fbpx
Nevada Policy

Press

Press Releases

NPRI offers $2,500 college scholarship opportunity

For immediate release 
Contact Chantal Lovell, 702-222-0642

LAS VEGAS — The Nevada Policy Research Institute announced today it will again offer a $2,500 scholarship to a graduating Clark County high school student who shows the potential to make a significant contribution to the cause of economic liberty.

This is the fifth year that the Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship is being offered. It is open to all Clark County high school students — whether they attend a public, private, online or home school — who plan to attend college beginning in the fall of 2015.

This year students interested in applying for the scholarship are asked to write a two-page essay on this topic:

Improving education: raise taxes or allow school choice?
Gov. Brian Sandoval has proposed raising taxes by $1.3 billion to increase education funding. Do you support the governor’s plan? Or, do you support improving education by introducing school choice programs — such as opportunity scholarships, online learning, charter schools and education savings accounts — in Nevada?

“The Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship gives up-and-coming thinkers the opportunity to consider free-market solutions to real-world problems,” said Swadeep Nigam, who funds the scholarship program in the name of his father, an advocate of freedom and a professor of business in India and Nevada. “The question of how best to improve education is a question not only faced by districts in Nevada, but across the country. This year’s essay challenges graduates to think outside the box and find real remedies for public problems.”

All applicants must have a grade point average of at least 3.2 and complete an application, which includes the above essay question.

To be eligible, a student’s parents must have earned less than $125,000 in income in 2013, and the student must plan to attend a four-year degree program in business, economics, political science, public administration or a related field, at an accredited college or university.

Professor R.S. Nigam 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, in addition to academic engagements in Europe, the West Indies and Asia, including North Korea.

“This scholarship is a fitting way to honor Professor R.S. Nigam, who was devoted not only to free-market thinking, but education,” NPRI President Andy Matthews said of the professor who taught at UNLV, among other institutions across the globe. “We appreciate the opportunity to help an upcoming Clark County graduate further his or her education and honor Professor Nigam.”

Essays and applications are due to NPRI by May 1, 2015.

Full details of the scholarship and applicant requirements are available at:

http://www.npri.org/docLib/20150305_ScholarshipApplication2015.pdf

###

The Nevada Policy Research Institute  ∙    7130 Placid Street, Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642  ∙  Fax: 702-227-0927  ∙  Web site: www.npri.org

 

Learn More
NPRI unveils new billboard

For immediate release 
Contact Chantal Lovell, 702-222-0642

RENO — The Nevada Policy Research Institute rolled out a new billboard to help lawmakers and citizens understand how they can improve education in Nevada.

The billboard, located in Reno along the I-580 just north of W. Huffaker Lane and visible to northbound commuters — including lawmakers on their way to Reno or the airport — demonstrates why simply spending more on education won’t create better outcomes for students.

In 1983, Nevada spent $53,788 on a classroom of 25 students. In 2011, it spent $219,525 on 25 students, according research from Nevada’s Legislative Counsel Bureau. If the 1983 numbers are adjusted for inflation, Nevada still spent just $121,475 on a classroom of 25 students. Despite the dramatic increase in inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education funding, Nevada students continue to rank among the worst in the nation when it comes to performance.

NPRI’s Executive Vice President Victor Joecks issued the following statement regarding the billboard and Education Awareness Day:

If merely spending more on education were the way to achieve better education outcomes, test scores in Nevada would be soaring. As NPRI’s new billboard clearly shows, Nevada has been increasing education funding for decades, but we’re still waiting for results. It’s not how much we spend on education that matters, but how we spend that money that’s important.

Today, union members are wearing buttons that demand, “More for our students.” We at NPRI couldn’t agree more with that call. The time has come to give more choice to our students and their families and, thereby, bring more success to our students.

Nevada students deserve more from the adults controlling their futures. It’s time to step past the self interest of special interests and support school-choice measures such as opportunity scholarships and education savings accounts — which have nationwide records of proven success.

As detailed in NPRI’s study 33 ways to improve education in Nevada without spending more, Nevada can provide a better education to students with the funds currently spent on education by reallocating dollars from programs like full-day kindergarten, that produce no lasting results, to school choice programs that are effective.

“Unions continue to hold our children’s education hostage by demanding more money to pay for more of the same,” Joecks continued. “If we really want students to have a chance at success, if we really want ‘more for our students,’ we need 21st century reforms like AB165 and forthcoming legislation creating Education Savings Accounts, which would mean proven solutions for Nevada’s families.”

###

Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid St., Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642 ∙ Fax: 702-227-0927 ∙ Web site: http://npri.org

Learn More
Polls: Property tax increase contained in SB119 deeply unpopular

For immediate release 
Contact Chantal Lovell, 702-222-0642

CARSON CITY — Three polls released today by the Nevada Policy Research Institute show strong opposition to the property-tax rollover contained in Senate Bill 119.

SB119 contains both a repeal of prevailing wage requirements for public school and university construction and a property tax rollover by authorizing school boards to conduct 10 additional years of bonding without a popular vote. SB119 has passed the Nevada state Senate and is scheduled for a hearing today, Thursday, February 26 in the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs at 8 a.m.

The polls, written by NPRI and conducted by Google Consumer Surveys, each questioned 500 Nevada residents about the property-tax increase portion of SB119.

The first two questions show that Nevadans who had an opinion are, by a 3-to-2 ratio, less likely to vote for elected officials who supported a property tax increase for school construction. Residents were slightly more opposed when asked about a bond rollover compared to identifying the rollover solely as an increase in property taxes.

Are you more of less likely to vote for a lawmaker who votes to increase property taxes through a bond rollover to pay for school constructions?

Much/somewhat more likely: 20.7%

Would not affect my vote: 9.7%

Much/somewhat less likely: 32.3%

Are you more of less likely to vote for a lawmaker who votes to increase property taxes for school construction and repair?

Much/somewhat more likely: 21%

Would not affect my vote: 20.9%

Much/somewhat less likely: 29.3%

The remaining respondents were unsure.

The third question asked Nevadans their opinion on the tax while introducing the nature of SB119, which would not require a popular vote to roll such a bond over. Clark County voters had been assured, in the body of the 1998 ballot question, that the bonding was only for 10 years and that before seeking any rollover, spending proponents would again seek voters’ approval. This history may explain why support plummeted in the third survey, with residents’ opposition approaching a 3-to-1 margin.

Are you more or less likely to vote for a lawmaker who votes to roll over a property-tax rate for school construction and repair without requiring a popular vote?

Much/somewhat more likely: 12.4%

Would not affect my vote: 13.8%

Much/somewhat less likely: 31.1%

In response to the surveys, NPRI Executive Vice President Victor Joecks released the following comments:

As Nevadans have demonstrated at the polls multiple times, voters overwhelmingly oppose property tax increases. Voters are also less likely to vote for lawmakers who support the rollover of a previous property tax increase. Whether the tax increase contained in SB119 is labeled as a rollover or tax increase, the public opposes it by a significant ratio. When informed that SB119 would take away the ability of citizens to vote on a new rollover — breaking a promise to Clark and Washoe county property owners — support plummeted even further.

The elimination of the prevailing wage requirement included in SB119 is excellent public policy and would save taxpayers 10 to 15 percent on construction costs, by allowing government to pay market rates instead of union wage rates.

The problem with SB119 is that the primary savings would come from spending new tax dollars more efficiently, not more efficiently spending the tax dollars we currently pay.

For lawmakers interested in a proposal that would result in the elimination prevailing wage, while still respecting the ability of voters to vote on property-tax rollovers, Joecks proposed a compromise.

Since removal of the prevailing wage will save 10 to 15 percent in construction costs, a compromise that would be a win for taxpayers would be eliminating prevailing wage requirements in exchange for authorizing two additional years of bonding. This would allow the affected school districts to begin building immediately — their stated priority — while still allowing voters to decide in 2016 if they want their property taxes extended further to finance more school construction.

A conceptual amendment that NPRI also suggested would prevent any future use or extension of a property tax rate previously used by a school district for general obligation bonds without a popular vote.

The surveys were conducted from February 2 to 5, 2015, and have a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent. A white paper with more information on Google Consumer Surveys is available here.

More information:

School bond survey 1: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20150226_Schoolbondsurvey1.pdf

School bond survey 2: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20150226_Schoolbondsurvey2.pdf

School bond survey 3: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20150226_Schoolbondsurvey3.pdf

Learn More
Nevada Supreme Court hears oral argument on lower court ruling allowing CCSD to skirt transparency law

For Immediate Release

Contact Chantal Lovell

February 11, 2014

702-222-0642, 951-295-4855 (cell)

LAS VEGAS — The Nevada Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in the Nevada Policy Research Institute lawsuit seeking to compel the Clark County School District to release its Directory of taxpayer-funded and government-issued teacher email addresses.

Joseph Becker, director and chief legal officer of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, argued that the Eighth Judicial District Court erred when it dismissed the case under a judge’s theory that records of teacher email addresses — often posted on multiple district school websites — are exempt from public-record disclosure requirements under the Nevada Public Records Act.

NPRI sued CCSD in March 2013 after the school district refused to provide the email addresses existing in district records. Later that year, District Judge Doug Smith ruled the email-address records were not subject to disclosure under the Nevada Public Records Act.

Following today’s arguments, Becker issued this statement:

The Nevada Public Records Act considers all records to be public documents available for inspection unless otherwise explicitly made confidential by statute or by a balancing of public interests against privacy or law enforcement justifications for nondisclosure.

The NPRA exists to ensure that members of the public have broad access to government records so they can acquire information from government and keep it accountable. Should the District Court’s ruling not be reversed by Nevada’s high court, government bureaucrats will be permitted to withhold legitimate public records from the people of Nevada.

Fortunately for proponents of government transparency, the Nevada Supreme Court has a history of overturning lower court decisions that wrongly limit transparency in government. In previous open records cases, the Court has ruled that all records are public unless they are explicitly made confidential by statute, and directories of government-issued email address have never been made confidential by the Legislature. Furthermore, the Nevada Legislature and the Nevada Supreme Court have repeatedly held that disclosure under the public-records act is to be “construed liberally” and any limits placed on disclosure are to be “construed narrowly.”

NPRI’s case has been supported by a number of groups and individuals that don’t often see eye-to-eye. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Institute. The Nevada Press Association, Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Steve Sebelius, and the Review-Journal editorial board have all expressed support for NPRI’s reading of the Act. 

The Court did not issue a decision Wednesday.

More information:

The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation is a public-interest law organization that litigates when necessary to protect the fundamental rights of individuals as set forth in the state and federal constitutions.

Learn more about the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation and this case at http://npri.org/litigation/.

###

The Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid St., Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642 ∙ Fax: 702-227-0927 ∙ Web site: http://npri.org/litigation

Learn More
NPRI: Gov. Sandoval’s proposed business license tax is complex, destructive, unnecessary

For immediate release 
Contact Victor Joecks, cell: 360-359-2656

 

CARSON CITY – Responding to Gov. Brian Sandoval’s release of details of his new business-license tax proposal, NPRI executive vice president Victor Joecks issued the following comments:

As part of his push for the largest tax increase in Nevada history, Gov. Sandoval is unfortunately trying to subject all Nevada businesses to a destructive new gross receipts tax. His proposal is a modified version of the margin tax that voters rejected last fall by a massive 4-to-1 margin.

The governor’s tax proposal is complex and filled with dozens of rate variations that, if passed, would be sure to send armies of lobbyists to Carson City for decades to come. Although good tax structures are simple and straightforward, this administration is seeking to saddle Nevadans with a Byzantine confusion of tax rates and hard-to-understand formulas.

Just like the tax rejected by Nevada voters last fall, Sandoval’s plan would even tax businesses that are losing money. This, along with the other taxes Sandoval wants to raise, would lead to job losses throughout Nevada and force struggling businesses to close their doors.

The Business License Tax is modeled in part on the margin tax that Texas imposed in 2007. Joecks noted that the Texas office of the National Federation of Independent Businesses found that the margin tax devastated small businesses in the Lone Star State.

The year after Texas lawmakers implemented the tax, an NFIB-Texas survey found that around 20 percent of small businesses said that they would have to lay off workers and another one-third reported they wouldn’t be filling jobs, because of the tax. The tax also forced 3 percent of small businesses to close their doors.

Joecks continued:

The problems with Sandoval’s tax-and-spend proposal also include what he’s spending the money on. Pouring more money into Nevada’s broken education system, especially into programs like full-day kindergarten and pre-K that are proven to be ineffective, would only continue the waste and won’t produce lasting student-achievement gains.

It is an important step forward for Sandoval to propose a true education reform like Opportunity Scholarships and to suggest that collective bargaining needs to be changed. Those critical reforms, however, do not cost more. They allow lawmakers to increase student achievement by spending the money we already have more effectively. That makes this destructive and complex tax entirely unnecessary.

###

Learn More
Pensions in Nevada are often better than paychecks, new analysis shows

For Immediate Release

Contact Chantal Lovell

January 22, 2015

702- 222-0642, 951-295-4855 (cell)

LAS VEGAS — Many of Nevada’s public employees are retiring in the lap of luxury, according to a new analysis by the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

The analysis, written by NPRI executive vice president Victor Joecks and transparency manager Robert Fellner, finds that public employees in Nevada often receive a pension larger than their final base pay. Using new data uploaded on Thursday to TransparentNevada.com, the researchers compared the full-year equivalent 2013 retirement payouts of 2011-2013 full-career retirees in 10 of Nevada’s largest government agencies with their final-year base pay.

In the seven municipal governments analyzed, Clark County, Washoe County, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas Metro, Henderson, Reno, retirees with 30-plus years of service credit average pensions worth more than their final year of base pay — 100.59 percent of their base pay. Clark and Washoe County School District retirees receive over 89 percent of their final year’s base pay as retirement, while State of Nevada retirees receive pensions equal to 83.71 percent of their final year base pay.

Police and fire retirees receive the highest pensions, receiving 114 percent of their base pay.

Fellner noted that the study demonstrates part of the reason the Nevada Public Employee Retirement System has an unfunded liability of over $40 billion.

Retirees receiving not only their final year’s base pay, but more, for decades-long retirements should concern every taxpaying Nevadan, including public retirees. PERS has an unsustainable unfunded liability that has, in the past decade, ballooned to over $40 billion — over $40,000 worth of debt per household in Nevada. Taxpayers have been forced to significantly increase the amount they are paying toward public employees’ retirements as a result.

If the current Nevada Legislature fails to implement meaningful PERS reform, something akin to what was approved in the State of Utah, the pensions of tens of thousands of Nevada retirees and the long-term financial stability of the State will remain in jeopardy.

It is also not equitable to raise taxes on Nevada residents, who struggle to save for their own retirements, in order to pay for income-replacement-level retirement packages for government retirees.

Fellner noted that though the system assumes an 8 percent rate of return on investment will provide the funds needed to meet its future obligations, PERS’ actuarial investment returns have only once topped 8 percent in the years 2002 through 2013. As a result, taxpayer contributions to police and fire pensions have jumped from 28.5 percent of salaries in 2002 to 40.5 percent in 2013. For regular government employees, the taxpayer contributions have risen from 18.75 percent to 25.75 percent over that same period.

In conjunction with the analysis release, NPRI updated Transparent Nevada to include new 2013 PERS payout information. The new data is searchable by retiree names and payouts and now contains information on years of service and last employer. This is the first time that supplemental information has been publicly available and is necessary to confidently link the salary and pensions of government employees. The additional information provides further transparency to taxpayers and information to policymakers charged with curbing PERS’ burgeoning debt.

The full analysis can be read here.

###

Nevada Policy Research Institute ∙ 7130 Placid St., Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone: 702-222-0642 ∙ Fax: 702-227-0927 ∙ Web site: http://npri.org

 

Learn More

Media Mentions

All Media Mentions

Nevada families hungry for lower food costs

Opinion piece by Nevada Policy president, John Tsarpalas

A Brighter Tomorrow through Business Regulations

Nevada Policy article on business regulations in the state of Nevada

The Government Took Their Home. Now, a Family’s Lawsuit May Change Nevada’s Forfeiture System

Quote from Outreach and Coalition Director, Marcos Lopez.

Nevada Policy

Media Inquiries

Please put “Media” in the subject line and include your questions, deadline, and contact information, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Email: communications@nevadapolicy.org

Phone: (702) 222-0642
Contact
Download Media Kit

Join the fight to save Nevada.

Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.

Media Inquiries

Name(Required)
Search
Facebook Linkedin X-twitter Instagram Youtube