to avoiding accountability that he considers this is an acceptable attitude to have?

Once again, let's turn to the brilliance of Fredric Bastiat in The Law for a spectacular takedown of this vanity.

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals -- the farmer wastes some seeds and land -- to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea -- the fruit of classical education -- has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man -- and a principle of discernment in man's intellect -- they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.

The Socialists Despise Mankind

According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men -- governors and legislators -- the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.

Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea -- the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind. ...

Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves! [Emphasis added]

Grantlandesque footnotes:

1. Ahlo's quote is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole article will get your blood boiling and provide a concrete example of how there's a lot of waste to cut in government.

2. If Ahlo had said that the beauty of our democratic republic form of government is that it's not a direct democracy and public opinion doesn't immediately change the actions of elected officials, that would have been fine. Not having a direct democracy is a very good thing.

But that doesn't mean that taxpayers don't have the ultimate voice or that they have conceded control over their tax dollars to bureaucrats like Ahlo. If Nevada legislators or Clark County commissioners are looking for wasteful spending to cut, Alho and his Tobacco Control Program at the Southern Nevada Health District would be a logical place to start.

Tragic: Death panel about to kill 22-year-old

Socialized medicine leads to death panels — government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies by approving or denying medical treatment.

Don't believe me? Consider this case in England, where National Health Service officials have denied a 22-year-old teaching assistant a lifesaving operation.

A young woman who is starving to death after being diagnosed with a paralysed stomach has been told that NHS bosses refuse to fund an operation to save her.

Rudi Hargreaves, 22, has shrunk from a healthy 10st to a skeletal 5st 10lb after being diagnosed with the crippling condition last year.

Within weeks of being diagnosed with gastroparesis, Rudi found her size 12 clothes were hanging off her - as her stomach became unable to digest food at a normal rate.

The condition can be treated with a £14,000 operation to fit a gastric pacemaker - although this is still considered to be an experimental treatment.

But health chiefs have refused to fund the surgery, saying 'insufficient supporting information' has been provided by her GP. ...

A spokesperson for NHS Hull said: 'To date, the application in question has not been agreed as, crucially, insufficient supporting information has been provided to allow due consideration to take place.

'Any requested procedures must also fall in line with the provider trust's priorities for service development and delivery. [Emphasis added]

There is socialized medicine in all its glory — medicine by "application" and procedures that must "fall in line with the provider trust's priorities."
Why would anyone want that type of system?

Missing lawmaker alert: Have you seen this man?

In one sense, this man isn't missing at all. Pete Goicoechea was one of the most prominent figures during the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session and led Assembly Republicans as their minority leader.

But take a closer look at that undated photo from the Ely Times. In another sense, the man in that picture — the man who earned the right to wear that "Mean 15" hat by his courageous stand against new taxes in 2003 — has been missing for years.

For anyone who isn't familiar with the "Mean 15," or, more accurately, the "Fearless 15," 15 Assemblymen and women earned that badge of honor during the 2003 session when they stood up to Gov. Kenny Guinn and his plan to implement a gross-receipts tax in Nevada.

Thanks to a 1996 voter-approved initiative, the Nevada Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority in each legislative chamber to approve tax increases. That meant the 15 members of the Republican Assembly caucus [opposed to tax increases] controlled the minimum amount of votes required to block new taxes [during the 2003 Legislative Session]. Quickly earning the nickname "The Mean 15," the caucus unanimously rejected the governor's tax proposals.

But while The Mean 15 had the votes to block a record-breaking tax increase, Guinn's supporters in the legislature — majority Democrats in the assembly and a bipartisan group in the senate led by Republican Majority Leader Bill Raggio — were able to pass the appropriations bills with mere simple majorities. Lawmakers appropriated $4.83 billion in general fund spending — even though they lacked the supermajorities necessary to raise taxes to the level required to fund their spending.

That group of 15 lawmakers then rejected tax increases during the 2003 session and a special session held right after the regular session. During a second special session, however, one of the "Mean 15" caved and voted to pass an $833 million tax increase, which at the time was the largest tax increase in Nevada's history.

Goicoechea, however, stuck by his principles to end, voting against the record-setting tax hike.

No one can take those moments of courage away from Goicoechea. He faced immense pressure from special-interest groups, Democrats and the leftists in his own party, led by Guinn and Raggio, and stood his ground — even through two special sessions.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. This past session, Goicoechea led Assembly Republicans in tax-increase negotiations with Democrats. He ultimately voted to raise taxes by extending over $600 million in "sunset" taxes.

Consequently, Goicoechea earned low scores, especially for a Republican, on both NPRI's 2009 and 2011 Legislative Report Card. In 2009, he scored only 34.86 percent (p. 18) and was not considered an ally of economic liberty. In 2011, he earned a 52.88 percent (p. 18). A lawmaker earning a score above 50 percent is generally considered an ally of economic freedom.

What changed from 2003 to the present for Goicoechea? Did he cave to political pressure? Did he have a genuine change in beliefs? Did he feel the need to cut deals to benefit his constituents in other areas?

I don't know, but I ask you again: Have you seen this man? The man in that hat? Nevada could use more courage from its lawmakers.

Video: How some businesses use government to stifle competition and increase their bottom line

Some people have a misconception about fiscal conservatives and libertarians. They think that supporting the free market means you think businesses — especially big ones — can do no wrong.

Nope. Supporting free-market principles means exactly that — you support a market where individuals are free to make their own choices. Now, consumers often overwhelming prefer one company or a handful of companies in a specific industry. Those companies grow larger, because they are the best at meeting individuals' preferences. In other industries, however, individuals won't overwhelmingly select one company and many smaller firms will compete for business.

So a truly free market will lead to some very large businesses (although these businesses' profits and size are not permanent or guaranteed) and some medium and small ones.

Some businessmen and women, though, want to take a shortcut to success. Instead of earning money by meeting consumer demand better than their competitors, they seek to use the power of government to limit market competition, which leads to greater profits for themselves at the expense of consumers. While these businesses can grow very large, the reason for their success represents the antithesis of free-market principles.

How does that play out in real life? Watch this excellent, excellent video from ReasonTV to find out how a Washington, D.C. businessman wants to use government regulation to limit competition and increase his profits in the taxicab business — and how his actions would hurt hundreds of entrepreneurs.



As detailed by Frederic Bastiat in his brilliant short book The Law, there are two main ways the law is perverted: socialistic/communistic wealth distribution and the politically powerful using the law to enrich themselves (in the above video, the businessman who would benefit from the taxicab medallion system). Here Bastiat explains why some business owners turn to government to ensure their profits.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man -- in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

I can't urge you strongly enough to read Bastiat's The Law. It's available for free online here and will show you the dangers of government overreach by socialists and by crony capitalists.

Unemployed taxpayers now subsidizing university professors not to work

The state worker unemployment rate has hit .21 percent and now Nevada is subsidizing university professors not to work.

Why can't we all work in government again? Oh yeah, we need taxpayers, currently facing a 12.1 percent unemployment rate, to pay for this.

Zane and the rest of the 48 professors took a voluntary buyout, which forced them to give up their jobs by June 30, the end of the fiscal year. It offered tenured professors 1.5 times their annual salary to, basically, go away.

The point was to save money in the long run, and it will work. The university will pay out $7.4 million to the departing faculty members but will save almost $5 million a year in salaries, though some of those faculty members will have to be replaced. The $5 million also does not include benefits.

The saddest part of this arrangement is that many of the professors were about to retire, or run for Congress, soon anyway.

The next time a liberal, bureaucrat or union boss starts talking about "devastating cuts," remember this story and don't believe them.

Don't be fooled again.

Quote of the day

I just came across the free-market quote of the day. It's found on p. 1038 of Murray Rothbard's magnum opus, Man Economy, and State. Enjoy:

...which one of us would earn anything like our present real income were it not for external benefits that we derive from the actions of others? Specifically, the great modern accumulation of capital goods is an inheritance from all the net savings of our ancestors ... We are all, therefore, free riders on the past. We are also free riders on the present, because we benefit from the continuing investment of our fellow men and from their specialized skills on the market.

State worker unemployment rate hits a staggering .21 percent

After months of liberal talking points like "We've cut to the bone" or "shared sacrifice" — with plenty of hyperbole and loud noises thrown in for effect — the crisis is now at hand. The state worker unemployment rate is now .21 percent.

But in one respect, the new budget’s effect is slight. Out of the almost 17,000 state employees, only 37 have received layoff notices effective today, the start of the new fiscal year.

State workers have once again largely escaped this recession’s cruelest effect — job loss — with a combination of increased retirements, elimination of vacant positions and cuts to pay and benefits.

Crisis! The world is ending, the sky is falling, government must get bigger! How can any segment of people survive an employment rate of .21 percent? Raise taxes now!

I hope my sarcasm, above, is as evident as NSHE's hyperbole was during the session.

What's really pathetic about this story is that some lawmakers are claiming to be shocked, shocked that so few layoffs are occurring.

The number, although still preliminary, surprised Republicans, Democrats and labor leaders, who expected a higher total.

Why would this — reality exposing liberal and government employee union talking points to be disconnected from the truth — be a surprise to anyone?

It happens every session. The public employee union machine, enabled by war chests of union dues, liberal lawmakers and some members of the media, proclaims the sky is falling at the first sign of cuts — or even reductions to the amount of desired increases. Using inaccurate sob stories, big-government advocates flood committee rooms, while private employers and employees often don't have time to sit through a four-hour meeting to offer three minutes of testimony.

Physically being in Carson City creates a false sense of reality for many politicians. They're surrounded by lobbyists and union workers who want them — THEM — to solve their problems. It's easy to lose sight of the individuals who are struggling, but aren't looking to the government for help. So easy to satisfy the people who are there — lobbyists and government employees — at the expense of the average citizen who's going to pay those taxes, because a politician can forget him.

As a result, you had the Nevada Legislature and Gov. Brian Sandoval raising taxes on private-sector workers facing a 12-plus percent unemployment rate so government employees could only face a .21 percent unemployment rate.

"Shared sacrifice" indeed. Let's hope lawmakers, like Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, who's quoted in the article showing some critical thinking skills, challenge the lies and hyperbole put forward by public employee unions during the next election and the 2013 session.

Notes: I really need a Grantland-like footnote section, because sometimes important notes don't fit into the flow of a blog post.

1. The fundamental issue is: "What is the role of government and what taxpayer resources are needed to accomplish those goals?" If citizens limited government to its core functions and relied on practices like competitive bidding to obtain those outcomes, there would be many layoffs. This would be great for taxpayers — especially since the quality of government services would improve. The point of this post, though, is to show the disconnect between the truth and the exaggerations you often hear from liberals and government union lobbyists.

2. On a personal level, I am extremely sympathetic to anyone who has lost a job — be it a public- or private-sector employee. It stinks to be without a job. Personal sympathy, whether mine or a lawmaker's, though, doesn't justify taking more money from taxpayers to give a public employee a job. What about the employee in the private sector who doesn't get hired, because taxes increased? If the government picks winners, there are always losers.