In case you missed it…

Nevada Public Employee Retirement System

Next year, Nevada’s public employees and their employers (we taxpayers) are going to have to pay even higher amounts to cover pension costs. Starting July 1, regular PERS members are going to see an increase in the amount deducted from their paychecks. This is even though PERS investments have outperformed their estimates over the last decade. In other words, despite PERS investments doing better than expected, the system continues to go deeper and deeper into debt — requiring ever-more taxpayer dollars to keep it afloat. Unless the system is reformed soon, this pattern of ever-increasing cost will continue to harm taxpayers and public employees alike. (Read more)

Socialism

Economically, socialism long ago proved to be a disaster. Beyond the fiscal problems, however, socialism also takes a major toll on humanity. Regimes that call themselves socialist have killed more than 100 million people over the last century. Millions were killed in the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea and elsewhere. Even today, millions of people suffer and many are dying because of the violence and political oppression taking place under the socialist regimes in Latin America. As Gloria Alvarez points out, writing for Reason.com, people should understand that under socialism, this kind of violence isn’t an anomaly. In fact, it’s inevitable. (Watch the video)

Free speech

Not that long ago, founders of social-media companies were proud that their platforms allowed everyone to have a voice. Today, however, many of those same social-media pioneers increasingly are calling for and instituting censorship, as they reimagine their platforms as a tool for progressivist change, and not universal free speech. As David French writes at the National Review, “social-media companies face a series of fateful choices. If they choose to be primarily platforms for human expression, they’ll empower many millions of voices that they despise. They’ll facilitate outcomes they may loathe. If, by contrast, they choose to prioritize progressive ideology and progressive outcomes, they’ll limit their reach, their influence, and their wealth. They’ll open themselves up to aggressive competition.” (Read more)

Civil Asset Forfeiture

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that has the potential to substantially strengthen private property rights by curbing the government’s ability to use a questionable law-enforcement practice known as Civil Asset Forfeiture. Under this practice, law enforcement seizes, and even profits from, private property that, to law-enforcement personnel, appears likely to be connected to criminal activity. The case heard by the Supreme Court involved a man, one Tyson Timbs, who had indeed committed a crime. Although that crime was a low-level drug offense, punishable by probation and a fine, police had seized and confiscated Timbs’ vehicle  — raising an important question: What limits, if any, exist on law enforcement’s ability to use civil asset forfeiture?  Justice Stephen Breyer, exploring this issue, asked the government lawyer if police could seize a vehicle for something as petty as going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit. (The government lawyer, defending the practice, responded “yes.”) (Read more)