Bring out your stories

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.


Bring out your stories

As the old adage goes, “If you want less of something, tax it.”

Unfortunately for you, me and every business and employee in Nevada, the teachers union is seeking to reduce economic growth at one of the worst possible times — when tens of thousands of Nevadans are underemployed or unemployed and struggling to support their families.

The union’s latest effort is the margin-tax proposal, and if you’ve followed NPRI’s work over the last three years, you know the deceptively billed “Education Initiative” is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to exploit the children of Nevada to further pad the government’s bank account.

The margin tax would impose a 2 percent tax on every business bringing in more than $1 million in annual revenue. That’s less than $2,740 in sales — not profit — a day.

Nevada’s margin-tax proposal is modeled after the margin tax in Texas. After Texas imposed a margin tax in 2007, roughly 20 percent of small businesses reported that they had to lay off employees, and another one-third reported they left jobs unfilled because of the margin tax.

And 3 percent of small-business owners in Texas decided to close their doors completely as a result of their increased tax burden under the margin tax.

These aren’t just numbers; they represent the lives of tens of thousands of individuals who lost their jobs because of the margin tax.

And do you know what’s amazing?

The margin-tax rate in Texas is only 1 percent — and just half a percent for retailers.

Nevada’s tax would be two to four times as high!

So take the job-loss numbers you read above, and be prepared to multiple them by two or four times, to see what the likely impact would be if the margin tax passes here in Nevada.

Over the past few months, I’ve spoken to numerous people in the business community and plenty of others who are trying to get up to speed on this haphazardly drafted initiative. The consensus among them is that the margin tax would be a disaster for them personally, as well as for their competitors and the economy in general if it were to pass.

While numbers like those I’ve shared above are important — and we’ve produced plenty more in our extensive analysis on the margin tax — they aren’t enough.

We need to be able to share the stories, the lives and the faces those numbers represent.

Unfortunately, it’s not easy for a business owner to decide to share, publicly, how much the margin tax would hurt his or her business. Many of those I’ve talked with don’t want to scare their employees or their spouses.

I understand that.

But in order to fully inform the public about what this tax would do, NPRI needs to be able to share its human cost, too. Voters need to know about the mom-and-pop diner owners who will be put out of business, or the single mom who will be laid off.

So I’d like to ask you a favor. If you’re a business owner, would you be willing to let NPRI tell your story, and the story of what the tax would do to your business?

We’d respect whatever level of privacy or anonymity you felt you needed, and you’d be doing a great service to the state and helping to save your employees from the negative consequences of the margin tax.

Stories matter. Will you let us share yours?

Until next time,

Andy Matthews
NPRI President


Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.

 

State and local government spending on health insurance grew by twice the national rate for 2012

One of the more alarming data points I have come across while compiling the necessary records for the Transparent California website has been the large sums of money spent on health insurance for public employees. As our site groups together the cost of pension payouts and health insurance in order to present the information in a uniform and understandable manner, the cost of individual health plans was not something we were particularly focusing on.

However, in the course of formatting and uploading the necessary records to TransparentCalifornia.com, several agencies jumped out at me due to their alarmingly expensive health insurance plans. First, it was the $20k+ plans in Corte Madera, Calif. and the Contra Costa Community College District. Then I saw the $30k+ plans in Beverly Hills. Finally, I came across what remains the most expensive plan I have seen to date — a $37,815 health insurance plan for the Water Superintendent of Sierra Madre, Calif.

I suspected this was not a problem isolated to the handful of agencies whose numbers happened to catch my attention but, rather, indicative of a systemic problem likely to be found in many other public agencies. This sets up a situation where taxpayers are effectively taxed twice for these plans — initially, to fund the public employee’s compensation itself and, again, when they find themselves paying an artificially inflated premium for their own health insurance.

Pew Research confirms these suspicions. In 2012, state and local government spending on health care increased by 8 percent; double the amount total U.S. healthcare spending grew during that same time period. The larger trend is terrifying — state and local government spending on health insurance premiums has increased an inflation-adjusted 444% from 1987 to 2012. The agencies above are merely symptoms of a much larger problem.

The farther the distance between consumer and provider, the less reason either has to economize, which is a factor in the out-of-control prices we see nationwide in the health-care sector. When a government is willing to spend $37,815 of your money on one health plan, what financial incentive does an insurance company or anyone in the medical system have to work on lowering prices?

While there are a plethora of factors responsible for the current health-care crisis in this country, the third-party-payer system, especially when that third party is using other people’s money, like a government agency does, is one of the core issues that demands immediate attention.

 

Scholarship

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.


Scholarship

When you work in the think-tank world, where days are consumed with analyzing policy, keeping tabs on the government and promoting transparency, encounters with 16, 17 and 18 year olds can be rare.

It’s not that we don’t want teens to spend their Friday and Saturday nights reading about outrageous and out-of-control government spending in our Piglet Book, or about our efforts to combat the state’s disregard for its own constitution, or our solutions to Nevada’s economic and educational challenges. We know those things are of value to everyone, whether they be 18 or 80.

But the reality is that high school seniors, particularly this time of year, have a lot of other things to worry about — like getting into college and finding a way to pay for it. For the past three years, we’ve been fortunate enough to help make the latter task a little easier for students in Clark County by offering The Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship.

Long-time NPRI member Swadeep Nigam graciously funds the scholarship in honor of his father, Professor R.S. Nigam, who was a director of the Delhi School of Economics at the University of Delhi, a visiting professor at the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a senior fellow at the University of Wisconsin. Like us, the Nigams understand the benefits of free markets, and they want to not only educate young adults about those benefits, but also to encourage them to begin formulating their own thoughts on the subject.

This year, we’re offering a $2,500 scholarship to a student who plans to pursue a four-year degree in business, economics, political science, public administration or a related field.

Perhaps more important and impactful than the monetary value of the scholarship is the fact that it encourages the leaders of tomorrow to consider free-market principles at the very time they’re becoming adults and forming their own system of beliefs.

In the past, we’ve asked applicants to write essays on how incorporating free-market principles into the state’s education system would improve student achievement; how the country should reduce the national debt; and how raising taxes impacts the economy and unemployment rate.

This year, we’re asking applicants to consider something more specific and extremely timely: whether the Las Vegas City Council should subsidize a downtown sports arena with public funds, and what doing so would mean for the economy.

The question gets to the heart of an issue we’ve already discussed at length this year and will continue to write about in the future: When the government picks winners and losers in the market, it’s bad for taxpayers, it’s bad for business and it’s bad for the economy.

I don’t want to give away too much on the issue of stadium subsidies, just in case any applicants are reading this (but as a tip, we will have something on that very soon). But the idea of the government controlling economic activity by selectively favoring one business or type of business over another is at the heart of the lawsuit we filed last week against the Governor’s Office of Economic Development regarding its Catalyst Fund.

And as I wrote to you Wednesday, our lawsuit is already making a positive impact. Just two days after our Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation filed the suit in Carson City, Reno Deputy City Attorney Jonathan Shipman asked the Reno City Council to hold off on awarding a $577,500 grant to a company through the Catalyst Fund.

Reno’s pause is a great example of how simply alerting people to the flaws in or unconstitutionality of a policy or law can lead to positive change. My hope is that the youth of today will realize this as they become the adults of tomorrow.

So, if you know any Clark County seniors — whether they be homeschooled or attending private or public school — I hope you’ll encourage them to take some time to consider how detrimental and unjust it is when government involves itself in the market. And I hope you’ll encourage them to apply for the scholarship, which they can do here.

_______________________

Last week I solicited suggestions on places to go during my trip to Oregon this weekend, and I was amazed by how many of you got back to me with ideas. I’m extremely grateful to those of you who took the time to do so — and flattered by how many of you asked if you could join me!

Common suggestions included Cannon Beach, Coos Bay and the Tillamook Cheese Factory, and all three are on my list of spots to check out.

As it turns out, I’ve actually had to postpone my trip. But not to worry — I’ll be heading up there in a few weeks, so all of your advice will be put to good use.

To those who offered your ideas, I want to extend my sincerest gratitude for your thoughtfulness. And as always, thanks for reading, and for your support for NPRI.

Best regards,

Andy Matthews
NPRI President


Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.

 

Results

As I shared with you last week, NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Nevada Catalyst Fund’s use of taxpayer dollars to pick winners and losers in the economy. These subsidies are unconstitutional and, as the examples of Solyndra, Abound Solar and others make clear, an economic loser for taxpayers.

Well, I’m proud to tell you that our lawsuit against the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, which administers the Catalyst Fund, has already made a difference.

Today, the Reno Gazette-Journal reports that, in direct response to our lawsuit, Reno Deputy City Attorney Jonathan Shipman has asked the city council to pull consideration of a Catalyst Fund subsidy from today’s meeting agenda.

From the RGJ story:

“Now that the NPRI case has been filed, we want to circle back with GOED to make sure we are on the same page about how the money flows and whether the money flows,” Shipman said. “We want to make sure we are not writing checks we can't cash.”

Your support is helping us score an important victory for the rule of law and for the tens of thousands of entrepreneurs who have built businesses through their own hard work — not through taxpayer handouts.
Thank you so much for standing with us in this fight. And if you’d like to help us keep it going, I hope you’ll consider donating to this effort today by clicking here.

In the meantime, we’ll continue working to win victories for the cause of accountable, constitutional government here in our Silver State.

Warmest regards,

Andy Matthews
NPRI President

 

California bureaucrats: avoiding transparency or wastefully incompetent?

Being both an environmentalist and an advocate for government transparency was doubly painful last week. It is quite common for public agencies to stall or attempt to deny public records requests, but some methods are just too bizarre to believe. Two separate California school districts – Duarte Unified School District and Hacienda La Puente Unified School District – decided that instead of providing the requested records in electronic format as requested, they would print out their entire payroll records and mail them, along with an invoice for the cost of production.

California’s Public Records Act makes perfectly clear in § 6253.9(a) that public records are to be provided in their original, electronic format when requested, and I stressed this in the records requests to the school districts. Yet, not only did both agencies feel comfortable defying this part of state law, they thought nothing of wasting the resources associated with mailing a massive print out without even pausing to confirm that I would pay the associated costs of production!

There are two possible ways to view this. The first is that this is an elaborate, wasteful method of denying my public records act request ­in which I stress the importance of electronic format so that, “these records can be uploaded into an online database for easy viewing” by attempting to technically satisfy the request while obstructing its purpose.

The second is that both agencies failed to read the request properly and thought nothing of employing the most environmentally harmful, inefficient, and costly way possible to satisfy this request, all without ever stopping to confirm this assumption with the requestor.

Quite frankly, I’m not sure which one is worse!

Stalling tactics are annoying and wasteful, but I’ve faced worse than this and most agencies — eventually — comply with the law. Just not before wasting their time (and mine) with games like this.

In the meantime, I encourage you to visit www.transparentcalifornia.com to see the 3 million-plus records we have obtained so far, many from agencies that are dedicated to helping, not stalling, public records requests.

And for those inquiring about the inclusion of school districts, do not let these two examples discourage you; we will be adding school districts to the site later this year.

 

Suing GOED

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.


Suing GOED

This was a big week for NPRI.

On Wednesday, our Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation challenged the constitutionality of the state government’s efforts to pick winners and losers in the economy through the Catalyst Fund.

Most of the media coverage since we filed the case — and there’s been plenty of it over the past two days — has rightly focused on the relevant legal issue: The Nevada Constitution expressly prohibits the state from giving money to private companies, and that is what the Governor’s Office of Economic Development is doing through the Catalyst Fund.

Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, addresses members of the media this week about NPRI’s lawsuit against the Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

That constitutional issue is at the heart of this lawsuit, along with the basic unjustness of making a business subsidize its competition, and I urge you to read Joseph Becker’s detailed explanation of those issues here.

But today, I’d like to discuss another angle to this story, and to dive into the economic problems inherent to the Catalyst Fund’s existence.

Supporters of the Catalyst Fund have promoted it as a needed tool for “economic development.” They tell us that the $10 million account will draw new businesses, jobs and revenue into the state; that Nevada has to compete with other states for companies; and that politicians need this tool to create jobs.

Why is NPRI, a free-market think tank, against something that helps businesses?

Well, I’m glad you asked, because there is an essential distinction to make here. NPRI is pro-market, not pro-business.

In a free market, there will be some very large businesses that thrive by doing an excellent job of meeting the needs of their customers. We’re big fans of those businesses. And in the free market, there will be some small businesses that thrive by doing an excellent job of meeting the needs of their customers. We’re big fans of those businesses, too.

But we don’t applaud those businesses because of their size, the number of jobs they create or even how much they pay in taxes. We applaud them because they create value for their customers through mutually beneficial and free exchanges. Businesses aren’t ends in themselves, but a means individuals use to reach their goals.

Consumers — that’s you and me — are winners in this system. We get products that are of a higher quality, have more features and are often cheaper.

And in a free market, businesses face constant competition from other businesses who think they can earn money by doing a better job of pleasing those customers. It’s exhausting work staying in business and making a profit!

Some businesses, however, want to take a shortcut to profits, so they seek special privileges from the government to protect or guarentee their success.

These privileges — which could include monopoly status, selective regulatory breaks, bailouts, loan guarantees or, yes, subsidies from Nevada’s Catalyst Fund — are often called “pro-business” policies. But they are really just ways for certain businesses to benefit at the expense of others.

What’s amazing is that history shows that government support does not guarantee a business will thrive or even that it will survive. Just look at Solyndra, Abound Solar, Fiskar and ThromboVision. Despite hundreds of millions in taxpayer handouts, they still couldn’t make it.

So how many of the companies that will receive Catalyst Fund subsidies will end up going bankrupt despite taxpayer handouts?

Through our lawsuit, we’re working to make sure we never have to find out.

_______________________

By the way, I’ll be spending some time next weekend up in Oregon, first in Portland and then driving along the coast. If any of you know the area well and have some favorite spots you’d recommend (restaurants, scenic places, historic sites, etc.), I hope you’ll send those suggestions along. You can reach me at am@npri.org. Any ideas would be much appreciated!

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.

 

Roses are red

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.


Roses are red

In case you didn’t notice — and if you didn’t, you’re probably in trouble — today is Valentine’s Day.

And while the team here nixed my idea of raffling off dates with single staff members, I wanted to make sure NPRI gave you a Valentine’s Day present. And since we’re the generous sort, we decided to give it to the whole state and to provide it a day early.

Yes, I’m referring to our release yesterday of Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System payouts, searchable by name, at TransparentNevada.

Now, while access to more than 49,000 pension records may not seem as fitting for February 14th as hearts and teddy bears, here’s how the PERS information now available at TransparentNevada reminds me of some familiar things associated with Valentine’s Day.

Candy Hearts

We all love those little candy hearts with the cute sayings, but the one most applicable here is the one that says: “I’ll tell.” You have a right to this information, and we’re telling the world.

Chocolate

Chocolate may melt in your mouth, but finding out from TransparentNevada that over 1,000 retirees are on track to make more than $100,000 in retirement payouts will make you want to melt your face off to relieve the anger. Or eat more chocolate to relieve the stress of knowing that, until the law changes, taxpayers are backstopping these pensions.

Diamonds

One of the four “C”s you consider when looking for a diamond is clarity, and that’s what you’ll find at TransparentNevada. No longer do citizens have to rely on second-hand information about government-employee retirement packages. You can see clearly now.

Poems

Roses are red
Violets are blue
TransparentNevada
is our gift to you.

By the way, it’s fine if you spend today pouring that special someone a glass of wine, instead of poring over these records. We’ll be here Monday.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Andy Matthews
NPRI President


Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.

 

Incentives

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.


Incentives

It seems with every passing week, another shoe drops in the mess that is Obamacare.

This week, it was the job-killing shoe that fell.

The news came from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which issued a devastating report detailing how the Affordable Care Act will encourage some 2.3 million full-time workers to leave the workforce or reduce their hours by 2021. That’s nearly three times the 800,000 jobs the CBO originally projected would be lost.

In the words of CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, “The act creates a disincentive for people to work.”

The problem lies in the fact that Obamacare subsidizes those at the low end of the income scale by imposing exorbitant premiums and deductibles on higher-income earners. The CBO predicts the (Un)Affordable Care Act will encourage able-bodied people to leave their full-time jobs as a means to lower their premiums and qualify for government subsidies or Medicaid. Others may leave their jobs because Obamacare enables them to live more comfortably on the public dole than off it.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that, when one of the major benefits of employment is removed, the drive to work is weakened for some.

Rather than admit that the law harms individuals, families and the economy, liberals instead have flocked to microphones to spin this news. Showing the same respect for the truth they did in promoting the company line — or lie — that “If you like your plan, you can keep it,” Obamacare supporters have spent the week claiming that the loss of 2.3 million jobs is a good thing. You see, it’s about freeing people from “job lock.”

“Job lock” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid’s spokesman, Adam Jentleson — “is when people feel they have to stay in a job for the health benefits.”

In other words, “job lock” is the encouragement to continue working that comes through perks of employment. By the left’s logic, the government may want to consider shelling out vacation accruals and annual bonuses to the whole country to prevent people from feeling too tied to their jobs. Better yet, let’s just give everyone a paycheck every other week so they’re free to do whatever they want, which seems to be the reasoning of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Those ideas are absurd, of course, but one gets the sense that they wouldn’t sound that way to Sen. Reid. In response to the news that millions are gearing up to leave the workforce, Reid said: “The CBO report is far better for us than it is not.”

If your goal is to expand government’s reach and people’s reliance upon it, I suppose you would be happy with this news; as the number of unemployed Americans grows, so too does the perceived need for government handouts.

This latest revelation about Obamacare reinforces the fact that when government overreaches, the negative effects go beyond the economic. The drive to work hard and succeed — long one of the essential traits of the American character — is weakened as well. And that may be the most regrettable casualty of all.

____

Earlier this week, I shared with you NPRI’s latest project, Transparent California. This website, located at TransparentCalifornia.com, allows users to easily search the compensation levels of public employees just like they can at TransparentNevada.com. The new site launched on Tuesday and has been a great success in its first few days. At some point this morning, the site garnered its 500,000th page view, and it has earned over 40 media hits.

I’ll keep you posted on the continuing good news that’s sure to come from expanding transparency to Californians, including the benefits to us right here in Nevada as well.

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.

 

Exporting transparency

Exporting transparency

Promoting transparency in government has long been at the core of NPRI’s efforts.

Not only do we citizens have a right to know how our government operates and how it spends our money, but that information is essential to making wise judgments in public policy.

That was our thinking behind launching TransparentNevada six years ago: Let the public see how government is spending money and how much public employees are making, and trust that once they knew the facts, citizens would demand better policies

Even though I was there when we launched the site, I never could have predicted how TransparentNevada would transform the debate on public-employee compensation in Nevada. From exposing overtime abuses in the Clark County fire department, to being a resource used by elected officials and media members across the state, to hearing union officials cite TransparentNevada as proof that school administrators are overpaid, TransparentNevada has changed the public’s perception of government-employee compensation.

Last year, TransparentNevada earned more than 1.98 million page views. That’s pretty amazing for a site with no paid advertising in a state of just 2.7 million residents.

This stunning success got us thinking about other states that could benefit from a similar website. And there’s no state more in need of increased public understanding of the problems of big government than our neighbor to the west.

I am pleased to let you know that today, NPRI — working with the California Public Policy Center, a California-based free-market think tank — has launched TransparentCalifornia.

TrasparentCalifornia.com enables users to search the compensation data of public employees in California just like they can on TransparentNevada — by name, job title and jurisdiction.

We already have more than 2.2 million salary records on the site, including information from cities, counties, public universities and the State of California. Additionally, the site makes public more than 1 million pension records, including records from CalPERS and CalSTRS.

Just like in Nevada, high salaries and pensions abound in California. Thanks to this new website, the public can now see that, in 2012, more than 1,000 former government workers took home more than $200,000 each in pension payouts. One, a retired public defender from Alameda County, collected a total pension payout of $527,255.

The site also brings extravagant salaries to light. There’s the lifeguard who made over $299,000 in L.A. County, the firefighter who took home over $428,000 in the town of Torrance, and the administrative secretary who received over $172,000 in Palm Desert

I don’t know if I should be encouraged or discouraged to see that inflated compensation for government employees isn’t limited just to Nevada.

Exposing runaway government spending in California is important, not just to Golden Staters, but to citizens all across the country — including those of us right here in Nevada. More than any other state, California has been a public-policy trend-setter, and so many policy ideas that have originated there have spread into Nevada and other states. Given the massive fiscal problems facing California today, it’s crucial that Californians understand the dangers posed by out-of-control government and stop spreading it across the country — and into Nevada.

But there’s something I want to make very clear to you. Much to the chagrin of public-sector unions here in Nevada, the launch of TransparentCalifornia doesn’t mean we’ll be any less committed to fostering greater transparency here in our state. Far from it.

In fact, even as you read this, our team is currently working to put Nevada PERS payments online at TransparentNevada, and we’ll be unveiling that information in the coming weeks.

I want to thank you for your continued investment in and support for NPRI. It’s not just paying dividends here in Nevada, but in our largest neighboring state as well. And if you have friends or family in California, send them to TransparentCalifornia.com. I promise they’ll be shocked at what they find out.

Sincerely,

Andy Matthews
NPRI President


Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here.

 

 

Formulas

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.


Formulas

This week, the Nevada Department of Education gave itself a big pat on the back as it released Nevada’s 2013 graduation rates.

Taken at face value, the self-praise might seem deserved — the state’s graduation rate jumped from 63 percent in 2012 to just over 70 percent in 2013.

But a closer look reveals that the state’s education officials have merely improved their own accounting skills and done little to advance student success. Prior to 2012, Nevada school districts counted students who transferred out of a district as dropouts. Now, students who move during high school are removed entirely from the graduation equation, thereby upping the perceived performance of state schools.

Even with the modest gains in the number of graduates last year, Nevada still lags behind the national average, and our children are paying the price.

No matter how you want to count graduates, we can all agree that Nevada’s schools are broken and that there’s plenty of room for improvement. While the Nevada Department of Education was busy adjusting its formula to make its failing schools look a little better, we at NPRI have been highlighting real solutions — those that actually increase the number of students graduating, not just improve our ability to count them.

This week, NPRI hosted two of the more than 5,500 events that took place across the United States in celebration of National School Choice Week. In Reno and Las Vegas, we screened a new documentary titled “The Ticket.” Directed by Bob Bowden, the film explores the different types of school choice that have been allowed in other states and the achievement that results when states stop protecting the education monopoly.



Bob Bowdon, maker of "The Ticket: The Many Faces of School Choice," responds to a question from KNXT's Kevin Wall.

One of the many successes championed in “The Ticket” is Saint Martin de Porres High School in Cleveland, a private school that low-income students can afford to attend thanks to school vouchers, or Opportunity Scholarships. While the Cleveland Metropolitan School District has a graduation rate of roughly 54 percent, Saint Martin graduates 97 percent of its students. If a near-perfect graduation rate isn’t impressive enough, 100 percent of those graduates are accepted into college.

School choice is a unifying concept and has a long history of drawing support from both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, it’s often stopped by teacher unions who don’t want their education monopoly threatened by competition.

Twenty-one states and Washington, D.C., have implemented school choice, and it’s time for Nevada’s students to share in its benefits.

Fixing accounting errors is a fine thing, but the way to genuinely increase the number of students who graduate is to empower parents with more options regarding how and where their children are educated.

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.

 

Total Records: 1814

« previous 10 next 10 »