Nobody likes an unfunded mandate

The irony of unfunded mandates is that they're much easier to spot when someone's handing one to you than when you're handing one to someone else.

Hence the regular braying among state legislators of the unfairness of mandates from Washington, D.C., and the almost-as-regular practice of exempting their own legislation when it applies to local governments.

The Nevada Association of Counties deserves support for its initiative aimed at forcing the Nevada Legislature to follow not only its own law but its own much-espoused philosophy. To wit: Don't force programs on local governments without providing the necessary funds.

It should be so simple. For the past dozen years, Nevada has had in place a law which requires a funding source be identified whenever state legislation is going to impose a cost on local government. Frequently, however, lawmakers tack on wording that exempts their bill from the law.

Such end-arounds are hypocritical and, ultimately, costly. The solution would be lawmakers with enough backbone to simply vote against any such back-door provisions. The Nevada Association of Counties obviously doesn't think this will happen.

The other alternative would be for local governments to ignore unfunded mandates, but that's just not a good way to run a state - or a country, for that matter.

One of the most intriguing arguments on unfunded mandates is currently taking place in Utah, where legislators are considering just saying no to the federal No Child Left Behind act.

Aside from the many flaws in how the act measures school performance, it might be a money-loser. A Utah committee's analysis indicates the state would lose $103 million in federal education funds if it refused to follow the No Child Left Behind laws; however, implementing all the programs it requires could cost between $200 million and $600 million.

Is revolution in the air? Probably not. But a minor insurgency might get the message across.