Number 6: Audio: Klaich admits NSHE's past hyperbole

In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. The top five will come next week. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 6.

_________

Thoughts on this post: And for an example of this hyperbole, look no further than UNLV President Neal Smatresk and the comments he made in January 2011 on UNLV's budget. Unfortunately, as detailed by Regent Ron Knecht in a recent column, many liberals continue to make false or misleading claims about NSHE funding.
_________

Audio: Klaich admits NSHE's past hyperbole

For the past couple of weeks, I've been citing this quote by Chancellor Dan Klaich whenever someone would overstate the impact of Gov. Brian Sandoval's proposed reductions to the Nevada System of Higher Education.

I think we have been guilty of hyperbole in the past, where we get the first dollar of a cut and we would like you to believe that the sky is falling in. And here we are a few years later and, lo and behold, the sky is right where it started out. It has not fallen in.

And now, for your listening pleasure, I have audio of his statement.



Unfortunately, those involved with the higher education system continue to make hyperbolic remarks. The latest:

Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, said hopelessness over long-term unemployment and pent-up anger about a funding imbalance that favors universities over community colleges has unemployed construction workers and others who are seeking retraining at their wits' end. ...

"We will have to do as they did in Egypt, fight for those rights," Lee told the group, who didn't respond other than to thank him for his testimony.

Umm ... yeah. Can't you see the similarities between fighting an oppressive regime and fighting to get more of the state funding pie? Chancellor Klaich did tactfully decline to agree with Lee's call to arms, though.

What's worse is that in the same article, the reporter, Benjamin Spillman, misreports the size of the NSHE operating budget, which makes the proposed funding reduction look larger than it actually is.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval's budget proposal would cut the system's operating budget from the current level of $556 million to $395 million by 2013.

False. The NSHE's current operating budget is $1.744 billion. Don't believe me? Check out the budget for yourself (second tab). What the $556 million figure refers to is the subsidy NSHE receives from the state, which is less than 32 percent of its operating budget.

In total, the reduction in state support proposed by Sandoval is less than 10 percent of NSHE's operating budget — and that's before you factor in tuition increases.

Crisis? Only if you're using hyperbole.

Number 7: Nevada or ... Somalia?

In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post them from December 16 to January 2. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 7.

_________

Thoughts on this post: The hyperbole that inspired this post still makes me chuckle ... and cringe.
_________

Nevada or ... Somalia?

I was on KNPR's State of Nevada last week discussing the new Brookings report titled “Structurally Unbalanced” with Matthew Murray (the report's author), John Restrepo (a Nevada economist) and Launce Rake (PLAN's communications director). (Additional thoughts on the report are here.)

During the course of the conversation I noted that many of the so-called deep cuts that happened during the 2009 session and 2010 special session were either smaller-than-desired increases in state spending or small overall reductions.

The host then asked Launce to respond. Instead of addressing the facts that I presented, Launce accused me of being a "snake oil salesman" (22:40) and uttered this unbelievable bit of hyperbole (23:40).

"... a little dark humor here, but people are dropping dead on the sidewalk because of a lack of health care services. This is a reality that we're dealing with [in Nevada]. As long as the governor [Sandoval] is just going to parrot that snake oil and say, 'No new taxes,' and that's some sort of magic panacea, we are going to fail as a state. We are going to be the Somalia of the United States. We are no longer the Mississippi of the West. We are the Somalia of the United States."

Yep, some leftists think Nevada is the Somalia of the United States. In the spirit of one of my favorite “Daily Show” segments, let's consider that statement.

Nevada:

Somalia:

Nevada:

Somalia:

Not sure...

Nevada:

When they don't have facts on their side, some individuals will use rhetorical hyperbole to try and scare people and discredit their opponents. Pretending that the situation in Nevada even holds a candle to the tragedy that has occurred and continues to occur in Somalia is beyond the pale.

Let's keep the debate focused on the issues and facts, not on fear-mongering rhetoric.

Number 8: The truth about pre-K (hint: it doesn't work)

In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post them from December 16 to January 2. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 8.

_________

Thoughts on this post: The most frustrating thing about the education policy debate is that facts are routinely ignored by those seeking to spend more money and expand government. Facts like "Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending in the last 50 years.

The debate over pre-K is just another example of that. How do you deal with the experiences of pre-K in Georgia and Oklahoma, if they don't fit your narrative? Ignore them. Ignorance is bliss my friends, especially if taxpayers would be paying for it.
_________

The truth about pre-K (hint: it doesn't work)

At last night's education committee hearing, both Clark County Superintendent Dwight Jones and Washoe County Superintendent Heath Morrison indicated they are proponents of spending government money to provide pre-K services. Several liberal lawmakers have also previously indicated they are big fans of pre-K.

Each claims that funding pre-K increases student achievement.

Except it doesn't. Consider Georgia, which has had universal, state-subsidized pre-K since 1992.

Scores from the NAEP Fourth Grade reading test.

Or consider Oklahoma, which has had universal, state-subsidized pre-K since 1998.

Scores from the NAEP Fourth Grade reading test.

Now compare this to the reforms Florida instituted in 1998, and the ensuing results.

There's no contest. Why would anyone choose pre-K over the proven reforms of Florida? Bueller... Bueller...

Now, advocates of pre-K will cite small-, small-scale studies to justify this enormous expense, but those studies have significant limitations, which the Heritage Foundation's Lindsey Burke details here. She also explains here how government-funded pre-school could crowd out private alternatives.

In fact, the research in these papers is so important, I'm going to link to them again:

• Does Universal Preschool Improve Learning? Lessons from Georgia and Oklahoma
• More Government Preschool: An Expensive and Unnecessary Middle-Class Subsidy

The next time someone advocates pre-K as a solution to Nevada's education problems, remind him or her about Georgia and Oklahoma. There's no need to repeat a failed experiment.

State-subsidized pre-K is an enormously expensive program that produces little to no lasting increase in student achievement.

Number 9: Missing lawmaker alert: Have you seen this man?

In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post one almost every weekday from December 16 to January 2. (Sorry for the delay; it's been busy.) We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 9.

_________

Thoughts on this post: Remember when Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea was one of the most fiscally conservative lawmakers in Nevada? Hard to believe, but it's true.
_________

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.

Number 10: A plan for Nevada: Follow PLAN's actions

In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post one each weekday from December 16 to January 2. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 10.

_________

Thoughts on this post: I love this story. While PLAN is publicly calling for higher taxes and more government spending, they're bragging to their donors about their ability to cut costs and do their job while spending less.

When they're spending their own money, even liberals are fiscally conservative.
_________

A plan for Nevada: Follow PLAN's actions

As the Legislature opens today, it's appropriate to share a good budget plan from a surprising source — PLAN.

You may have heard of PLAN — the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. They're the small group cheerleading attempts to raise your taxes and increase spending at the Legislature.

So why should Nevada follow PLAN's actions?

Because when it comes to its own organization (which it can't fund by taking your money), PLAN knows how to balance a budget — cut spending by 20 percent!

PLAN was hit hard by the economic downturn. But we developed a plan to ensure we move forward with our core mission intact. We cut our budget by 20 percent through a combination of staff layoffs, reduction in hours, and voluntary pay cuts.

Cut the budget by 20 percent while keeping its core mission intact? Now that sounds like a plan we can all support for Nevada — even PLAN.

Number 11: Horsford: MBT 'hampers job creation' ... let's double it

In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post one each weekday from December 16 to January 2. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 11.
___________

Thoughts on this post: The consequences of raising taxes are well known. So well known that even those doing the raising admit that higher taxes hurt the job creation efforts of individuals.
___________

Horsford: MBT 'hampers job creation' … let's double it

As the details of the Democrats’ tax package, which would be the largest tax increase in Nevada's history, are introduced as part of SB491, it's worth remembering what Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford wrote in the Las Vegas Sun on Sunday about the Modified Business Tax.

For example, the current modified business tax hurts small business and hampers job creation.

As NPRI has been pointing out for years, Horsford's exactly right here. The MBT hampers job creation and, as such, increasing the MBT would lead to fewer jobs.

Unfortunately for individuals in Nevada, which currently has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, Horsford also wants to double the job-hampering MBT. Under current law, the MBT rate will decrease from 1.17 percent to .63 percent when the 2009 tax hikes sunset at the end of June.

Part of Horsford's plan to raise taxes by $1.2 billion is to permanently extend the 2009 tax increases. Now, Horsford and company do want to eventually replace the MBT with a "margins" tax — which is one of the most economically destructive tax instruments available to lawmakers — but the margins tax wouldn't kick in until 2012.

This means that in the short term, Horsford wants to double a tax he admits "hampers job creation."

Number 12: The $1.1 billion education cut myth

In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post one each weekday from December 16 to January 2. We love to get your feedback, so please leave your thoughts in the comments. Here's number 12.

___________
Thoughts on this post: Liberals love to assume a massive increase in spending and then decry anyone who suggests spending less than their preferred amount as wanting to dramatically "cut" spending. It's a rhetorical tactic passed on deception, and as liberals use it again and again, it needs to be exposed again and again. Here is one way liberals tried to deceive the public in 2011.
___________

The $1.1 billion education cut myth

Last year, I wrote a commentary called the $3 billion deficit myth. In it, I described how by assuming a $1.5 billion increase in state spending, many ill-informed individuals were overstating Nevada's budget problems. While many public officials and media members have since gotten Nevada's budget situation right, some lawmakers are still using the same tactics to inflate Nevada's budget difficulties.

Nowhere has this been seen more than in the discussion over Nevada's education budget — especially with the claim that Gov. Sandoval's budget contains a $1.1 billion spending decrease to education.

Ways & Means Committee Chair, Speaker Pro Tempore Debbie Smith released the following statement after Governor Brian Sandoval vetoed A.B. 568, the K-12 education budget:

“While I fully anticipated this veto, I question how the governor plans to champion economic recovery, end social promotion, and improve our graduation rates while cutting $1.1 billion from our public schools. ...

“In his veto statement, the governor mentions only spending the money we have and not allowing for additional funding of education. Let me be clear: A.B. 568 does not contain additional funding, but instead prevents massive cuts to public schools—the largest in our state’s history. ...

“We remain firm in our commitment to bring much needed reforms to K-12 and to reject the $1.1 billion cut proposed in the governor’s budget.

This "cutting $1.1 billion from our public schools" claim is false. You can only manipulate your way to this number if you reverse reductions that have already been made and assume spending increases that don't yet exist.

Here's what's actually happening with Nevada's K-12 education budgets (Pg. 37 on this worksheet):

In Fiscal Year 2010, Nevada spent $2.513 billion through the Distributive School Account (DSA).
In Fiscal Year 2011, Nevada spent $2.504 billion through the DSA.

So Nevada spent a total of $5.017 billion in the last biennium on 849,464 students. That's $5,906 per student per year. (Don't confuse this amount with total education spending, which is $9,885 per student. The DSA, which includes some money from local streams, is just the funding level that state government is responsible for.)

For the next two years, Gov. Sandoval has proposed spending the following:

In Fiscal Year 2012, Nevada would spend $2.345 billion through the DSA.
In Fiscal Year 2013, Nevada would spend $2.220 billion through the DSA, plus $161.6 million for Sandoval's block grant program (details here, pg. 5).
Sandoval also wants to spend $241 million more on K-12 education with the extra money projected by the Economic Forum.

That's a total of $4.968 billion on 847,652.1 students. That's $5,861 per student per year.

So Sandoval's proposal would spend $45 less per student for a total two-year spending reduction of $49 million. In terms of percentages, that's a .76 percent reduction to state support and less than a half a percent reduction to total education spending.

To compare, AB 568, vetoed by Sandoval yesterday, would have increased education spending by $660 million from the governor's recommendations. That would have increased education spending to $5.628 billion, which means that Nevada would spend $6,640 per student per year. That means Nevada would have spent $734 more per student each year.

How can Assemblywoman Smith claim that AB 568 doesn't contain additional spending?

How does a $49 million decrease turn into $1.1 billion?

How does a reduction of less than 1 percent equal "a massive cut" to education?

I think the answer to all those questions rhymes with "Higher, higher ants on tire."

And what's a possible reason for this deception? As reported by Jon Ralston last year, here's what an anonymous businessman said about claiming Nevada has a $3 billion deficit.

But then he [the anonymous businessman] called back almost immediately to make two more points. One was that the budget deficit should be pegged at closer to $3 billion by all the politicians to establish a large enough target for negotiations.

Is Nevada's current budget debate about the truth? Or is it about manipulating the truth to increase one side's bargaining power?

For those who repeat the $1.1 billion education cut myth, the answer is clear.

For the majority of Nevada's citizens, the challenge now is not to be fooled again.

The 12 days of blogging: The best of Write on Nevada

In the spirit of the 12 Days of Christmas, I'm going to be listing my 12 favorite Write on Nevada posts from 2011. I'll post one each weekday starting tomorrow until January 2.

So, is this a way to shamelessly promote posts from the last year that you may have missed or an easy way to generate content during the busy holiday season? Yes and yes!

But the policy and principles that promote individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government don't change. Each post applies to a debate, principle or policy that's still very relevant.

The posts will count down from number 12 to my favorite post of the year. Hope you enjoy and Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

The countdown will start tomorrow, but here's an honorable mention. It's a video NPRI did detailing our 20 year history.

Many thanks to our friends and supporters who made — and continue to make — everything NPRI does possible.

Big investment returns for PERS prove NPRI's pension study correct

Last month, NPRI released a study showing that Nevada's Public Employees' Retirement System is dramatically understating its unfunded liabilities.

The central claim of NPRI's study is that PERS does not account for the risk involved in assuming an 8 percent rate of return for investments. A risk-free 8 percent rate of return isn't available, and as a result, taxpayers are subsidizing the risk in the PERS system. Because PERS's payouts are guaranteed, a risk-free investment instrument should be used in actuarial assumption to accurately measure future obligations. To accurately account for guaranteed payouts, PERS' unfunded liability is over $40 billion.

Contrast this with a taxpayer and his 401k, who has to deal with reward and risk. Because it's a government-backed, defined-benefit system, PERS recipients bear no risk. Even if PERS investments crash, they are still entitled to full benefits.

In response to NPRI's study, PERS published "Policy Context on NPRI Pension Advocacy Paper."

In it PERS writes:

Consider this theory in light of the fact that Nevada PERS has generated an annualized investment return of 9.5% for 27 years, exceeding not only the long term investment assumption of 8%, but clearly exceeding the MVL assumed rate (in this case 4%), as well.

Much of this debate is fueled by the difficult market conditions of the last few years. The markets themselves have been extremely unpredictable in the short term. However, even in this most recent decade, Nevada PERS has exceeded the long term investment assumption of 8% in six out ten years. The last two years the System generated 11% and 21% returns respectively. (Emphasis added)

This is precisely the point! If you are earning a 21 percent return, you are taking substantial risks with that money. Sure the return is high for this year, but so is the risk that those investments will lose money — likely a substantial amount of money — in future years. And right now that risk is unaccounted for in PERS' stated unfunded liability.

As Andrew Biggs writes in NPRI's study:

Before explaining how economists value liabilities, it may make sense to point out one obvious problem with how public pensions currently measure their finances: A pension plan that takes more investment risk automatically is considered better funded. That improvement in funding occurs immediately, before the higher expected returns are actually earned and increases no matter how much risk the plan chooses to take. As shown above, if PERS shifted its portfolio from one with an expected return of 8 percent to a riskier portfolio with an expected return of 8.5 percent, the measured value of its liabilities would immediately fall by around $2.4 billion and its funding ratio would rise from 70 percent to around 76 percent. On paper, Nevada PERS and pensions around the country could make themselves technically solvent simply by investing in riskier assets.

Reality is a different story. The obvious flaw with this approach is that a portfolio does not become more valuable simply because it has a higher expected rate of return. Simply put, one dollar of stocks is worth the same as one dollar of bonds. Each has a combination of risk and return that buyers and sellers in the market value at one dollar. But according to GASB accounting, one dollar of stocks is effectively worth two dollars of bonds, because it allows a plan to discount its liabilities using a much higher interest rate. Economists, as a profession, simply believe this approach is wrong — no two ways about it.

The other problem with assuming an 8 percent rate of return, Biggs notes, is that it will be more difficult to achieve high returns in the future.

While PERS’ historical performance has been solid, it may be more difficult to achieve projected returns going forward than it was in the past. The simple reason is that the riskless return paid on Treasury securities — the foundation on which a risky portfolio is built — has fallen. In 1985, for instance, the yield on 30-year Treasury securities was over 10 percent, meaning that a pension plan could exceed 8 percent nominal returns while taking almost no risk. Today, the 30-year Treasury yield is around 4 percent, meaning that a plan must take significantly more risk to generate the same nominal return as in the past. At the same time, PERS notes that its goal for real returns, net of inflation, rose from 3 percent in 2000, to 3.5 percent in 2002, to 3.75 percent in 2003 and 4.5 percent thereafter, despite falling yields on inflation-indexed bonds.

It's (way past) time to overhaul PERS. Starting on page 23, Biggs lays out a roadmap for pension reform.

Compare and contrast: Justice Kagan and the Nevada Supreme Court

Earlier this week, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from a case involving Arizona's controversial law dealing with illegal immigration.

The SCOTUS blog notes that she recused herself because "presumably because she had something to do with the issue in her former role in the Obama Administration Justice Department."

That's how it's supposed to work in court cases. It's impossible for a judge to be a neutral arbitrator in all cases, because they have friends, family and business interests. So, if there's a "proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," Nevada's Code of Judicial Conduct, which is adopted by the Nevada Supreme Court, dictates that a judge should recuse himself or herself.

The code then details that this includes times when "[t]he judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding" or if a judge is "a party to the proceeding or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party."

So, let's check. The Supreme Court administers the foreclosure mediation program, helped create the program, implemented it, advertises for it on their website, collects fees from it (although the justices don't benefit from those fees) and publicly brags about the program.

If this isn't a situation where a "judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" or a "judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party," I'm not sure one exists.

From the Las Vegas Sun:

The Nevada Supreme Court is in the unusual and uncomfortable position of deciding whether a state program that it operates is constitutional.

The court has since 2009 operated a state mediation program, providing a forum in which homeowners and lenders see if they can negotiate a deal to avoid foreclosure. The Legislature created the program after the housing bubble burst and the state became the nation’s foreclosure capital. It has so far served more than 12,000 Nevada homeowners. ...

Assembly Majority Leader Marcus Conklin, D-Las Vegas, wondered last month whether the Supreme Court can be unbiased as it decides this case because it collects fees to administer it.

Here are some of Conklin's comments that the story is referencing:

Conklin: It [the Supreme Court ruling the FMP unconstitutional] would be kind of odd, because the court administers the mediation program, and the court system retains all the fees. So sometimes you wonder what, you know, what level of bias there might be, you know, in that process, but I would suspect that they would uphold it.

Nevada Newsmakers host Sam Shad: You're concerned about bias from the Supreme Court due to the fact that they collect fees from the program?

Conklin: I'm not concerned about it, but the fact still remains that they administer that program, so, because they administer that program and they know it in detail, you know, I would assume it's awfully hard to argue against.

Not to mention the fact that members of the court were there to testify in support and participate in the drafting of the law in the first place. So, I would hope if there's a constitutionality question, we would have addressed it during the legislative session when we had members of the Supreme Court present.

Given this information, let's try some simple logic.

Nevada's Code of Judicial Conduct, which is approved by the Nevada Supreme Court, says a judge should recuse himself or herself from a "proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

As detailed above, there are significant reasons to question the impartiality of every Supreme Court justice in the case involving the constitutionality of the Foreclosure Mediation Program. These reasons boil down to the fact that the Supreme Court justices are running the program.

Therefore, as directed by the very judicial conduct code they approved, every Supreme Court justice should recuse himself or herself from the Foreclosure Mediation Program case.

This isn't even a tough call. Nevada's Supreme Court justices need to follow the example of Justice Kagan and recuse themselves.

Sandoval’s new plan: Let's use taxpayer money to bail out ‘homeowners’ ... and banks!

Because government interference in the housing market has worked out so well so far. Let's see, between the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Reserve's manipulations of interest rates, the $8,000 tax credit for new home buyers and Nevada's own unconstitutional Foreclosure Mediation Program, I'd say the government has done a great job solving Nevada's housing problems.

Wait ... what? Nevada's mortgage delinquency rate is more than double the national average, at over 12 percent?

I thought all these government programs were supposed to fix this foreclosure crisis.

Not to fear. Gov. Brian Sandoval is about to announce even more government interference in the housing market. Because if one government program doesn't work, the answer couldn't be less government — it must be another government program!

It hasn't been officially announced, but in reading the tea leaves (aka Sandoval's recent interviews with Jon Ralston and Channel 8), I'm going to predict that Sandoval's grand new plan to "help" those in foreclosures involves subsidizing homeowners and banks with taxpayer dollars.

Specifically, I expect an announcement that some banks have agreed to make principal reductions on the mortgages of those facing foreclosure or, at least, an expansion of access to federal subsidies available to "homeowners" facing foreclosure.

Outside of a court order, why would a bank agree to reduce the principal of a loan? Because Sandoval will use some of the $190 million available from the feds in Nevada's "Hardest Hit Fund" to replace some or all of the reduced principal.

Combined with a public information campaign, expanding eligibility and a shiny new website to "streamline" the process of getting federal subsidies, this may score Sandoval political points. It won't, however, fix Nevada's foreclosure problems. Indeed, it will only make things worse.

First, it's unjust to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the entities — the individual who can't pay his mortgage and the bank that made or bought the loan — that are causing the problem. Now, this money is coming from the feds, so at least Sandoval isn't spending state money. But this interference is still going to make things worse.

By financially rewarding those who are in or near foreclosure, you incentivize other homeowners to flirt with foreclosure and punish those who pay their bills on time. In turn, this depresses home prices, which hurts every homeowner who is doing his best to make on-time payments.

Finally, this prolongs the housing problem, because the market isn't allowed to bottom out and rebound. Instead, these government programs keep the market bouncing along the bottom. This also hurts those who are looking to become new or first-time homeowners.

Imagine if government had stayed out of the way and the housing market had been able to bottom out in 2008 and 2009. We'd likely have been looking at a real recovery this year, but instead, government is still trying to fix the problem it created and elongated.

Two notes: First, since Sandoval hasn't formally announced his plan, I could be wrong about it, and I hope I am. But, given Sandoval's interviews and his plans to meddle in other areas of the Nevada economy, I doubt it.

Second, on a personal level, I sympathize with someone who can't make his house payment and how stressful/horrible that is for him and his family. And no doubt the governor feels badly for such a person as well. But personal feelings of sympathy are not a justification to use government money to bail out individuals and banks, especially when those actions reward the behavior causing the problem and hurt every other homeowner who's doing his best to pay his mortgage on time.

From ReasonTV: A case study on why the stimulus failed

Great, great stuff from ReasonTV. It's yet another reminder of what an epic failure the stimulus was and is. And it should serve as a warning to every elected official in Nevada — starting with Gov. Brian Sandoval — who is looking to government to solve Nevada's economic problems.



(h/t Hotair)

Why separation of powers matters: Collusion between government agencies and elected officials

On Monday, I began a series here at Write on Nevada, detailing exactly why the separation-of-powers provision in Nevada's constitution is essential to protecting liberty.

We've looked at how liberty isn't inevitable and must be protected. We've seen how important the separation of powers was and is to political philosophers, America's founders and the U.S. and Nevada Supreme Court. We've applauded legislators who understand and respect the separation of powers, even if it meant finding a new job. And we've seen the corruption that happens when legislators are allowed to ignore the separation of powers.

And today, I want to share how, for decades, government agencies have wanted powerful legislators on their payrolls, because they "added value" in Carson City and "open[ed] doors" lobbyists couldn't.

And that brings us back to former-assemblyman Wendell Williams, although this story is bigger than one individual. As before this story comes from Steven Miller's most excellent Lawmakers vs. the law series.

It was late November 2003, and for Las Vegas city employee and state Assemblyman Wendell Williams, the days were dwindling down to a precious few.

For months, he'd been in political hot water. Now the city council had scheduled a special hearing that appeared to be his last chance to save his $86,000-a-year city job.

As detailed in the third installment of this series, disclosures of Williams' multiple driving and scofflaw-court transgressions across the state had been followed by revelations of scandalous deals with the brass at the Community College of Southern Nevada (now called the College of Southern Nevada).

But it wasn't those issues that were bringing him before the city council on Nov. 25. Rather, it was the fact that, for weeks, reporters at the Las Vegas Review-Journal had been turning up more and more abuses by Williams of his position as a city employee.

And it was dawning on voters — assisted by reporters, columnists and editorial writers at the two major Las Vegas papers — that in this avalanche of preferential treatment for a powerful politician that was creating problems across the state, the City of Las Vegas had never been a mere innocent bystander.

But that, of course, was what the city wanted the public to believe.

Two months earlier, city officials — caught out by damning information about to be made public by R-J reporters probing Williams' personal use of his city-issued cell phone — suddenly announced that the assemblyman would repay the city $1,844 for personal calls made over a 13-month period — the very period of the newspaper's request.

Significantly, city officials made those arrangements with Williams on the same day that reporters were at last receiving the assemblyman's city cell-phone records that the paper had requested.

One day after breaking the cell-phone story, the Review-Journal came out with another blockbuster: During each of the 2003, 2001, 1999 and 1997 legislative sessions, Williams had finagled ways to "double-dip" — to get paid for doing his city job at the same time he was being paid a legislator's salary and per-diem expenses as an active state lawmaker.

For the 2003 session, Williams agreed to repay the city $6,765 for hours he did not work but for which he had submitted false time cards and had been paid. It harkened suspiciously back to 1997, when Williams had also been required to repay the city — that time nearly $4,000 — after it was discovered he had received full-time pay for two weeks of the legislative session. At the time, city officials had publicly blamed the overpayments on "clerical errors."

In 2003, city officials had at least twice sought to conceal the full scope of Williams' fraud against city taxpayers:

In response to the newspaper's request for all of Williams' "pay records" for January through July, [reported the R-J,] city officials provided only a summary of revised time sheets, which made no mention of the thousands of dollars in pay discrepancies.

When questioned last week about the lawmaker's pay while he was in Carson City, city officials also did not acknowledge that they had themselves questioned the hours he claimed during the legislative session.

The Review-Journal interviewed Williams' boss, Neighborhood Services Director Sharon Segerblom, the day after Williams signed an agreement to return to the city more than a quarter of his 2003 pay. She said she "had no reason to question" his time sheets.

"In the communication I had with him, I had no reason to think he wasn't working," Segerblom said Sept. 25.

Williams' timecard had, however, been an issue for months, officials admitted Friday.

During the 2001 legislative session, too, R-J reporters found, Williams had wangled full-time city pay by spuriously billing taxpayers for sick pay, vacation pay and holiday pay.

According to a breakdown by Las Vegas Sun editorial writers, the assemblyman had "billed the city for the entire time the Legislature was in regular session at his then-wage of $36 an hour. Williams also was brazen in collecting 208 hours of sick time, 112 hours of vacation time and 32 hours of holiday time during that period."

The Sun also noted that Morse Arberry — at the time chairman of the Assembly's powerful Ways and Means committee — had used the same ploy in the 1997, 1999 and 2001 legislative sessions when he, too, was a state lawmaker being paid to nominally work in the city's Neighborhood Services department.

"Based on the information that has been slowly trickling out about Williams — and now about Arberry," counseled the Sun, "the city should ask a government agency or someone not affiliated with the local government to conduct an independent investigation." The obvious problem with the investigation that the deputy city manager was supposedly conducting, noted the editorial, was the "questions as to whether the city government itself has some culpability in this affair," given the power Williams and Arberry had in the state legislature.

But there would be no independent inquiry.

None of the city's higher-ups — administrators or elected officials — saw any percentage in risking an investigation that might get out of control.

An independent investigator, after all, might well parade before voters some of the massive evidence suggesting what had been the city's actual policy: hiring, as city employees, powerful state lawmakers precisely because they were powerful state lawmakers.

Political scientists regularly note that if government can evade constitutional separation-of-power provisions, collusion between actors in the separate branches at the expense of voters and taxpayers easily follows.

As Williams' last-chance hearing proceeded, council members admitted that they were looking at only the tip of the iceberg. Yet other council members just wanted to end any look at the imbroglio at all and quickly "move on," without probing deeper. That, of course, spoke volumes about the actual culture operating within the city's leadership.

But even more direct evidence was being placed clearly on the record.

The de facto policy that had existed within city management when she had been a deputy city manager in the early 1990s, said the now-councilwoman, Lynette Boggs McDonald, had been quite clear.

City officials, she said, definitely wanted legislators on the city payroll — because they "added value."

No other city bigwig at the hearing wanted to touch that radioactive factoid with a 10-foot pole.

Williams himself, however, was more than happy to elaborate.

Given his position as a lawmaker, he said, city officials would call him to "open doors" in the Legislature that regular employees — i.e., hired lobbyists — could not.

The assemblyman didn't seem to get it: Proving the collusion by city government — to those in city government and before the news media — only made him more radioactive.

Within 10 days, he'd been fired.

It's time for the judicial system to stop this abuse and enforce Nevada's separation-of-powers provision.

Why separation of powers matters: Praising Sen. Kieckhefer and Assemblywoman Flores for getting it right

Freedom is fragile. The separation of powers in government is essential to preserving liberty and stopping government overreach.

To have up to 20 percent of Nevada's legislators take an oath to uphold Nevada's constitution and then violate its third article by working for an executive- or judicial-branch employer is a real danger to liberty.

The good news is that many legislators understand this and respect Article 3, Section 1 — even though, for some of them, it meant finding different full-time employment.

Sen. Ben Kieckhefer left his job with DHHS after he was elected to the Senate, precisely because of his respect for the separation of powers.

Before her election as assemblywoman, Lucy Flores worked for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In fact, I made mistakenly included her on NPRI's list of legislators who also have or had employment in the executive or judicial branch while serving in the legislature.

Only minutes after CJCL filed its case last week, Assemblywoman Flores called me and let me know that she no longer worked for an executive-branch agency precisely because she didn't want to have to deal with this issue.

That respect for the constitution and her actions should be applauded.

According to her campaign website, Sen. Allison Copening resigned from executive-branch employment to run for office. I don't know if she left her executive-branch job, because she didn't want to violate the constitution or if she needed the time to campaign, but regardless, it was the right decision.

Although there are many legislators who are clearly violating Nevada's constitution, there are also legislators — of both parties — who respect the constitution. And that's a very good thing.

Why separation of powers matters: Thoughts from Madison, Montesquieu, others

Why is the separation of powers essential? I offered my thoughts yesterday, but since everything I wrote was just an attempt to capture the brilliance of Madison, Jefferson, Montesquieu and others, I wanted to share with you some of their quotes on why the separation of powers is so important. All emphasis is added.

James Madison in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Montesquieu on the separation of powers:

There is as yet no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from legislative power and the executrix.

The U.S. Supreme Court in O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933).

The Constitution, in distributing the powers of government, creates three distinct and separate departments-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. This separation is not merely a matter of convenience or of governmental mechanism. Its object is basic and vital, Springer v. Government of Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 201, 48 S.Ct. 480; namely, to preclude a commingling of these essentially different powers of government in the same hands.

James Madison in Federalist 51:

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own.

Thomas Jefferson in Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782:

[A very capital defect in a constitution is when] all the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one.

Nevada Supreme Court in its 1967 Galloway v. Truesdell decision:

The separation of powers; the independence of one branch from the others; the requirement that one department cannot exercise the powers of the other two is fundamental in our system of government.

Montesquieu has recited the reasons for the desirability of having the governmental powers separate. In City of Enterprise v. State, 69 P.2d 953 (Ore. 1937), he is quoted: "* * * there can be no liberty * * * if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. * * * Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would be the legislator: Were it joined to the executive power the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor."

Madison in Federalist 48:

It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.

George Washington in his 1796 farewell address:

The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Is the separation of powers essential and should it be vigorously defended? NPRI sides with, to name only a few, Madison, Montesquieu, the U.S. Supreme Court, Jefferson, the Nevada Supreme Court and George Washington in saying, "Yes!"

Why separation of powers matters: Is freedom inevitable?

The answer to that question is obvious but essential.

Freedom is not inevitable. Historically, freedom is a temporary condition enjoyed by only a fraction of the earth's population.

Since freedom is not inevitable — indeed, the opposite is true; freedom is rare — we must ask, "Why are we free when others or not?"

As a nation (and state) of immigrants, we can't claim we are free because of our genetics. Our nation (and state) is blessed with natural resources, but so is Russia. Wealth does not produce freedom.

In America (and in Nevada), we are free, because our founders recognized that, as Lord Acton stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and designed a government with three branches of government. While these branches of government each have different functions, they also have the ability to check the power exercised by another branch.

To ensure that no person or group would amass too much power, the founders established a government in which the powers to create, implement, and adjudicate laws were separated. Each branch of government is balanced by powers in the other two coequal branches: The President can veto the laws of the Congress; the Congress confirms or rejects the President's appointments and can remove the President from office in exceptional circumstances; and the justices of the Supreme Court, who can overturn unconstitutional laws, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Because we're so used to this system of government, it's easy to forget how important this system is to ensuring freedom.

Government is needed to secure an individual's right to life, liberty and property. But those wielding governmental power tend to corruption, which harms the very rights government was created to defend.

But using the checks and balances contained within three separate branches of government, you have a system where the tendency of government officials to amass power is checked by other government officials who usually aren't interested in giving up their power.

It's genius.

And it's also why it's so dangerous for one individual to work in two branches of government at the same time. Both the separation of powers and the checks and balances in the system go out the window if one person has authority in two branches of government. Instead of separating power, power is consolidated. Instead of one branch checking another, it could collude with it.

The idea of separating powers is so important that it's explicitly required in Nevada's constitution in Article 3, Section 1.

The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments,—the Legislative,—the Executive and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others...

And that's exactly why NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation has sued Mo Denis, the Public Utilities Commission, and the State of Nevada for violating the separation-of-powers clause in Nevada's constitution.

Even the smallest encroachment in the separation-of-powers clause opens the door for larger and larger encroachments. Hello, Wendell Williams, Chris Giunchigliani, and Mark Manendo.

Once you remove the bright-line standard, it's only a matter of time before incremental "exceptions" render the provision meaningless.

And once you've removed the structural protections against, what James Madison called, "tyranny," you're left with a system of government dependent entirely on the character of its elected officials to keep it free from corruption and abuse of power.

As "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," this is a problem.

Freedom isn't inevitable. Freedom is rare, and we should do everything in our power to protect the form and structure of our government — including a clear separation-of-powers provision — which provided us with freedom.

Why separation of powers matters: The story of CCSN, Wendell Williams, Chris Giunchigliani, and Mark Manendo

Last week, NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation sued Mo Denis, the Public Utilities Commission, and the State of Nevada for violating the separation-of-powers clause in Nevada's constitution.

By challenging Nevada's long-standing abuse of the separation-of-powers principle, NPRI's case is the first step in restoring the balance of power in Nevada's government and guaranteeing the liberties of the people.

Full details on the case are available here, but I want to spend some time this week unpacking the phrase "restoring the balance of power in Nevada's government and guaranteeing the liberties of the people."

How is power in government balanced? Why do we have freedom? Is oppressive government really a threat? How does the separation of powers guarantee liberty? What happens — and what problems does it create — when a lawmaker serves in two branches of government?

To start answering that last question, I'd like to tell you about the Community College of Southern Nevada (now the College of Southern Nevada), Wendell Williams, then-assemblyman and city of Las Vegas employee, Chris Giunchigliani, then-assemblywoman and CCSN employee, and Mark Manendo, then-assemblyman and CCSN employee. This story comes courtesy of NPRI's Steven Miller and his excellent Lawmakers vs. the law series.

The record demonstrates that Wendell Williams and other Nevada lawmakers did, indeed, become convinced that they were above the law. As we'll see below, a process is in place that essentially instructs them in this point of view.

In the weeks after the reckless-driving stories broke, a seemingly never-ending-stream of additional Wendell Williams scandals began surfacing. If studied closely, those scandals are highly illuminating.

Most titillating to news outlets in 2003, however, were clearly the relationships between Williams and the College of Southern Nevada (CSN), then still named the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN).

Williams had shown up in January 2003 at the CCSN president's office with a nubile young woman in tow, one Topazia "Briget" Jones. The college should use some of its public funding to not only to hire her onto its staff, Williams suggested, but to also assign her to work with him in Carson City during the upcoming legislature.

Such a suggestion — given Williams' position chairing the Nevada Assembly's Education Committee and thus controlling any funds that CCSN might hope to get during the session — was clearly unethical, and verged on outright extortion.

But the school's then-president, Ron Remington, and his administrative shadow and top lobbyist, John Cummings, didn't even blink. Neither one, it developed, had any significant qualms — as long as Williams would agree, in turn, to help them circumvent policies set by their bosses within the state higher-ed system.

The board of regents and the system chancellor had decided that CCSN was to remain a two-year institution, while the University of Nevada at Las Vegas would be the home for any new four-year programs. The CCSN conspirators, however, saw the possibility that Williams could get the Legislature to legally order the regents and chancellor to do what Remington and Cummings wanted: abort the two-year CCSN policy and give their school new four-year baccalaureate programs.

As outlined in AB 511, the bill eventually introduced by Williams, the first programs were to be in nursing and teaching. To avoid problems with their higher-ups, both Remington and Cummings repeatedly instructed Williams and Ms. Jones, according to the latter pair, that Remington's and Cummings' "fingerprints" could never appear publicly anywhere near the legislation.

The initial language of AB 511 was supplied by Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, who — ever-so-conveniently — worked under Cummings in the CCSN lobbying and recruiting operation. She later would tell the Las Vegas Sun that when Williams had asked Cummings for a conceptual draft of the bill he and Remington wanted, "I looked at what John wrote and said, ‘That doesn't make sense,' and I wrote something up." And indeed, according to legislative records, the initial bill description faxed to Carson City came from the fax machine assigned to Giunchigliani's CCSN office.

Like a coach adding professional ringers to his roster, Cummings had the previous summer hired two state lawmakers at generous, taxpayer-funded salaries. One was long-time Cummings chum Giunchigliani — president of the state teacher union in 1990 when Cummings was executive director and who's now running for mayor of Las Vegas — and the other was Assemblyman Mark Manendo, now a state senator, added to staff in 2002 to supposedly recruit more students to the already overcrowded CCSN campus.

But Cummings' ploy was not at all uncommon. In hiring employees that he could then lobby during legislative sessions — upping the odds that he and his bosses would be given the taxpayers' dollars they wanted — Cummings was following a trail well-worn by the Clark County School District, the Nevada System of Higher Education, Clark County and multiple cities of Southern Nevada.

And here the road leads back to Williams and the nexus between local governments and the state legislature that corrupts public servants by demonstrating to them that, indeed, practically speaking, they are, usually, above the law.

Williams — like Giunchigliani, like Manendo and like Morse Arberry, Williams' long-time colleague in the City of Las Vegas department of Neighborhood Services — had been hired illegally, in direct violation of the state constitution. And no Nevada legal authority or political body had ever even batted an eye, over all the subsequent years.

Guarding against this type of abuse is one reason that Article 3, Section 1, of Nevada's constitution reads:

The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments,—the Legislative,—the Executive and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others ...

This story — and preventing it from happening again — is one of many reasons why it's so important defend the separation-of-powers provision in Nevada's constitution.

Keep reading Write on Nevada this week for more stories on the problems caused by lawmakers serving in two branches of government and answers to the questions raised above.

If there are any questions you would like addressed, please leave them in the comments section.

Buying foreclosed houses is a good thing

There's a story out today about how Sen. Dean Heller's campaign is attacking Rep. Shelley Berkley's husband for ... buying and selling foreclosured homes and trying to make a profit.

Rep. Shelley Berkley's husband has been investing in Las Vegas troubled homes, renting out some but selling two this year for $86,000 profit, according to research circulated this week by Republicans seeking to dent her U.S. Senate candidacy.

Republicans charge the transactions show Dr. Larry Lehrner to be opportunistic in the search of profits in the midst of Nevada's foreclosure crisis, at a time when Berkley has been highly critical of banks forcing constituents out of their homes.

"How many members of Congress do you think find it a good idea to be flipping foreclosed homes right now? One?" said Mike Slanker, campaign adviser to Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., Berkley's election target.

Well, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a member of Congress, but it is a great time to flip foreclosed homes. The best part about individuals buying and improving foreclosed homes is that it can be a win-win-win-win-win.

First, the original seller, in this case, the bank, wins, because they've freely chosen to exchange a property for cash.

Second, the new buyer wins, because they've purchased a home.

Third, the neighborhood where the foreclosed house is located wins, because instead of a foreclosure, there's a renovated house. That increases the value of the homes in the neighborhood.

Fourth, homeowners in the general-Vegas area win, because as a basic understanding of supply and demand demonstrates, the more people wanting to buy houses in Las Vegas, the more those houses will be worth.

Fifth, the original buyer and "house flipper" wins — if he or she is able to sell the house at a profit. It should be noted that this individual is actually the one who takes the greatest financial risk, because there's no guarantee that they'll be able to sell the house for more than they've invested.

This process is what Las Vegas needs more of. Aside from being obviously unconstitutional, the biggest problem with the foreclosure mediation program is that it prevents this process from working.

The bank can't sell, because it has to mediate. The new buyer isn't able to buy a home, because it's not available. The neighborhood suffers, because there's a foreclosed home in it. Overall, home values stay depressed, because the above win-win-win-win-win process isn't allowed to clear out excessive inventory, which is necessary for prices to start rising. The investor is denied an opportunity to make a profit.

All of these people are harmed in order to subsidize the individual who caused this problem — the "homeowner" who couldn't or wouldn't make his or her mortgage payments. (I put "homeowner" in quotes, because if they really were a homeowner, foreclosure wouldn't be a problem.)

Now, on a personal level, I sympathize with someone who can't make their house payment and how stressful/horrible that is for them and their family. But personal feelings of sympathy are not a justification to use government action to financially harm other homeowners, future homeowners, investors or even lending institutions. (This is the general problem with liberalism — in seeking to help someone, the unintended consequences of liberal actions make things worse for many others and often incentivize the behavior that's causing the original problem.)

Later in the article Berkley's spokeswoman claims the congresswoman is "second to none" in pursuing mortgage relief for "homeowners."

It's ironic and unfortunate that Berkley doesn't follow the example of her husband, because individuals buying and flipping homes will do more to improve the plight of all homeowners than the increasing governmental interference for which Berkley advocates.