On a recent trip to New England, James and his wife Vicki were flying with Vicki’s service dog, Oreo. As with many Reno originating flights, they needed to fly to Las Vegas before connecting to Hartford, Connecticut.
Oreo is a service animal, trained to monitor Vicki’s blood sugar changes and notify her, preventing her from physical harm from her diabetes. Oreo is very good at her job, which she takes seriously. She is incredibly accurate, as anyone who has seen her alert on Vicki can attest.
Oreo is particularly important when Vicki is sleeping, because she has had significant sugar drops in the night. Oreo will wake her to get her to test and elevate her sugar before going back to bed. Because this sweet pretty little pup performs such services so well, Vicki can live a normal life.
Back to the flight from Reno to Las Vegas. Although they did not see her sit down, Democrat U.S. senate candidate Jacky Rosen sat in the row immediately behind the Smacks on the flight.
During the flight, Vicki overheard Congresswoman Rosen making disparaging remarks about dogs being on planes and saying she does not allow dogs into her Congressional offices.
Congresswoman, you may want to review the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as part of your campaign. The ADA allows a service animal such as Oreo to fly on any commercial airline at any time. It also allows service animals to go nearly anywhere with their persons, likely including your Congressional offices.
So, our question to you is this: “Are you satisfied violating the Americans with Disabilities Act simply because you dislike dogs or for whatever reason?”
So much for liberal tolerance.
James and Vicki will be the first to admit there are far too many people with dogs in airports, and many are not well behaved. A dog on public transportation in Portland lunged at Oreo. A German Shepard, supposedly a service dog, lunged at her in the Denver airport when the Smacks were walking between flights on one of their trips.
We submit that any dog going after other dogs, whether in a friendly manner or otherwise, in a place like an airport or on public transportation, is not a good service animal. Oreo is trained to do her job, and the environment around her has limited effect on her performance of it.
Given these personal incidents, plus the growing number of people with emotional support animals who bring them on planes even though they are not well trained, we agree such animals can be a nuisance with barking and disturbing other passengers. We would agree with the Congresswoman that there are plenty of dogs that have no business being on a plane other than in the cargo hold.
When James and Vicki are on flights, most passengers don’t even know Oreo is there. That, Congresswoman Rosen, is a well-trained service animal. The only reason you knew she was there is because you were sitting right behind James and Vicki and you saw Oreo on Vicki’s lap. Sleeping.
However, we would caution you against judging every dog by the actions of a few. There are many dogs, just like Oreo, that fly every day and cause no problems. Having a service animal allows people like Vicki, with a disability visible or invisible, to lead normal lives.
Oreo has attended football and baseball games, traveled cross country several times on planes, been on boats and trains, and attended a Neil Diamond concert. Her favorite song? Sweet Caroline, of course!
A well trained and disciplined service animal should not be a nuisance to others and is a valuable partner to its human.
Congresswoman, we hope you learn the provisions and protections of the ADA. James and Vicki would be happy to meet with you and introduce you to Oreo. They would not only detail their concerns about what you said, but also work with you on constructive ideas to keep animals out of airports and off flights that have no business being there.
If you don’t want Oreo in your office, Ron is quite willing to host such a meeting in his office the next time you’re in Carson City.
Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller.

​Recently, President Donald Trump revoked the security clearance of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan, who now works as a pundit for MSNBC.
People can argue the politics of this decision until they’re blue (or red) in the face. The larger issue is: Why would anyone still retain a security clearance after leaving a government position in which they were granted that status?
Every time either of us left a position in the private sector or public service, the first thing that happened was all our clearances, authorizations, passwords, and everything that would help us gain access to information or systems were turned off immediately. It’s a best practice in both government and private business.
When we have terminated a relationship with employees in the controller’s office, whether by retirement, leaving our team for another state agency, or otherwise, all their secure accesses are terminated within a business day of their departure. This best practice applies whether the parting is completely amicable or otherwise.
Brennan has proven himself to be a disgruntled former public employee, as evidenced by his MSNBC appearances. There’s no reason an MSNBC commentator needs a security clearance. Unless, of course, you are in favor of former public officials monetizing their public service after they depart and thereby continuing to saddle us with the costs and risks.
So, why does it make sense for anyone, including a former CIA Director, former Secretary of State, or anyone for that matter, to retain a security clearance after departing the position?
Our view is straightforward. Everyone who retires or otherwise separates from service with the federal government should have their security clearances eliminated immediately. Security clearances for these individuals can be fast-track reinstated if a public interest need arises. Since they already had clearances, it should be a quick process to reinstate it if needed.
This practice would remove all the politics from the equation. It would be the same policy for everyone, whether a former president or a terminated agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The only exception should be if the individual has agreed, in writing, to remain in a transition capacity to help the new individual taking the position. This written transition document should be executed as a contract, with specific deliverables, time parameters and constraints, where security clearance would be necessary for the person to assist the transition.
If the departing person doesn’t agree to help with a transition, the security clearance should be shut off before the door hits him in the tail on the way out.
The best question for the liberal socialist crowd and their feigned outrage about Brennan losing his security clearance is: “How long should President Trump, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and everyone else who has served the Trump Administration and has a security clearance be allowed to retain it after they leave office?”
We can almost guarantee you their answer will be: “Clearances for any Trump Administration official should be revoked immediately by the incoming president.”
So, why not the same for Obama Administration officials? And officials from both Bush and Clinton administrations that still have their clearances? Henry Kissinger may still have his security clearance, and he has not served since the Ford Administration.
As Brennan and others have demonstrated, retaining that status allows some people who served in the public sector to monetize it by taking a position in the private sector or elsewhere in government. However, a fast track process for recertification of the security clearance should resolve this issue for a legitimate security purpose – that is, if it serves the public interest, not just their private interests.
Being an MSNBC talking head is not a legitimate purpose for a continued security clearance. In fact, in the hands of the wrong individual, such as Brennan, it can be devastating to our security.
Eliminating security clearances for everyone departed from a previous administration, along with the clearances of people who have retired or otherwise separated from service in the FBI, CIA, and elsewhere, should be immediate and retroactive.
In today’s world of cyber and other security threats and hyper-partisan ideologues selling out the public interest, it should have happened a long time ago.
Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller.

​Several years ago, the movie comedy “Man of the Year”, starring the late Robin Williams, was based on a strange premise. His character, a comedian on the presidential ballot in just enough states to carry a majority of the Electoral College, was elected president via a computer flaw.

The Robert Mueller Investigation into alleged collusion of the Donald Trump campaign and Russian hackers has wandered all over but not yielded a shred of known evidence about anything illegal involving that campaign. However, it has noted some attempts by foreign operatives to hack into our election process, as well as much speculation and concern about the subject.
Any threat of interference, foreign or domestic, in our elections is a very serious concern. Technological corruption of the electoral process is today perhaps a greater threat than any other in our history – except maybe those from Chicago.

We believe China may well pose the greatest threat to our cybersecurity from a foreign state actor. The already documented illegal activities of the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as government intelligence agencies, show that America’s Deep State is at least as much a threat as anything to fair elections and our other liberties. And there are enough domestic threats of hacking into modern voting equipment and software to constitute a real threat too.
So, it’s not only Russia. The technological problems come from many sources and they’re growing.
One of the biggest and most frightening cybersecurity threats is the “zero-day attack”: an attack that exploits a flaw in software or a system that was, until the attack, unknown to those running the system. There is no known defense for such a hack, as the definition dictates. It’s essentially impossible to protect against such a threat.

However unlikely it is, a zero-day attack coordinated throughout the country on election day could have unimaginable consequences, way beyond the damage social media and other threats might do. Imagine the chaos in our society and economy if that happened, just due to suspicion and uncertainty about the validity of the most basic process on which our constitutional republic depends.
Many major companies have been severely hacked, such as Yahoo, Target, Home Depot, and Equifax just to name a few. And the federal government, itself, and state and local governments. These events have become so commonplace that another big entity being hacked is newsworthy for only a couple of days.
Government as a whole trails the private sector in technology, including cyber protection. Maybe it’s not a matter of whether the actual voting process gets hacked, but when.
What can be done?

One solution would be for all elections in our country to be conducted once again with hand-counted paper ballots. That would eliminate all the machinery and software from the voting process and would virtually ensure no hacking. It would not at all assure no vote tampering, and it might lead to even more suspicion about the results. In any event, it won’t happen.

Even if the voting process were secure, social media such as Facebook, Twitter and even email would still afford foreign actors, the Deep State and others ways to influence our elections. Educated voters are still the best solution to combating those problems.

Moreover, most of us love technology. We want to get quick answers to questions, find directions, or simply do remote communications with our phones. Waiting days or weeks for final election results would be simply unacceptable.

The challenge is complicated by the fact information technology is moving really fast, especially in the past 20 years. Recall that the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign did not even have a website, and few campaigns used technology effectively until the 2008 Obama campaign.

However, ours is not a counsel of despair. The white hats have done a fine job responding to the sinister plots of the black hats in this matter. They’ve even begun to anticipate the bad guys’ next moves and counter them. We can reasonably hope electing comedians happens only in movies.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing for the Mueller investigation to end and comparable resources be added to efforts against corruption of our election technology?

Sadly, we’re not holding our breath.
​
Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller.

Primary and secondary education (K-12) has been the second fastest growing category of Nevada state spending over the past decade, rising from $1.24-billion in fiscal year 2006 (FY06) to $2.22-billion in FY17. It grew 33 percent faster than the incomes of Nevada families and businesses.
Only spending on health and human services grew faster. Transportation spending also grew significantly faster than Nevadans’ incomes (although it is very volatile from year to year), and spending on regulation and higher education also grew slightly. K-12 and these categories caused total state spending to grow 30 percent faster than Nevadans’ incomes. All other significant categories of state spending declined relative to incomes.
Moreover, state K-12 spending on a per-student basis grew 42 percent, from $3,172 in FY06 to $4,498 in FY17. Local spending contributed comparable amounts. With student headcounts growing 26 percent, total state spending on K-12 grew 79 percent. From another perspective, while incomes of Nevada families and businesses declined ten percent in real per person terms, K-12 spending grew 14 percent on that basis.
In 2016, the latest year for which national data are available, Nevada state and local K-12 spending ranked 42nd among the 50 states, an increase from 45th the previous two years. Spending by the District of Columbia was second only to that of New York.
However, while total state and local spending was rising, Nevada ranked only 45th in instructional spending, but 37th in so-called “support services”. Thus, we spend too little in the classrooms and too much on administration and overhead.
Note that the full body of research on the correlation of student achievement and state spending shows mixed results. There is no consistent, significant and statistically significant relationship between relative state spending and student achievement.
One piece of good news is that Nevada is eleventh in the evenness of its spending in the state’s 17 school districts (with evenness measured as the student-weighted coefficient of variation). This fact gives the lie to continuing claims that the state’s school funding system is somehow antiquated and unfair to Clark County, requiring it to unduly subsidize rural districts.
So, what does all this spending buy us?
In 2007, Nevada eighth-graders ranked 44th nationally in their performance on the federally administered National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and mathematics evaluations. By 2015, those rankings rose only to 43rd in reading and 41st in mathematics, despite the large increases in spending.
The failure of significantly increased Nevada spending on K-12 education to show improvements in results relative to other states is consistent with international comparisons. Thus, among 33 countries of the Organization for International Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD) the U.S. spent the fourth-highest levels per student but reaped only below-average performance (23rd) on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2015. Japan, the highest-achieving nation, spends only 81.6 percent as much as the U.S. per child.
Our problem is that we keep throwing ever more money at teacher and administrator unions instead of making serious policy reforms. These special interests and state and local school boards continually dodge the real issues by focusing on the non-school factors, such as household income, that are beyond the reach of education policy.
To improve the effectiveness of our education spending, we must allocate it to programs that have been shown to boost student achievement. Public education must focus on the school-controlled variables that lead to improvements in student achievement in a cost-effective manner.
The academic literature shows no school-controlled variable has a greater influence than the quality of the teacher. The best teachers can deliver effective instruction without requiring small class sizes.
So, our priority should be the recruitment and retention of highly talented teachers. We should dispense with seniority-based and formulaic salary structures and pay teachers for the improvement their students show from the start of the year to the end.
Other initiatives discussed in this this year’s Controller’s Annual Report include increasing family choice in their students’ education. Also, greater use of technology-assisted learning, which serves students and eases the workloads on teachers. And recruiting teachers not just from education-school backgrounds.
We must focus on the needs of our children, not the demands of the provider bureaucracy.
Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller.

Recently, we explained why U.S. Appeals Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh is probably the best person President Donald Trump could have picked for the upcoming Supreme Court opening.
We noted his outstanding record as a lawyer and appellate judge and reviewed his glowing recommendations from legal scholars and colleagues. He’s a good and decent man with outstanding credentials and judicial temperament. 
Above all, we noted that he is mainly a textualist: one who looks to the plain meaning of the words in the law and does not mangle them to fit his ideological agenda as most statist liberals do. He’s an originalist as regards the Constitution: one who reads the words with the meaning they had when the document was adopted, not what today’s self-styled enlightened thinkers believe the law and public policy should be.
He definitely won’t try to make new law by the dishonest progressive trick of “discovering” new rights or interpretations in the Constitution in order to reach a conclusion he wants. In fact, he has said that judges who are not at least somewhat uncomfortable with some decisions they’ve made are probably not good judges in the sense of applying the law instead of their preferences.
In deciding qualifications and choices for judicial appointments, most Republicans and nearly all limited-government conservatives are guided precisely by Kavanaugh’s qualities and views. So, we think, are most Americans. The tradition that senators voting on judicial confirmations should not ask about particular cases that may come before the courts and nominees should not even hint at answers to such matters supports our view of what confirmation issues should be.
The views of many Democrats, statist liberals, the politically correct and progressives are quite the opposite. They believe nominees should salute their desired policies and outcomes and fight as political partisans against those they oppose. Forget textualist, originalist or other jurisprudential principles and judicial temperament. Either he’s a vote for their agenda or they oppose him.
Their view – Is he for or against my hobby-horse issues? – is a self-interested approach predatory upon the law, the public interest and other people.
One would think, therefore, that “mainstream” press coverage would focus mainly on our majority approach or at least give it substantial coverage. One would be wrong. Unless one reads mainly The Wall Street Journal.
Consider a July 23 story in the Reno paper, a subsidiary of the franchise led by uber-leftist USA Today. In asking Nevada Senator Dean Heller and his election opponent Congresswoman Jacky Rosen about Kavanaugh, it reduces the confirmation vote to a political fight over Yucca Mountain.
The story starts by quoting Heller as having “no reservations” about Kavanaugh. Then it says, “That Thursday statement came as a surprise to some who thought Heller, a staunch opponent of storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, might be put off by a seemingly pro-Yucca opinion Kavanaugh authored in 2013.” The paper suggests that the only approach to confirmation issues is the minority leftist politicized view. And that Heller, a Republican, naturally would adopt that view.
The article focuses not at all on Kavanaugh’s qualifications or the judicial temperament and jurisprudence issues we noted – except to blithely dismiss Heller’s endorsement of them and return to Yucca.
The article is simply wrong in characterizing Kavanaugh’s decision. His decision was about the authority and duties of federal agencies to act as directed by laws passed by Congress. It was not “seemingly pro-Yucca” unless one is an extremist ideologue on the issue dishonestly seeking to cast the confirmation in pro- or anti-Yucca terms.
Because Rosen and much of her party are simple-minded extremist ideologues and because they bring an inappropriate and immature approach to judicial appointments – that is, viewing them as fights about particular political issues – they take the view that Kavanaugh’s confirmation is and should be about purely political issues. For good measure, Rosen doubled down on her approach by also adding abortion and Obamacare.
So, the leftist immature minority view is that everything degenerates into cheap politics, and jurisprudence, judicial temperament, etc. be damned.
Similar leftist, politically correct, progressive views permeate and distort nearly every lamestream media news story. And then they can’t understand why decent thoughtful people call it fake news.
Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller.

There’s been plenty of chatter recently in the liberal media, leading some to believe that control of the U.S. Senate really is in play during the 2018 election.
As a former Republican national committeeman, James keeps up closely with these things. As Nevada’s chief nerd (controller), Ron tends to numbers and policy. So, James wrote the following and Ron knows when to lightly edit his analysis and sign on.
Democrats and their media amen corner think they may control both the House and Senate after the election. We doubt it, especially in the case of the Senate.
It’s easy to see that if – and it’s a big if – a big blue wave rolls in, the House could be back in Democrat hands. Every House seat is up for election, and there are enough swing districts in states like New York, New Jersey and California that could change from the Rs to the Ds.
The Senate, however, is very different. There are 35 seats out of 100 up for election. Of those, only nine are held by Republicans, with 26 held by Democrats or Independents who caucus with the Democrats.
Among the nine seats held by Republicans, there are only three seats really in play. The biggest challenge is right here in Nevada, with incumbent Dean Heller being challenged by Jacky Rosen, who has served less than one congressional term as a back-bencher. Most pollsters, plus Heller’s internal polling, have this race as a tossup.
The second biggest challenge is Arizona, where Democrats had one of the best showings in the 2016 presidential race and the incumbent Republican Senator Jeff Flake is retiring. This race will be close, but leans toward Republicans in most national polls.
The last possibility for a Democrat pickup? Tennessee. Although it will be a tall order for a Democrat to win this, it is an open seat with the retirement of Senator Bob Corker, and both Republicans and Democrats will field viable candidates. Most national polls have this state also leaning Republican.
The other six races involving Republican controlled seats? Texas, Nebraska, Wyoming, two in Mississippi, and Utah. There’s no chance the Democrats will win any of these races, despite noise in the liberal media about Beto O’Rourke’s race against Senator Ted Cruz in Texas. Cruz will cruise to victory.
So, if Democrats can win all three currently Republican seats for which they stand a chance and can defend all 26 of their incumbents, they will control the senate.
The chances of that happening? Nearly none.
Why? Because of races with a Democrat incumbent senator in states won by President Trump.
There are competitive races Republicans can win in West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In those states, Democrat efforts and all the soft liberal money will be used on defense more than offense.
The chances that the Democrats can hold onto all of these states in November? None.
Republicans will almost certainly pick up at least three victories in those nine states. The most likely pickups will be North Dakota, Indiana and Missouri, with Montana, Wisconsin and Florida also in play. None of these races rate anything better than a “leans Democrat” in the majority of national polls, and most are rated toss ups.
What does this mean?
Even if the Democrats can pick up seats in Nevada, Arizona and Tennessee – a slim chance – the likelihood that they will lose seats in three other races is so high that it will offset the wins and the Republicans will remain in control of the chamber.
What can we do here in Nevada?
Heller may be in a tight race, but President Trump and the Republican caucus strongly support him. So, if you support limited government, vote for Heller. Forget about the “Never Trump” noise Heller made prior to the 2016 election. He’s been on board, especially in the past several months, with the key points of the Trump agenda.
In sum, the hope for a blue wave that will put the Senate under Democrat control is one we want Democrats to waste their money and resources trying to achieve. We should let them continue to believe it is possible.

By Ron Knecht and James Smack – 24July2018
​

​In a major upset last week, a leading old Democrat warhorse lost his primary election for his New York congressional seat. Joe Crowley, a ten-term incumbent, had been touted as a replacement for minority leader Nancy Pelosi as speaker if the Democrats regain control of the House. But he was beaten by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year old political newcomer.
Some folks are comparing this upset to the defeat of Republican minority leader Eric Cantor in 2014 by Dave Brat in Virginia. There have been few other upsets that are a good comparison. Even Brat was not outspent 18 to 1 by his opponent, as Ocasio-Cortez was.
Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democrat Socialists of America, a far left group inside the Democrat party that champions the policies of Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. For anyone who thinks socialism is not fundamental to the modern Democrat party, consider this primary result and the continuing successful insurgence of the Sanders wing. Others may call them progressives, but they are socialists and proud of it! And she with a capital “S” at that.
Ocasio-Cortez will almost certainly be going to Congress from this heavily Democrat district in Queens; Republicans have no chance. So, Democrats as a party have suffered no setback with her election, despite the loss of one old warhorse. Her election also suggests Pelosi will return to the speaker’s podium if the Democrats can wrestle control from Republicans.
From an image perspective, the modern Democrat party should be quick to embrace her. She provides a youthful counterpoint to a decrepit party dominated by the likes of Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden and Sanders. So, the Democrats should put this socialist right out front.
And she’s already attuned to the drift – dare we say evolution? – of Democrat policy positions anyway. Big time.
Today’s Democrats embrace “free” college tuition, “free” healthcare, open borders and hatred of President Donald Trump. All of these are embodied in the fresh new face of Ocasio-Cortez, coupled with Old Man Sanders in the Senate. In fact, she as much as anyone has pioneered their effort to abolish the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
Pelosi, Sanders, and Waters all want the same things the Democrat Socialists of America want. They’re just afraid of embracing the “socialist” title.
But the modern Democrat party looks old and tired when two of their leading candidates for president are pushing 80, those being Biden and Sanders. Sure, Trump is over 70, but running someone who is older than Trump in 2020 is likely to yield the same result as in 2016.
Republicans and others should understand that saying one is progressive is just slapping lipstick on a pig; it really means socialist. Socialist plus a few other things. The roots of socialism go far back and mean coercive collectivism, whether the harsh brutality of Karl Marx or the misguided good (but still coercive) intentions of those from a religious bent.
Progressivism is less than 150 years old, and means socialism plus at least the conceit that progressives are our enlightened betters who should rule us peons.
Of course, as Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “At this point, what difference does it make?”
As a practical matter, Democrats should own it all now with this fresh new face as a party leader. We’re sure Ms. Ocasio-Cortez will perform admirably. They believe she has the message they need to gather and hold the youth of this country.
So what if she alienates older Democrats who are just hanging on hoping their team starts eventually to tack back toward the center. It’s not going to happen, so Dems might as well finish kicking them out the door. Eventually, Dems think, those folks will all be replaced by the younger generation that’s been heavily indoctrinated by the education system to socialism, and they’ll soon prevail anyway.
And in ten to 20 years, they’ll be winning elections by landslides.
Unless people start looking up from their smartphones long enough to realize we’re losing the precious constitutional republic, rights, freedoms, prosperity and hope previous generations left us. For our children, for our future, we need to turn things around. That’s what we’re about.

​Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller.

​Jack Phillips, a Colorado Christian cake artist, was known for his custom-designed masterpieces. In 2012, two men asked him to prepare a special cake for a local celebration of their upcoming Massachusetts marriage. At the time, Colorado law did not allow same-sex marriage.
Phillips politely declined, saying his religious faith didn’t allow him to participate expressly via his art in celebrating their marriage. He offered to sell them any product he made, but he wouldn’t prepare one specifically endorsing a gay union (nor Halloween, alcohol or nudity).
They filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, even though there were other cake-makers in the area who would have provided the cake they sought. Their action triggered hateful phone calls, death threats and legal proceedings against Phillips.
During a hearing, commissioner Diann Rice said, “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust … it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.” In World War II Phillips’s father helped liberate a concentration camp and thus witnessed personally results of the Holocaust atrocities.
By Rice’s logic, if someone acting in the name of a religion does something awful, then others acting for religion are also guilty of the awful behavior and their position is null and void. By her logic, declining to participate in a celebration is a legally actionable hurt to the celebrants, but forcing someone to participate does no hurt, harm or damage to the person so compelled. And by her logic, declining to put a specific message on a cake is morally equivalent to supporting slavery and the Holocaust.
Her commission ruled Phillips had violated Colorado’s law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It imposed a three-pronged penalty that caused Phillips to cease making wedding cakes and lose 40 percent of his business volume. State courts upheld the action, even though three cake artists refused to make cakes with messages critical of same-sex marriage when requested by their customers, but the commission took no action in those cases. Thus, they used a double standard based on whether one’s viewpoint on an issue agrees with state dogma.
Clearly, the state violated Phillips’s First Amendment freedom of religion as extended by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. Ditto, his free speech rights.
However, after he appealed the state action to the U.S. Supreme Court, it issued a decision Monday on very narrow grounds that focused mainly on the egregious hostility of the commission toward religion in denying his rights. The decision failed to address the conflict between federal constitutional rights of individuals versus limitations and compulsions on people and businesses states may seek to impose merely by labeling them “public accommodations.”
The two men claimed Phillips used his religious faith as a pretext for discrimination, even though he has served gay people for 24 years and offered to serve them. He has not discriminated against people based on their identity. He just refused to speak their message with which he disagreed.
Our view on homosexuality is reflected in the facts both of us have long had gay and lesbian friends and associates, welcomed them into our homes and fed them, and had some of them involved in our most intimate family business. We teach children to respect and be decent to all people and to accept and accommodate them as much as possible despite differences.
But the issue here is collective coercion. Many statist liberals and progressives believe their views about how people should treat each other justify bringing the full coercive power of the state against anyone who violates their personal norms. They think it does no harm to people forced to toe their ideological lines.
They’re wrong. It does immense harm. Coercion is aggression. It is oppression. It is often thinly disguised hate. Ultimately, people like Diann Rice are dishonest, hateful and vicious. Most other progressives are, often unknowingly, merely destructive of net human wellbeing and fairness. We need to recover the balance in these matters we’ve lost in recent decades.
Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller.

​Ayn Rand, the hero author of many a conservative and libertarian, once said: “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.”
A frightening statement indeed. Especially since the essence of America’s Constitution is the opposite: the federal government has limited powers and the people and states retain all freedoms not expressly denied.
Ms. Rand passed in 1982, so the quote antedates that time. Decades ago she was already seeing so much where the “if it pleases the crown” mentality had invaded all parts of our daily lives. Several examples Immediately come to mind.
We cannot own real property without paying taxes to the state.
We cannot operate a motor vehicle without state mandated automobile insurance and paying fees to the state to register the vehicle and operate it.
We cannot hunt or fish without a license from the state.
We cannot operate a drone without a license from the government.
We cannot get married without obtaining a license from the state.
So, are we truly free?
This reminds us of another Rand quote: “Freedom: To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing.”
The basic question: “Are we really free?”
We submit that, in many ways, we are still free. We do still have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair and speedy trial, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, just to name some of our Constitutionally protected rights.
Still, even these basic freedoms are under attack. Many constitutionalists believe that any infringement on the Second Amendment erodes this freedom, including bans on certain types of weapons, magazine restrictions, and the requirement to have a concealed carry permit to exercise this right in the public square. Further infringements are demanded every day by the mainstream media and progressive activists who make proposals that would turn law abiding gun owners into criminals.
How far would James go on 2nd Amendment matters? He would repeal everything back to the National Firearms Act of 1934, including the Brady Act. What part of “shall not be infringed” does the government not understand, anyway? The citizen has the right to own and possess any gun or ammunition the government has a right to own. No more, and no less. (Ron would consider separately each measure to be repealed, but can’t think of provisions worth keeping.)
Clearly, our protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are under fire too. This erosion was accelerated with passage of the USA Patriot Act. This act expanded what are called expanded surveillance procedures, allowing the government to gather foreign intelligence on both non-citizens and citizens. It has led to warrantless gathering of metadata from our cell phones and computers, including our texts and emails, although that was supposedly ended in 2015.
Our government’s response? We keep the average citizen safe from terrorist attacks with the provisions in the act. But how much freedom should the same average citizen be willing to give up? We suggest that the USA Patriot Act goes too far, and should be repealed.
We encourage fighters like Senator Rand Paul to continue to bring this overreach out into the open in the hopes more people will listen and join the fight against the act. It was a feel good measure born in the confusion and anger our country experienced after we were attacked on September 11, 2001. Cooler heads now need to prevail, and it needs to be repealed.
Where does this leave us?
Freedom is a fragile thing, and taxation and regulation have greatly and increasingly eroded freedom for all of us. From the opening quote, Ayn Rand saw the key issues two or three generations ago, and we all pay a price for our lost freedom.
Libertarians and limited government conservatives will continue to fight against additional erosion of our freedom, even if it may not be trendy to do so.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller.

“Shall Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the establishment of an open, competitive retail electric energy market that prohibits the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity?”
Who wouldn’t want an open, competitive retail electric energy market? Haven’t monopolies franchised by the government produced many problems? And isn’t market-type reform the answer?
Question 3, the text above, offers voters in November a chance to require legislators to pass such reforms by July 1, 2023. It also stipulates that every person, business, association of persons or businesses, state agency, political subdivision of the State, or any other entity in Nevada has the right to choose the provider of its electric service.
That freedom includes, but is not limited to, selecting providers from a competitive retail electric market or producing electricity themselves or in association with others. And people and entities would not be required to purchase energy from just one provider. Laws passed by the legislature to do these things could not limit a person or entity’s right to sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of electricity. Current law does not provide these measures.
Ron has worked toward these ends for about 43 years as a university research engineer; senior professional economist and financial, policy and technical analyst for three different regulatory agencies; and consultant and expert witness many times for many parties of all kinds around the country. This sounds like just what he has been promoting (but it isn’t).
In addition, a yes vote would require the legislation passed by our legislators to include provisions to reduce costs to customers and protect against service disconnections and unfair practices. Throughout his career, Ron provided analyses and testimony seeking to reduce costs and curtail unfair practices. Current law and practice are only mixed on these matters.
Proponents of this measure also assure us it will promote renewable and other new resource options and technologies for electric generation. Over that 43 years, Ron also provided many analyses and testimonies in support of new technologies, options and alternatives to conventional large power plants, including renewables. James, like Ron, a limited-government conservative and opponent of regulatory capture and public-sector cronyism, supports these various goals.
So, how can we say no to Question 3?
First, the proponents make some claims that aren’t true. For example, they claim regulated utilities are guaranteed a profit. Not true.
And the two sides argue about the effect regulatory reform would have on ratepayers as a group and on individual ratepayer classes (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). Also on business and employment. As always, the devil is in the details of how reform is implemented.
This measure was passed by voters in 2016 and must pass again this year to amend Nevada’s constitution. Ironically, or maybe not, some arguments used by opponents in 2016 were even more ridiculous than the erroneous ones of the supporters.
Mostly, the opponents grossly misrepresented the record on regulatory reform and deregulation, claiming falsely that it messed up airlines and banking. They added a very one-sided account of the effect where reform and deregulation has been tried in other states. The record in the electric business has in fact been mixed. Again, the devil is in the details.
This year, opponents have been somewhat more circumspect in their arguments. But they have focused especially on the one detail that really should decide the matter in favor of no. That detail is that this question proposes a constitutional amendment, not statutes and regulations.
The genius of the U.S. Constitution and some American state constitutions is that they are short and cover mostly only the basics of governmental structure, powers and limitations. They also include basic protections for citizens, such as the Bill of Rights. This is a prime reason America has been so successful.
Constitutions get in trouble when they dabble in very particular and passing matters. To the extent government must do so, it should be done via legislation that can be easily remedied, not constitutional provisions that are nearly cast in stone.
So, let’s defeat Question 3 and then pressure legislators to do the job they should on this matter.

​Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. James Smack is Deputy Controller