Video: Government unions and the bankrupting of America
This video does a great job explaining how government unions are bankrupting America and many states. Enjoy.
Read morePop-culture conservatism
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Pop-culture conservatism
I’ve been writing this Week in Review column for about a year and a half now, and ordinarily, the topics I cover in this space deal with some pretty heavy stuff.
But every now and then, it’s nice to step back and examine the political/policy world from a slightly lighter perspective.
One of the most consistent complaints I hear from conservatives and libertarians is that nearly everything associated with popular culture comes with a leftist bent. Whether we’re listening to music, taking our kids to the movies or simply trying to enjoy a weeknight sitcom, it seems we’re constantly bombarded with liberal talking points and other assaults on our ideological sensibilities. Most annoyingly, this happens quite often even when the song/movie/show has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.
Fortunately, however, there are some exceptions — some pop-culture offerings that either express a conservative message or, at the very least, direct criticism at liberal assumptions. I thought it would be fun this week to share a few favorite examples of mine. Since I’m woefully out of touch with current pop culture (especially for someone who’s only 34), most of my examples will be pretty dated. But since this list is hardly official, I hope you’ll give me a pass.
When we think of examples of conservative music, most people’s minds probably fixate on the country genre — and understandably so. But even though rock music (my personal favorite) has generally leaned leftward, there are a number of great exceptions from some of the most influential artists in rock-music history.
Some of my own favorites include The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” and The Beatles’ “Revolution,” both of which serve as stinging rebukes of the revolutionary Left. Others that make my list are The Kinks’ “20th Century Man,” John Mellencamp’s “Small Town” and Cheap Trick’s “Taxman, Mr. Thief.” The Canadian band Rush has produced several songs that convey an unmistakable libertarian message, while Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2” could easily serve as the anthem for the modern-day school-choice movement.
And the Ten Years After classic “I’d Love to Change the World” contains one of my favorite lyrical offerings of all time: Tax the rich, feed the poor, ‘til there are no rich no more. I have no idea whether it was the band’s intent, but it’s difficult to imagine a more brilliant encapsulation of the lost-on-liberals irony of redistributionist schemes.
The film industry, of course, is known to most conservatives as a wellspring of liberal propaganda. And it’s hard to argue with that view. Still, for those right-leaning moviegoers looking for something more politically palatable, there are some excellent options.
At the top of my list are all of the “Rocky” movies, as well as nearly anything featuring Clint Eastwood (the “Dirty Harry” films and, more recently, “Gran Torino” are particular favorites). Other great movies that convey at least partially conservative messages include “Groundhog Day” and “Forrest Gump,” and the Pixar film “The Incredibles” has become a well-established favorite among righties. Throw in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy and you’ve got a pretty well-rounded list to get you started.
The TV category is much harder for me to address, mostly because, other than the news, I don’t watch much TV. But growing up in the 1980s, I was a huge fan of the show “Family Ties,” which starred Michael J. Fox as Alex P. Keaton, a conservative teenager who was always at odds with — and more grown-up than — his nostalgically hippy parents. More recent shows that have been popular among particular subparts of the conservative population include “24,” “Dog the Bounty Hunter” and “South Park.”
Of course, these lists are hardly exhaustive — which brings me to this week’s request of you. Please email me with some of your own favorite examples of pop-culture conservatism, and I’ll be sure to share the most popular entries in next week’s column. And if you’ve got examples from the present day, that’s even better. You’ll be helping me get up to speed.
In the meantime, thanks for reading, and have a great weekend!
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Legislative mandates increase average family's power bill by $236 a year; Updated
NV Energy's plan to raise power rates, called "NVision," has received a lot of attention, but the Legislature doesn't need to pass any new laws to increase the cost of your electricity. The laws it's already passed are doing that just fine.
The Public Utilities Commission recently did an analysis of power rates and found that legislative mandates cost the average family $19.71 a month in Southern Nevada and $15.01 a month in Northern Nevada.
What would your family do with an extra $236 a year?
Here's what the acronyms stand for.
- RPS: Renewable Portfolio Standard
- DSM: Demand Side Management (energy efficiency programs done to comply in part with Nevada's RPS)
- TRED: Temporary Renewable Development Charge ("temporary" charge of 20 years which benefits a solar project in case of utility financial difficulties)
- UEC: Universal Energy Charge (subsidy used to assist low-income folks)
- Franchise fees are charged by local governments.
As the charts make clear, Nevada's Renewable Portfolio Standard is driving up your rates substantially. Why? Because "renewable" energy is up to four times more expensive than natural gas and coal.
And with NV Energy required to obtain 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025, the costs to your family are only going to increase.
But some legislators aren't satisfied with those rate increases and want to force Nevada's families to pay even more by increasing Nevada's RPS to 35 percent by 2025.
Good grief. Another way government takes away money (and hence opportunities) away from your family.
Update: Thomas Mitchell with 4th St8 emails with more info:
The RPS cost for 2012 is really a carry over of the number from 2011. It should be higher when FERC releases Form No. 1 this month for both Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific. I have looked high and low for any Form No. 1 from FERC and have yet to find one.
More bad news for ratepayers.
Amazing: Segerblom says $3 billion tax increase would be ‘meaningless’ for average individual
Are you concerned about rising gas prices? Sen. Tick Segerblom doesn't appear to be — in fact, he wants to substantially increase Nevada's gas tax. And he thinks that tax increase would be "meaningless" for the average consumer.
Meaningless? Does he know any average or poor consumers?
The Las Vegas Democrat (Segerblom) said the timetable (for Project Neon) can be cut in half if his Senate Bill 377 becomes law. The bill would impose a 2 cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase per year for 10 years. The tax, now 52.2 cents per gallon, would rise to 72.2 cents by the end of the decade. ...
Segerblom said the new tax was “meaningless” for the average consumer and would bring in $3 billion over 10 years.
Segerblom doesn't just want to increase the gas tax by 2 cents a gallon. He wants to increase the gas tax by 2 cents per gallon each year for 10 years, a 20-cent increase in total.
Let's say your family has two vehicles that get 30 MPG and you drive a combined 24,000 miles a year. You would pay an additional $160 in gas taxes in 2023 under Segerblom's bill.
If you're poor and can't afford a car with better gas mileage or have a long commute to work, you'd likely pay more.
We already know that higher gas prices have forced consumers to cut back on groceries and vacations. But don't worry, average citizen, Segerblom says tradeoffs like that are "meaningless."
Hungry kids because you had to cut back on groceries? "Meaningless," implies Segerblom.
Can't afford the entry fees to Red Rock Canyon for a family outing? "Meaningless," implies Segerblom.
Lose your home to foreclosure because this tax increase is the straw that breaks your financial back? "Meaningless," implies Segerblom.
The problem with tax-loving liberals like Segerblom is that they only see what is obvious on the surface and ignore the "unseen" impacts their policies have.
Segerblom can see Project Neon. There will be news reports, temporary construction jobs and a permanent structure.
There would be no news reports on kids going hungry because of this tax increase. There are no statistics on family outings that don't occur because of high taxes. There's no way to measure the families that would lose their homes to foreclosure because this tax increase would be the straw that breaks their financial back.
These are the consequences that are unseen by Segerblom, but these are also the consequences that are felt, known and struggled with by the "average" consumer.
Nevada: Not so free
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Nevada: Not so free
One of my favorite things about being the president of NPRI is that I’m often invited to speak to different organizations around the state and share the Institute’s perspective on the current debates over public policy.
My speeches cover various topics, depending on the host organization, but there’s one subject in particular that has become a staple of just about all of my presentations. That subject is the many myths about Nevada governance that have been allowed to persist for far too long — and the way those myths distort the policy discussion.
Three myths in particular have been on my mind a lot lately in light of a new analysis released by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Those myths are that Nevada is 1) a low-tax state, 2) a small-government state and 3) a business-friendly state. We at NPRI have worked hard to correct the record on each of these fronts, and the new Mercatus report is further confirmation of what we’ve been proclaiming.
The report, titled Freedom in the 50 States, ranked all the states based on the level of freedom they offer in several areas, including economic freedom, personal freedom, tax burden, property rights and so on.
Overall, Nevada comes in 20th in terms of the amount of freedom it affords its citizens. That doesn’t sound too terrible, but a closer look at the report’s various categories is illuminating.
There were a number of categories where Nevada ranked high on the freedom chart: personal freedom (No. 2), gambling (No. 1) and gun control (No. 8), to name a few. We also scored high in the “bachelor party” category (No. 3) and in “alcohol” (No. 6).
But in a number of crucial categories — crucial particularly in light of the economic woes that continue to plague our state — Nevada scored near-average, or even quite poorly, on the freedom scale.
Those categories include economic freedom, where Nevada ranked 29th. And fiscal policy, where the Silver State came in 33rd. Then there’s the “tax burden” category, where we came in a lackluster 35th, and the “regulatory” category, where we were a slightly better 20th. And in most of these categories, Nevada has trended significantly downward in the last 10 years.
Most depressing of all, however, were two categories that really jumped out at me: educational freedom, where Nevada ranked a dismal 49th, and occupational licensing, where we were dead last at 50th. (The occupational-licensing score in particular reinforces a lot of the findings from NPRI’s recent policy study, The Path to Sustainable Prosperity.)
In other words, the only reason Nevada scores as high as it does overall is because of its libertarian leanings in the categories that are largely outside of the economic realm. In the categories most related to economic and fiscal issues — which, again, are especially crucial these days considering Nevada’s ongoing problems in those areas — the Silver State does much worse on the freedom front.
In addition, it’s worth noting that Nevada’s No. 20 overall ranking represents a seven-spot drop from the Mercatus Center’s report in 2009. And we’ve seen significant drops in the economic freedom (six spots), fiscal freedom (16 spots) and tax burden (10 spots) categories since that time, too.
These drops in Nevada’s scores are worth some serious reflection. Indeed, I make a point in my speeches to stress that in terms of its commitment to freedom-friendly policies, Nevada not only performs weakly but has been trending in the wrong direction. Why is this so important? Because it’s crucial to recognize that Nevada’s economic and fiscal health have deteriorated at the same time the state has drifted away from policies that prioritize liberty and toward those that involve bigger government.
The lesson here is this: As freedom recedes, so, too, does prosperity. The next time you hear a liberal argue that the reason behind all of Nevada’s problems is that our government is too small, our taxes are too low and our business owners are allowed to run amok, you should direct them to this new, powerful evidence to the contrary.
The truth is getting harder and harder to deny: The more liberals — of either party — have had their way, the worse off Nevadans have been.
Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next time.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Sandoval raising taxes to increase government employees' pay, funding for full-day K
In March 2012, Gov. Brian Sandoval announced that he supported raising taxes by extending the "temporary" sunset taxes. In a statement released by his office, he said:
In order to avoid cuts to education and other essential services, revenues from the sunset taxes will need to be continued.
Let's leave aside the fact that the best reforms, like the ones repeatedly highlighted by NPRI, save money while increasing results, especially in education. Has Sandoval supported raising taxes solely in order to avoid "cuts"?
Nope. Not by a long shot. Instead, he originally proposed spending tens of millions of dollars more on pre-K and full-day kindergarten programs that produce only minimal and temporary learning gains.
Fast forward to this week, when Gov. Sandoval is playing Santa Claus — tens of millions more to wasteful government programs and special-interest groups, financed by raising your taxes.
Gov. Brian Sandoval announced Monday that he wants to spend $25 million more than he previously proposed on K-12 education in the next biennium.
The funding will be directed to programs to help English language learners and to expand all-day kindergarten. It will bring the total new commitment to the two priorities in Sandoval’s recommended budget to nearly $60 million.
Sandoval also wants to increase state worker take-home pay.
State employees will no longer have to take unpaid furlough days, starting in July 2014, Gov. Brian Sandoval said.
The governor’s original budget provided for decreasing furlough days from six to three per year for the next two years.
Now, Sandoval’s $12 million plan calls for three furlough days between July 1 and June 30, 2014, and no furlough days between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015.
Funneling more money to wasteful education programs? Increasing the pay received by state workers?
Gov. Sandoval is raising taxes to increase government spending, not just to avoid cuts.
Unions want to prevail over taxpayers
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Unions want to prevail over taxpayers
Political power often translates into taxpayer-funded handouts to special-interest groups, but rarely is that dynamic seen so clearly as at the Legislature this last Wednesday, when Nevada’s labor unions held a small rally protesting a bill proposal by Assemblyman Cresent Hardy.
Hardy’s bill, which had a committee hearing Wednesday, would raise the threshold for when government construction projects must pay prevailing-wage rates from $100,000 to $1.5 million.
The prevailing wage is supposed to approximate the wages that “prevail” in the marketplace, but state regulations ensure that the vast majority of these wage rates are set at union rates — which are substantially higher than market rates.
So when a government entity in Nevada seeks a bid for a construction project worth more than $100,000, it doesn’t pursue the best deal. It requires that the winning contractor pay its employees at the “prevailing” wage rate — even though this substantially increases the cost to taxpayers. A study by NPRI’s deputy policy director, Geoffrey Lawrence, estimated that this requirement cost taxpayers almost $1 billion in 2009 and 2010. That’s a billion dollars less for building schools and roads or that could have been returned to taxpayers.
So if taxpayers lose, who wins? Labor unions — one of the most powerful special-interest groups in Carson City.
Requiring higher wages makes higher-priced union labor competitive. How high-priced is this labor? Consider these “prevailing” wage rates in Clark County: A flagperson must be paid at least $43.79 an hour in salary and benefits. A painter must make at least $47.58 an hour in total compensation. An alarm installer must make at least $56.87 an hour in total.
Yet these high wage rates didn’t keep labor lobbyist Al Martinez from crying, “When you go below the prevailing wage you can’t survive on that salary.”
Yes, how could anyone survive making less than $40 an hour, which is over $80,000 a year, in pay and benefits?
The whole thing reminds me of something Frederic Bastiat wrote in his classic book, The Law.
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
Bastiat wrote those words more than 150 years ago, but his recommendations couldn’t be more spot-on today. The Legislature should abolish Nevada’s prevailing-wage law without delay and ignore the sophistry spouted by vested union interests.
In other news, yesterday NPRI filed a public-records lawsuit against the Clark County School District. All the details are here, and we’ve already received a bunch of positive feedback. It appears we’re not the only ones excited to have the ability to try to compel CCSD to follow the law, instead of just asking nicely.
What are your thoughts on the prevailing wage or on NPRI’s lawsuit? Please let me know.
Finally, if you celebrate Easter, I hope it’s a blessed one.
Take care,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Liberals to taxpayers: Please ignore your lying eyes
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Liberals to taxpayers: Please ignore your lying eyes
Any time you shine a light on the practices of government, you’re bound to hit a nerve. That was certainly the case with my recent commentary in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which highlighted 2012 employee-compensation data for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, posted recently at TransparentNevada.com.
The commentary drew the ire of liberal RJ columnist Steve Sebelius, who accuses NPRI of, among other wrongs, distorting the data.
Sebelius argues that the compensation levels I referenced in the commentary — including 149 Metro employees who brought in more than $200,000 last year — were misleading, because I supposedly implied that these numbers reflected salaries alone, rather than the total compensation levels (salary plus benefits, overtime, etc.) they actually represented.
It’s a curious charge, inasmuch as I very clearly used the term “total compensation” in the piece. One is tempted to assume that Sebelius simply missed this, except that in his own column, he cites my use of the term “total compensation.” Apparently, to Sebelius, to use the term “total compensation” when one really means “total compensation” is misleading.
Furthermore, there’s a reason why, when it comes to Metro, it’s important to focus on the total compensation figures, rather than just on base salaries — as Sebelius would clearly prefer to do. That’s because department employees receive, in addition to their base pay, compensation in more than a dozen other categories, many of which are nearly unheard of in the private sector. These categories include not only health benefits and overtime pay, but also longevity pay, call-back pay, uniform allowance, shift differential pay, payments for unused vacation and sick days upon retirement, and more.
In fact, when one looks at captains, lieutenants, sergeants and officers as separate classes, the average employee in each enjoys a benefits package worth more than 50 percent of the base pay. And that still doesn’t include multiple other categories of compensation.
So to report only the base pay would fall far short of providing an accurate depiction of what Metro employees actually cost taxpayers. And to present base pay alone as “total compensation” would be highly inaccurate and misleading.
Sebelius is free to argue that these total compensation levels are justifiable. That he chooses not to, but opts instead to pretend that the data (provided to NPRI by Metro itself, by the way) is somehow flawed, suggests that even he recognizes the weakness of such an argument.
In my commentary, I noted that the release of this compensation data comes at a time when Metro is pushing for a sales-tax hike in order to increase the department’s funding, and is issuing ominous warnings that a failure to secure new revenues will threaten public safety.
Again Sebelius takes issue with my point, writing: “And how’s this for irony: NPRI complains about six-figure salaries augmented in many cases by overtime pay. But if we were to pass the quarter-cent sales tax and hire more officers, we wouldn’t need to pay so much overtime.”
The real irony, however, is that Sebelius is advancing this argument when not even Metro itself is pretending the tax hike would be used just to hire more officers. While that was indeed the originally stated justification for the tax increase in 2004, Metro is now seeking “flexibility” in how to spend the money — meaning the new funds will be used to maintain or even increase current employees’ already-exorbitant compensation levels.
Finally, Sebelius finds a contradiction in the fact that NPRI operates a government-transparency website but doesn’t release its own salaries and donors. Surely Sebelius, as a member of the press, grasps the difference between financial information on private entities — funded only by those who willingly choose to do so — and public ones — which we are all forced to fund, whether we like it or not.
And that is exactly why NPRI created TransparentNevada to begin with. Taxpayers deserve to know how and where their money is being spent, and they’re free to visit the site, view the data and decide for themselves whether public funds are being allocated wisely. In the meantime, we at NPRI will keep supplying this crucial information — no matter how many nerves we strike.
Take care,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Where we all should agree
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Where we all should agree
Earlier this week, we at NPRI updated our government-transparency website, TransparentNevada.com, with 2012 salary data for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
The release of this data has generated a lot of media coverage, helping to bring increased public attention to the handsome compensation levels that many Metro employees enjoy. The data shows, for example, that 149 employees took home more than $200,000 in total compensation last year, and that 888 of them brought in more than $150,000.
The timing of this release was appropriate for two reasons. One is that this week, March 10-16, is Sunshine Week, a national effort to raise awareness of the importance of making government more transparent. The other reason is that Metro is currently pushing for a sales-tax increase for the purpose of generating new revenue for the department, and wants “flexibility” in how the additional funds would be spent — meaning the money would be unlikely to go toward the hiring of new officers, the original justification offered by tax-hike proponents.
Most of the responses to the release of this data, and to NPRI’s commentary on it, have reflected outrage — over both the high compensation levels and the claims by Metro brass that the department is underfunded.
Some people, however, have expressed a different view. These folks have argued that Metro employees deserve the salaries they draw and, in fact, should make even more. A few have even directed some unfriendly words toward yours truly for arguing otherwise.
I’ve been asked a few times whether this criticism bothers me. It doesn’t, and here’s why: I’m grateful for the opportunity even to have this debate.
Our chief motivation for launching TransparentNevada back in 2008 was our recognition of the fact that for far too long, government in Nevada had been extremely opaque. This meant that debates over government spending were held largely in the dark, with neither side of the discussion knowing much about what we were already spending, and where. The debates may have been lively, but they were mostly uninformed.
Making information on government financing readily available to the public changes that, and that’s what TransparentNevada does. Whether you believe government is currently spending too much or too little, you now have the ability to base your view not just on ideology, but on fact. It’s a very important shift.
And there’s another reason why government transparency is especially important today. Given all the economic and fiscal challenges Nevada is now facing, it’s more crucial than ever that government operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. Taxpayers of all ideological stripes need to be able to see for themselves how responsibly Silver State politicians are allocating public funds.
Make no mistake: That NPRI falls within the limited-government camp is certainly no secret. And we will continue to be firm in our support for public policies that rein in government spending and empower the private sector to drive economic growth.
But whether you agree or disagree with that position — whether you think we need bigger government or smaller government — I hope you at least share our view that we need open government.
After all, it’s your money. And you deserve to know what your elected officials are doing with it.
Until next time, take care.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.
Super intentions
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them.
Super intentions
So Dwight Jones is out as Clark County School District superintendent, the news breaking this week that he is resigning effective March 22 so that he can care for his ailing mother in Dallas.
I’ve already been asked more times than I can count for my reaction to the news, with most questions focusing on 1) Jones’ performance in his two years on the job, and 2) what his departure will mean for education in Clark County.
It’s difficult to assess where Jones’ performance would rate on the traditional A through F scale. Given the brevity of his tenure, he probably warrants an “Incomplete.”
But I think that to the extent he leaves a legacy, it is this: He came to the job with great intentions, accomplished some modestly positive things, but in the end proved incapable of fully overcoming the structural impediments to meaningful change.
At his best, he was a superintendent who was not afraid to take on the powerful teacher union, who took some positive steps toward greater school and teacher accountability and who made school district practices a bit more transparent; at his worst, one who allowed himself to become part of the chorus clamoring for higher taxes as a means of improving student achievement.
But even with that blemish on his record, it can be said that Jones, much like Gov. Brian Sandoval and state Superintendent of Public Instruction James Guthrie, recognized that spending more money on a structurally flawed system is not the path to improvement. Deep, systemic reforms are in order, and Jones deserves credit for at least nudging the district in that direction. The problem is that monoliths are hard to move.
Which brings us to the future. The monolith must be moved, for the sake of Clark County’s children. Whoever replaces Jones should embrace the reforms of the past two years, and then build upon them. Most important, though, is this: Whether at the state or local level, education policy in Nevada must be guided by an understanding that the way to truly improve student achievement is to empower parents with more control over how and where their children are educated.
It’s far too rare that someone like Dwight Jones, willing to speak hard truths and shake things up, is even given a chance to run a school district. So credit the school-board trustees for making the bold choice to bring him in to begin with. Now let’s hope they’ll have the courage to stay the course.
Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next time.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.