Everything and anything is affordable if it isn't your money. The people who buy into this plan think (probably believe more than think) that it will always be someone else's money. To quote Russell Long: Don’t tax you. Don’t tax me. Tax the guy behind the tree.
This isn't really an argument about fiscal responsibility...it's an argument about priorities and values. If we're going to demand rigorous ROI from taxpayer-funded programs, then let's apply that same standard to everything: corporate tax abatements, stadium subsidies, economic development incentives, and every other public expenditure. Why is a scholarship for a 'poor' Nevada student labeled a "government giveaway," while billions in incentives for corporations are called "investments"?
Every budget is a statement of values. This assumes that investing in education is one of the first things that should be discarded while other forms of public spending escape the same level of scrutiny. That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but let's be honest about what it is: not fiscal discipline, but a choice about what, and who, we value.
Stadium subsidies, totally stupid, and I have written as much (and campaigned on it). A lot of economic development incentives, similar. Corporate tax abatements, depends on what is getting abated. Broad brush, we agree.
But, Millennium scholarships are an unfunded government giveaway with NO return. At least with a corporate tax abatement, you can model a positive return.
You also confused Millennium with Opportunity scholarships.
Why does every public investment have to produce a measurable financial return. If that were the standard, we'd have to justify public libraries, parks, K-12 education, the arts, public defenders, first responders, and countless other services based solely on whether they generate more tax revenue than they cost. That's not why we fund them.
Some investments are about the kind of society we want to build.
My guess is that Millennium Scholarship recipients are more likely to stay in Nevada, that's certainly relevant to measuring the program's economic impact. If the concern is that too many graduates leave, then redesign the scholarship to encourage graduates to remain and work in Nevada. Tie a portion of the award to in-state employment, or create incentives for graduates who stay. That's an argument for improving the program, not for concluding that helping Nevada students pursue higher education has no public value.
To me, saying the scholarship has "no return" frames education as a transaction rather than an investment in people. I think government has a responsibility to do both: be fiscally responsible **and** invest in opportunities that strengthen the state over the long term, even when the return can't be perfectly captured in a spreadsheet.
I have always enjoyed your take as you shared the Chicago landscape.
Now, you are unearthing the NV political scene.
Keep up the common sense, America needs every little bit of it!
Everything and anything is affordable if it isn't your money. The people who buy into this plan think (probably believe more than think) that it will always be someone else's money. To quote Russell Long: Don’t tax you. Don’t tax me. Tax the guy behind the tree.
Not ‘fun conversations’ but necessary for politicians and academia to have! Maybe even some good and useful outcomes from those discussions.
This isn't really an argument about fiscal responsibility...it's an argument about priorities and values. If we're going to demand rigorous ROI from taxpayer-funded programs, then let's apply that same standard to everything: corporate tax abatements, stadium subsidies, economic development incentives, and every other public expenditure. Why is a scholarship for a 'poor' Nevada student labeled a "government giveaway," while billions in incentives for corporations are called "investments"?
Every budget is a statement of values. This assumes that investing in education is one of the first things that should be discarded while other forms of public spending escape the same level of scrutiny. That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but let's be honest about what it is: not fiscal discipline, but a choice about what, and who, we value.
Stadium subsidies, totally stupid, and I have written as much (and campaigned on it). A lot of economic development incentives, similar. Corporate tax abatements, depends on what is getting abated. Broad brush, we agree.
But, Millennium scholarships are an unfunded government giveaway with NO return. At least with a corporate tax abatement, you can model a positive return.
You also confused Millennium with Opportunity scholarships.
Why does every public investment have to produce a measurable financial return. If that were the standard, we'd have to justify public libraries, parks, K-12 education, the arts, public defenders, first responders, and countless other services based solely on whether they generate more tax revenue than they cost. That's not why we fund them.
Some investments are about the kind of society we want to build.
My guess is that Millennium Scholarship recipients are more likely to stay in Nevada, that's certainly relevant to measuring the program's economic impact. If the concern is that too many graduates leave, then redesign the scholarship to encourage graduates to remain and work in Nevada. Tie a portion of the award to in-state employment, or create incentives for graduates who stay. That's an argument for improving the program, not for concluding that helping Nevada students pursue higher education has no public value.
To me, saying the scholarship has "no return" frames education as a transaction rather than an investment in people. I think government has a responsibility to do both: be fiscally responsible **and** invest in opportunities that strengthen the state over the long term, even when the return can't be perfectly captured in a spreadsheet.