(Victor Joecks/NPRI) – I’m currently reading CCSD’s 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and came across this gem.

In their transmittal letter, CCSD Superintendent Dwight Jones and CCSD School Board President Carolyn Edwards write (p. xviii):

During fiscal year 2010, the Nevada legislature was forced to respond to continued declines in revenues and cut state aid to the district from their original budgeted amounts. The result was that the District only received an additional $10 per pupil in fiscal year 2011 over fiscal year 2010. (Emphasis added.)

Two things are remarkable here. First, this is yet another example of how often government ‘cuts’ are actually spending increases. After assuming an increase in spending, government agencies turn around and label reductions in future spending as a “cut,” even if they receive more funding than they did the year before.

Second, this description, sadly, is actually better than most. At least it notes that the “cut” in state funding was from the “originally budgeted amount.”

Many times government officials, including Gov. Brian Sandoval, Sen. Michael Roberson, Assemblyman Pat Hickey, and Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, just assert that spending more on education is a “cut,” without any explanation that the state is, in fact, spending more.

It’s time to acknowledge that Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending in the last 50 years and that spending more and hiring more teachers hasn’t increased student achievement.

Yes, this is why I am running for Nevada Assembly in District 13. It's time we bring some common sense to the Nevada budget and stop the lies.

Back in the 2009 Session, our Legislature raised taxes by $620 Million. These taxes were "temporary" and set to expire, or sunset, in 2011.  However, in the 2011 Session, our elected representatives voted to extend these "temporary" taxes for another two years, again promising they would disappear in two years.

Just last week, Governor Sandoval publicly stated that the new budget for the 2013 session would include keeping the full $620 Million. I guess this is how "temporary" taxes become permanent.

The reasoning for not allowing the $620 Million to sunset , Jeff Mohlenkamp, the governor’s budget czar, stated that demand for “safety net (welfare) services” has supposedly “increased dramatically and continued high demand is expected.”

So, according to Mr. Mohlenkamp, the $620 million is to go to essential services. Or is it?

Mr. Mohlenkamp goes on to say, “All executive branch agencies must limit their agency request budget submissions to amounts listed in the attached General Fund target sheet. … These General Fund targets are…adjusted for pay-related reductions that sunset effective July 1, 2013. These reductions that have been added back include furloughs, pay rate reductions, suspension of merit salary increases, and suspension of longevity pay.”

Did you get that? The $620 Million isn't going to go to "essential services", it's going straight into the pockets of public employees in the form of pay raises.

As has been well reported, State and local government employees are already paid up to 30% more than the equivalent private sector worker. Here in Nevada State employees average $50,125 per year, local government employees $52,088 while the same job in the private sector average only $40,899.

So, the reason for not allowing the $620 million to sunset as promised is so we can give the higher paid government employees a raise.

I'm sorry, but I believe it's time for our elected officials to do what they say. We were promised the $620 Million would end in two years, we've had them for four. Now our Governor and State Senate "leaders" tell us they want to make them permanent.

As your Assemblyman, I will vote against any attempt to increase taxes and will vote against any attempt to extend the $620 Million we were promised would already be gone.

You can read more on this topic HERE.

Support and elect Leonard Foster for Nevada Assembly District 13!

(Victor Joecks/NPRI) – One of the many, many terrible things to come out of yesterday’s news that Gov. Brian Sandoval and presumed Republican legislative leaders, Sen. Michael Roberson and Assemblyman Pat Hickey, are supporting tax increases is the way they inaccurately described state education funding.

Here’s a sampling.

Gov. Sandoval’s statement: In addition to avoiding further cuts to education, this decision means there will be no need for tax increases in the next session. Nevadans will pay no more than they are in the current biennium.

Sen. Roberson, from then AP story: “I will not support additional cuts to public education.”
Assemblyman Hickey, via the AP: Assemblyman Pat Hickey, R-Reno, the minority caucus leader in the lower house, also said he agreed with Sandoval’s position that the state cannot afford any more cuts to education. The state-funded portion of K-12 spending was cut about 9 percent during the last session, and state support for universities and community colleges was reduced 15 percent.

“Nevada’s recovery is still fragile and is certainly gradual,” Hickey said when reached for comment. “I agree with the governor that education, especially in lieu of reforms that were adopted and cuts that have been made in recent cycles, cannot warrant another hit.”

Washoe Superintendent Heath Morrison in a statement: “I appreciate Gov. Sandoval’s continuing commitment to education and improving results for all Nevada students. We are exceptionally grateful for his recommendation to extend the sunsetting taxes and to stabilize education funding without imposing further reductions.”

CCSD Superintendent Dwight Jones in a statement: “We have our share of financial uncertainty with teacher contract negotiations at a standstill, but it’s my hope that with Governor Sandoval’s leadership, we can avoid any further cuts in state funding and continue on the path to reform and increased academic achievement to prepare the next generation of Nevadans for college and the workforce.

Reading those quotes, especially the line in the AP story that says K-12 spending was cut about 9 percent, would lead one to believe that state education funding was cut — and dramatically at that. So let’s look at the numbers.
In 2011 (all years are fiscal years), Nevada spent $5,192 per student in Total Regular Basic Support. Under the budget passed in the last legislative session (p. that amount increased to $5,263 per student in 2012 and increased even more to $5,374 per student for 2013.

Wait a second. Going from $5,192 a year to $5,263 in 2012 to $5,374 in 2013 isn’t a decrease — it’s an increase of $182 per student! Apparently, a 3.5 percent increase in the midst of a recession is what these government officials call a “cut.”

Even if you consider total state education funding, which includes class-size reduction, special education and several other categories, total state education funding in 2012 is projected to be slightly more than what was actually spent in 2011 and increase further in 2013. In terms of both actual spending and per-pupil spending amounts, Nevada is spending more than before on K-12. (Actual per-pupil spending is over $10,000 per student. The $5,263 figure is just state funding. Overall, local funding has decreased, but that’s unrelated to state funding.)

Where are the “further” or “additional” cuts in state funding? What are they referring to?

I don’t know, because they are factually wrong — as one can plainly see by looking at the budget the Legislature and governor approved just a few months ago.

Elected officials, media members and citizens who are interested in a little thing called “The Truth” should point this out, and Sandoval, Roberson, Hickey, Morrison and Jones should all issue retractions of their inaccurate statements.
When an increase in education spending is derided as a spending decrease, you begin to understand how Nevada has tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending in the last 50 years while student achievement has stagnated and our graduation rate has fallen to 45 percent.

The focus must change from education funding to student achievement. Only then will we see the dramatic increases in student achievement that states like Florida have enjoyed.

This go around Republican's wont make the same mistake of trusting a young, unprepared candidate to represent them in Carson City. Voters want a candidate with REAL experience who can handle the demanding schedule & complex issues of a NV Senator.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
  3992611PRLog (Press Release) - Mar 15, 2012 -
Brent Jones a Nevada businessman filed today with the Clark County elections Department to run in Nevada Senate District 9 to replace Senator Elizabeth Halseth who resigned earlier this year. While Senator Halseth was very popular with the voters at the start of her term, she proved to be ill prepared to handle the demanding schedule and complex issues of a State Senator.

Republicans are working to gain a majority in the upper house this election cycle and Halseth’s resignation now requires Republicans to win a seat that was already theirs. Voters are determined this time they won’t make the same mistake of electing someone who does not have the skills and maturity needed to be a successful Senator for the State of Nevada.

Republicans are impressed with the resume and qualifications of Brent Jones:

After earning a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, Finance and Real Estate, Brent attended and graduated from Pepperdine University School of Law with a Juris Doctorate. Brent started his law career with an emphasis on business and in 1995 he was voted Best Attorney by the Business Digest, a Ventura County, CA business newspaper.

Throughout his career, Brent has helped with the formation and growth of a number of companies. He is the founder and president of Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc., a Nevada corporation that owns and markets Real Water, the only known alkalized bottled water with stable negative ions. In addition Brent has supported numerous local charities such as the American and Nevada Diabetes Associations, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, the UNLV Foundation and Opportunity Village.

It is apparent that Brent Jones has what it takes to become the next Senator for Senate District 9.

"I am a businessman, not a politician.  As owner of Real Water, I have real world experience and know what it truly takes to create jobs.  I decided to run for office precisely because politicians and bureaucrats are destroying our state and country with excessive laws and regulations that are undermining our liberty and opportunity for prosperity. My goal in running for the Nevada Senate is to provide effective leadership that will actually promote business and opportunity resulting in the creation of jobs here in Nevada”. Brent Jones
For more information on candidate Brent Jones visit his website http://www.BrentJones2012.com

I just received this Press Release from the Nevada Policy Research Institute. It looks like plans are already in the works to raise our taxes in the 2013 session.

At a time when Nevada is just starting to recover from this recession (depression?) the last thing we need are tax hikes.

This is why I am running for Nevada Assembly in district 13. Before we even talk about tax hikes I feel we first must make sure that our tax dollars are being spent wisely. That is, make sure all the agencies and departments are spending their current monies in the most efficient manner.

Nevada must start to use a Budgeting For Outcomes or a Zero Based Budgeting system which other States have implemented.  This will assure that our tax dollars will be spent in the most efficient manner possible while proving all the essential services Nevada needs.

Please support my campaign and help being some common sense to Nevada government. Leonard Foster for Nevada Assembly District 13.

NPRI: Sandoval wrong to propose raising taxes

LAS VEGAS — In response to the news that Gov. Brian Sandoval will instruct government agencies to budget as if the sunset taxes will continue in the next biennium, Geoffrey Lawrence, deputy policy director at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, released the following comments:

Taxpayers lose again with Governor Brian Sandoval's decision to propose extending the so-called "sunset" taxes. This demonstrates, once again, the danger behind the concept of a "temporary" tax increase. Once bureaucracy becomes dependent on that additional revenue to sustain itself, the tax increase rarely goes away.

In 2010, Governor Sandoval stated that raising taxes is "the worst possible thing you can do" after a recession. His statement is as correct today as it was then — raising taxes on job creators is exactly the wrong thing to do in the aftermath of a recession. Entrepreneurs and job creators have been planning their investments on the promise that "temporary" rate hikes in the modified business tax and business license fees begun in 2009 would disappear next year. Let there be no mistake — proposing to reestablish a tax that is scheduled by law to disappear is a tax hike.

After breaking his "no-new tax" promise to voters at the end of the 2011 legislative session, it is extremely disappointing for taxpayers to see Governor Sandoval break his promise again — 10 months before the legislative session even begins.

The governor is correct in noting that the massive Medicaid expansion that ObamaCare seeks to impose on the states would mean a huge new state liability beginning in the next budget cycle, one that would only grow worse over the next decades.

It was disingenuous for Congress and the president to pass such a huge entitlement expansion even though they had no willingness to fully fund it themselves and so levied a huge unfunded liability on the states.

An econometric analysis performed by NPRI shows that ObamaCare, unless derailed by the U.S. Supreme Court or through the legislative process, will cost the state of Nevada at least an additional $5.4 billion in Medicaid costs by 2023. That's due to the compulsory loosening of eligibility requirements and the individual mandate provision, which — taking effect in 2014 — will begin undercutting the state's ability to finance education and other services. This reality is precisely why NPRI has been critical of ObamaCare from its inception.

Even in the face of ObamaCare's costs, however, Governor Sandoval was not compelled to expose the struggling Silver State economy to the prospect of higher taxes. Just last week, NPRI released an 88-page guide for cutting costs using proven techniques already implemented in other states. Solutions 2013 explicitly recognizes the impending new Medicaid burden that would be imposed by ObamaCare, but shows how to reduce spending in other areas to offset this liability without sacrificing quality. The governor and his staff should use the ideas in this publication to decrease costs while increasing results, rather than again break his pledges to state taxpayers and prospective job creators.

The rising costs of ObamaCare should be the impetus to transform state government by creating charter agencies, establishing performance audits, outsourcing agency functions competitively, eliminating the billions wasted through prevailing-wage requirements, and by giving parents a choice in their children's schooling. It should not be used as a weak excuse for raising taxes on struggling Nevada families.