(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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Candidate Leonard Foster for NV Assembly 13 (NW Las Vegas) is busy meeting the voters in his district. While walking door to door, Leonard is asking his potential constituents how he can best represent them when he goes to Carson City.

Leonard Foster Campaign LogoPRLog (Press Release) - Feb 18, 2012 -

Las Vegas businessman and candidate for Nevada Assembly District 13, Leonard Foster, has been busy knocking on doors since he announced his candidacy on November 11, 2011 and is on target with his goal to meet every voter in the district.

"I look forward to the opportunity to serve the people of Nevada." Foster stated. "I know that most candidates don't start knocking on doors until after they file for office, but I started early to introduce myself to as many voters as possible."

In 1978, Leonard enlisted in the US Navy and took an Oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. As your Assemblyman, Leonard says that's exactly what he will do... follow the Oath of Office.

Leonard added, "Nevada is #1 in unemployment, #1 in home foreclosures and dead last in education. We must turn these numbers around. The people in Assembly District 13, and Nevada, are tired of 'politics as usual' and are looking for someone who will fight against more taxes, job killing regulations and fight for keeping the money in the classroom and out of the hands of the union bosses."

Leonard moved to southern Nevada in 1990. Leonard, his wife Charlene, and family live in Centennial Hills in NW Las Vegas. Leonard & Charlene are proud to say they are foster parents to 6 of their children. Leonard is keenly aware of the challenges that face the children, parents and school officials in Nevada as they struggle with the fact that Nevada is one of the lowest rated states in the nation in education. Leonard Foster believes in putting education back into the hands of parents and teachers. "Who better to make decisions regarding the children than those that care for them the most." he says.

Leonard has worked in the casino industry and is currently the owner of a water treatment business in Las Vegas which he started in 1999. Leonard is intensely aware of the challenges that small business owners face every day - over regulation and an uncertain economic climate- these are issues that Leonard will work to change when he is elected and goes to Carson City to represent those that have sent him there.

Leonard is a "common sense" husband, father, business owner and candidate and will bring that "common sense" into the legislature.

You can visit his campaign website at www.LeonardFoster.com

We have heard many times that we need to raise taxes in order to fund "essential services".  As if businesses in Nevada aren't paying enough. As if there is no waste in Nevada government to cut.

If you believe we’re just not taxing businesses enough to pay for our state’s “vital” and essential services and need to “broaden” our tax base, here’s a listing I compiled of the taxes and fees we’re already burdening our business community with:

Business License Fee, Modified Business Tax, Modified Business Tax for Financial Institutions, Bank Branch Excise Tax, Incorporation Fees, Business Trusts, Limited Liability Company Fees, Limited Partnership Fees & LLLP Fees, Limited Liability Partnership Fees, Trademarks & Trade Names Fees, Uniform Commercial Code Fees, Video Service Provider Fees, Unemployment Insurance Tax, Drug Taxes, Controlled Substance Tax, Special Drug Manufacturing Tax, Excise Taxes, Cigarette & Other Tobacco Products Excise Tax, Intoxicating Liquor License & Tax, Fuel Taxes, State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and Aviation Fuel Tax.

Hold on…we’re just getting warmed up. There’s also the…

County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax, County RTC Motor Vehicle Tax, Special Fuel Tax, Jet Fuel Tax, Gaming and Entertainment Taxes & Fees, City-County Gaming Tax, County Gaming Fees, Gross Gaming Revenue Fee, Pari-Mutual Wagering Tax, Race Wire License Fee, Slot License Fee – Non-Restricted, Slot License Fee – Restricted, Slot Machine Excise Tax, Slot Route Operator & Distributor Fees, State Gaming License – Annual Fees, State Games License – Quarterly Fees, Internet Gaming Tax, Insurance Tax, Insurance Premium Tax, Lodging Tax, State Transient Lodging Tax, Local Transient Lodging Tax, Mining Tax and Miscellaneous Mine Fees, Net Proceeds of Minerals & Patented Mines Tax.

Whew! But we’re not finished yet. There’s also the…

Oil & Gas Administrative Fee, Miscellaneous Taxes & Fees, Unarmed Combat Fees, Car Rental Government Services Tax, Livestock Tax, Live Entertainment Tax, Local Franchise Fee, Tax on Estates, Tire Tax, Nevada Transportation Authority Fees, Water Transfer Tax, Motor Vehicle Taxes, Motor Vehicle Registration Tax, Governmental Services Tax – Basic, Governmental Services Tax – Supplemental, Property Taxes, Real Property Tax (Ad Valorem), Personal Property Tax, Real Property Transfer Tax, Public Utility Taxes, Public Utility Assessment Fee, Universal Energy Charge and Sales and Use Taxes.

Take a breath. We’re almost there…

Combined Sales and Use Tax/State Sales and Use Tax (S.S.T.), Combined Sales and Use Tax/Local School Support Tax (LSST), Combined Sales and Use Tax/Basic City-County Relief Tax (BCCRT), Combined Sales and Use Tax/Supplemental City-County Relief Tax (SCCRT), and County Optional Sales Tax.

That’s more than 80 ways the government is sucking money out of our business community and our citizens. I am running for Assembly 13 as Nevada businesses need someone who will fight and represent them. 

I have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. I will fight against any and all tax increases.

Support me and my campaign and vote for Leonard Foster for Assembly 13.

I was looking forward to participating in the Nevada Caucus held this past Saturday, Feb. 4th. It was an opportunity for my daughter, Tabitha to participate in her first election. To be sure we wouldn't miss out, we arrived at our location at 8:15 AM.

The check-in went smoothly and we were directed to proper classroom for our precint. We stepped inside and there were a few people already there. By the supposed 9:00 start time there were around 45 of us in total.

As we sat and watched the clock, many of us started to wonder when we were going to start. My good friend Steve Sanson, who is President of Veterans in Politics, was sitting behind me so we chatted as the time went by. 9:15, 9:30, 9:45 came and went. My daughter looked at me and said "Wasn't this sipposed to start at 9:00?" I replied "Yes" and told her to remember I told her there may be problems.

Well, 10:00 finally arrived and someone "In Charge" came into the room to help us get started. As we didn't have an "official" representative, we were told that we would need to elect one from the people in the room.  This we did and it went smoothly. We then all needed to check-in to make sure that we were in the correct room and that the number of people in the room matched the number who had signed in.

We then had the opportunity to speak for our favorite Presidential candidate. After this, we all voted, the votes were counted and we were done. All this took about 45 minutes so we left at around 10:45. So far so good.

From what I heard later, most of the caucusing was done by Noon at most locations. It's just a matter of counting the votes and posting the results.

This is when things got a bit complicated with the Nevada GOP.

By 10:00 PM, a whole 12 hours AFTER most locations were done, we still didn't have the "Official" count. By around 4:00 AM, the count still wasn't done.

Is counting the voted really that difficult? My caucus was held at Arbor View High School. Each precinct was in a separate room. How hard is it for each precinct to tally the votes and bring the results to the person in charge who could then take each precint total and write it down on a sheet of paper and total the votes for all the precincts? This person would then take the sealed envelopes, alone with their total sheet, to the Republican Headquarters where someone there could take the caucus location "Total Sheet" and put the numbers on their master sheet and total all the caucus locations numbers.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? Well, for some reason, that's not what happened. So here it was, 4:00 AM the following Sunday, and the vote totals were still not available.

Getting back to when we were sitting in the room waiting for the caucus to start, one discussion came up more than once from quite a few people. We need to have a Primary instead of the Caucus.

My neighbors were sitting in front of me and they agreed that Nevada needs to go to a Primary. Their reason was that their daughter was up in Reno and thus could not participate in the Caucus. If Nevada did a Primary, her daughter could have voted by mail.

I have to wonder how many others were in the same boat? How many others were there who didn't have transportation? How many others were there who don't know what a Caucus is and how and why this works?

I'd say quite a few.

Which is why I support Nevada switching to a Primary for Presidential candidates. We do this for State and local elections and everyone understands how this works.

Once elected to Nevada Assembly for District 13, I would support changing from a Caucus to a Primary. Let's keep things simple.

This speach is just as relevent today as it was then. Televised Campaign Address for Goldwater Presidential Campaign - 10/27/64.

Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in Federalist Paper #26 “…the state legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant, but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens, against encroachments from the federal government...”

This post is about Victor Fuentes of Amargosa Valley and how the members of the Nevada Legislature have utterly failed in protecting Mr. Fuetes from federal encroachment.

Victor Fuentes fled communist Cuba to live the American Dream. He found a nice, stream-fed piece of land in the Amargosa Valley and founded Ministerio Roca Sólida (Solid Rock Ministry) Church with his wife, Annette.

“There was a beauty to that land. It was a peaceful place for us as believers to go and rejoice”, Fuentes stated of the land. With donations from their church members, their own funds, and lots of hard work, Patch of Heaven opened its doors. And by 2010, the camp was booked nearly every weekend.

This is where the Fuentes' nightmare begins.

In 2010, the US Fish & Wildlife Service decided that the stream were to be diverted. Once diverted, the stream and pond went dry. Just three weeks later, a heavy rainfall broke the earthen dams, flooding the entire camp, destroying the grazing areas of the camp’s livestock and causing thousands of dollars of damage to buildings.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service has refused to compensate Mr. Fuentes for the damage and the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation is now representing Mr. Fuentes to collect damages.

This is where I get upset.

The Nevada Legislature, our elected officials, are the ones responsible for protecting our Rights. This issue has been going on for just over a year and not a peep to be heard from our representatives.

Each and every one of our elected officials took an Oath to support, protect and defend the Nevada and U.S. Constitutions. In other words, to protect our Constitutional Rights. Alexander Hamilton was clear the the purpose of the State Legislature was to prevent encroachments of the federal government.

 The US Fish & Wildlife Service blatently encroached on Victor Fuentes' private property rights.

This is why I am running for Nevada Assembly in District 13. I will be your voice in Carson City. I will fight to protect your Rights.

(Ron Knecht) – A recent Brookings Institute study on economic growth in Nevada concluded that we must innovate and diversify – which we already knew.  I hope its proposals to “unleash” growth produce more than those from previous studies, but only time will tell.

However, the study was marred by a high-profile false claim it made that provided red meat for the statists who dominate academe and the mainstream media.  Smash-mouth left-wing pundit Jon Ralston trumpeted gleefully Brookings’ claim that Nevada not only underfunds higher education, but is last among comparable states by a significant margin.

The claim is a classic Big Lie.  Nevada’s higher education funding is in the mainstream and even high by some measures.

Brookings’ first major error is to assume that the fraction of its economy a state spends on college varies with its population.  So, Brookings compares five states with populations of 2- to 3-million to Nevada (2.7-million), even though that range yields four states slightly larger than Nevada and one state much smaller.

But there is no correlation of states’ economic fractions with their populations, which is why no one else uses this practice.  Standard practice compares state college funding regionally (such as western states) or on a national basis.  Brookings’ method cherry-picked states ranked 1, 2, 6, 16 and 19 out of 50 as its standard for Nevada.

Second, Brookings’ use of the economic fraction as a comparative-funding metric is also one that, for good reason, no one else uses.  This fraction is useful for comparing broader aggregates such as total public spending, and it can have limited use for education funding in a given state over time.

However, it is misleading in comparing states, due to large differences in the portions of states’ populations that attend college.  If one state’s college-going rate is twice that of another, it’s ridiculous to suggest that college spending should be the same fraction of their economies.

A well-known major Nevada problem is that too few of our people attend college (especially in high-value majors).  Brookings’ metric obscures that problem to reach the conclusion Brookings and Ralston always seek – namely, that more public spending, higher taxes and further government intervention are needed.  The proper education funding measure, used almost universally, is state spending per student.

Using the per-student measure, Nevada’s taxpayer support for higher education is 29th among the 50 states, merely two percent below the national average.  Using the western states, as most studies do, Nevada’s funding is almost nine percent above average.

How misleading are Brookings and Ralston?  Consider faculty pay.  Using their five states as the standard, Nevada faculty pay is 25 percent above market, even though it is 0.65 percent below the western average.  Nationally, Nevada faculty pay is 10th among the 50 states, seven percent above the national average.

In short, Nevada tax funding of education and faculty pay are mainstream to somewhat higher.  So, Brookings and Ralston’s biased and shoddy claim is completely misleading.

Nevada higher education regents, administrators and faculty are working to improve academic quality, do strategic planning and management in a new competitive environment, and meet numerous other challenges of a Great Recession caused mainly by public-sector excesses that Brookings, Ralston and other statists promote.  Our efforts are hindered, not helped, by the Chicken Little squawks of ideologues and special interests.

(Regent Ron Knecht of Carson City is an economist with background also in law, mathematics, science, engineering, liberal arts and public policy.  Additional information at www.RonKnecht.com.)

It’s a bad idea for state workers to serve in the Legislature. This is why the Separation Of Powers Clause is in the Nevada Constitution.

And now the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI) has filed a lawsuit to force government workers serving in the Legislature to choose either their government job or being a legislator. After all, as the old saying goes, a dog can’t serve two masters.

Indeed, state Sen. Ben Kieckhefer (R-Reno) quit his government job at the Department of Health and Human Services after being elected in 2010. And on Thursday, Sen. Kieckhefer tweeted: “I left my job with DHHS the day after I was elected specifically to preserve separation of powers. It’s important.”

Senator Kieckhefer, I agree.

All told, about 20 percent of state legislators are government employees. Only two of them, however, are Republicans like Kieckhefer. And one of them is moderate Assemblyman Scott Hammond…who Kieckhefer has endorsed over conservative non-state worker Assemblyman Richard McArthur in the SD-18 race next year.

For Sen. Kieckhefer to be consistent, he needs to publicly call for Hammond to do exactly what Kieckhefer himself did; resign his government job if he wishes to continue serving in the Legislature. After all, it’s the only way to preserve that separation of powers, right? And it’s important, right? Senator?

On another note, I have heard that this practice of ignoring the Nevada Constitution has been allowed as the Constitution also states that it is up to the Legislature itself to decide who is eligible to serve.

Isn’t this a case of the fox guarding the hen house? Can we really expect our State Legislators to be the ones who decide who is eligible?

Although the Nevada Constitution does state that the Legislators decide the eligibility of its’ members to serve, the Legislature cannot violate the Nevada Constitution in making their decision.

The Nevada Legislators do have a guideline in making the decision on whether or not one, or more, of its’ members are aligible. It is Art. 3 Sec 1, the Separation of Powers Clause.

In other words, just because we have the foxes guarging the hen house, they cannot ignore (violate) other parts of the Nevada Copnstitution. If we had elected officials who actually followed their Oath of Office, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

The Separation of Powers Clause is clear when it states “…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…” (emphasis mine)

Yes, “any function” means that even a janitor must quit his job if he/she wishes to serve as a member of the Legislature.

The Nevada Constitution is clear. If a public employee wishes to serve in the Nevada Legislature, they MUST quit their public employee job.

To Assemblyman Scott Hammond, and all the other Public Employee/Legislators, you have two choices. Either quit your public employee job, immediately, or resign your position as State Legislator.