Right-to-Work in Michigan:

How the Birthplace of the UAW Gave

Workers Freedom and Improved its Economy!

The Rio Grande Foundation is hosting a reception with Vincent Vernuccio of, Director of Labor Policy with the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy Research.

The reception will be held from 6:00 to 7:30pm on Monday, March 9th in a private room at Scalo Italian Grill.

Entrance to the reception is $15 per person which includes light appetizers and a cash bar. Scalo is located in Albuquerque at 3500 Central Avenue SE in Nob Hill.

Click here for registration form!

Reserve you spot now. Space is limited. Reservations can be made online for this exciting event.

The Mackinac Center is Michigan’s free market state think tank. Some 20 years before Michigan adopted a Right to Work law the Mackinac Center was plowing the way for such a law and researching what it might mean for Michigan to have such a law in place. Michigan adopted a Right to Work law in 2012.

The Mackinac Center’s research and publicity for the idea were considered both visionary and integral to the ultimate passage of Michigan’s Right to Work law.

Vernuccio has published articles and op-eds in such newspapers and magazines as The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Investor’s Business Daily, The Washington Times, National Review, Forbes and The American Spectator. He has been cited in several books, and he is a frequent contributor on national television and radio shows, such as “Your World” with Neil Cavuto and Varney and Company.

Vernuccio is a sought-after voice on labor panels nationally and in Washington, D.C. A regular guest on Fox News channels, Vernuccio has been described by Stuart Varney as a “top union watchdog.”

He has advised senators and congressmen on a multitude of labor-related issues. He testified before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and Labor Policy.

Click here for registration form!

In case you missed the following cartoon from the Albuquerque Journal this weekend, it is worth a look:

For a more detailed understanding of how the Senate is holding up progress in New Mexico, check out our new website which tracks all bills that have passed the House and have not been acted upon in the Senate via Michael Sanchez Bill Kill.

Of course, I predicted this state of affairs prior to the legislative session.

This op-ed ran in The (Farmington) Daily Times on March 1, 2015. 

On January 1, 2005, food bought at New Mexico’s grocery stores was excluded from the gross receipts tax, or GRT. In exchange for the break, the GRT was hiked on all other purchases.

A decade later, it’s clear that the tax shift was a mistake.

With several proposals before the legislature to reinstate the GRT on food, it’s time for an honest examination of how and why the well-meaning exemption failed.

Many of the state’s liberal activists and organizations opposed ending the food tax. In 2003, New Mexico Voices for Children argued that the “very poorest people will not receive the benefits,” because most “use food stamps, which are not subject to gross receipts taxes.” (A staggering 21.5 percent of our citizens participate in the federal program.) In addition, many household essentials such as soap, paper products, and toothpaste remained taxable. Utility and motor-fuels taxes were not touched, either.

Centrist organizations, too, doubted the wisdom of the switch. The Association of Commerce and Industry of New Mexico warned of “administrative and compliance burdens for … retailers and the Taxation and Revenue Department.” And the New Mexico Tax Research Institute predicted that “exempting food from gross receipts tax will narrow (the) base and may lead to higher gross receipts tax rates on other goods and services in the future.”

In 2013, Dick Minzner, a former secretary of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, and Brian McDonald, a former director of UNM’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research, concluded that the effect of the food-tax exemption “has been the opposite of that intended.” Why? By providing “only limited benefit to the poorest … of our households, combined with a tax increase on all other purchases, (it) probably made our tax system more regressive by most measures.”

Since the GRT reorganization did not include any requirements to cut public expenditures, rates continued to rise. As mentioned, in 2005, the non-GRT rate at the state level rose to 5 percent. Five years later, it jumped to 5.125 percent. Two years ago, local governments were allowed to hike their GRTs, and many did. Others, facing a stagnant economy and soaring healthcare and education costs, soon will.

A regularly-rising GRT is particularly pernicious to economic development. As William F. Fulginiti, executive director of the New Mexico Municipal League, put it, “A higher rate on business-to-business purchases of supplies, raw materials and equipment at every stage of production — known as tax pyramiding — has resulted in exponential tax increases that have made New Mexico uncompetitive.”

The best antipoverty program is expanding employment, and the low-income families proponents of the food-tax exemption seek to boost aren’t aided by an economy that does not provide plentiful, good-paying, jobs. The legislature is considering several bills to cut the state GRT, in exchange for restoration of the food tax. For example, SB274, sponsored by State Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, would return the state’s GRT to 5 percent, while allowing local government to once again apply their GRTs to food. It’s a small, but important step toward widening the GRT, which is riddled with well over 300 exemptions.

Ultimately, New Mexico must adopt a thorough tax-reform package — one that lowers the overall burden, reduces complexity, and lightens compliance costs for consumers and businesses alike. Until then, measures to broaden the GRT’s base make sense. Taxing food is a good place to start.

D. Dowd Muska (dmuska@riograndefoundation.org) is research director of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

The Property and Environment Research Center is a national and even international leader on applying free market principles to pressing environmental issues. With the growing controversy over federal land management issues throughout the American West, PERC took a closer look at the different ways in which federal and state lands are managed. Their new paper is called “Divided Lands.”

* The federal government loses money managing valuable natural resources on federal lands, while states generate significant financial returns from state trust lands.

* The states examined in this study earn an average of $14.51 for every dollar spent on state trust land management. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management generate only 73 cents in return for every dollar spent on federal land management.

* On average, states generate more revenue per dollar spent than the federal government on a variety of land management activities, including timber, grazing, minerals, and recreation management.

* These outcomes are the result of the different statutory, regulatory, and administrative frameworks that govern state and federal lands. States have a fiduciary responsibility to generate revenues from state trust lands, while federal land agencies face overlapping and conflicting regulations and often lack a clear mandate.

* If federal lands were transferred, states could likely earn much greater revenues than the federal government. However, transfer proponents must consider how land management would have to change in order to generate those revenues under state control.

Legislation has been introduced in the New Mexico Legislature to study federal lands management in New Mexico. The Rio Grande Foundation also has a paper available which details just how much better New Mexico could manage its federal lands than Washington from a financial perspective.

As the “right to work” legislation continues to stir up debate and discussion, there has been input from members of Congress of both parties. The four liberal Democrats weighed in against it in a published opinion piece and Udall went so far as to decry “right to work” in an ill-advised and inappropriate speech to the entire Legislature.

Democrats were not the only ones weighing in, however. According to former Republican state senator and blogger Rod Adair, Republican Steve Pearce may or may not have had direct input in the recent vote on “right to work,” but to his credit (unlike his Democrat colleagues), he has not published op-eds on the issue.

Whatever one’s feelings are on “right to work,” I would like to see New Mexico’s Congressional delegation (or Congressmen and women in general) to stay out of the issue as best as possible and not weigh in strongly and publicly on what amounts to an exclusively state level issue over which they have no say. We elect the Governor and legislators to make decisions on issues like “right to work.” Congress is supposed to represent New Mexico’s interests (or the interests of their respective districts) in Washington, DC, not attempt to persuade New Mexicans of their views on state issues, no matter how strong those feelings may be.

Congress has enough to deal with in Washington (like reining in an imperial presidency and overreaching, unelected bureaucrats).

*UPDATE: A representative with Congressman Pearce’s office contacted us to clarify that Rep. Pearce did not weigh in with Republicans in the New Mexico House to influence floor votes on the “right to work” bill and this was confirmed by two Republican House members. Kudos to Pearce for his understanding the separation of federal and state powers.

(Albuquerque, NM) – New research by New Mexico’s free-market think tank finds that a dollar goes much further in right-to-work (RTW) states.

Legislators in Santa Fe are debating whether to adopt a RTW law for New Mexico. Opponents of the measure charge that residents of right-to-work states are poorer, and that if enacted in The Land of Enchantment, there will be “greater expenditures for subsidized food, housing and health care for newly hired workers who will never make a living wage.”

The Rio Grande Foundation’s research debunks such claims.

The issue brief “Purchasing Power and the Right to Work” finds that once adjusted for the the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s estimate of the cost of living, disposable income, per capita, is equal in the two types of states. Using an alternate calculation developed by the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, income in RTW states is 8.5 percent higher.

Many ways that life’s basic necessities are costlier in non-RTW states, including:

• The list price of a single-family home is 26.5 percent lower in RTW states.

• Energy is more affordable in RTW states – for example, electricity is a whopping 27.7 percent cheaper.

• Healthcare is more affordable in RTW states, as are eldercare expenses such as home-healthcare aides and assisted living.

• RTW is associated with lighter local-and-state tax burdens and residents of non-RTW states labor more than 10 days longer to pay their annual local, state, and federal tax bill.

“These statistics show that union bosses’ favorite argument against RTW is hollow,” said Dowd Muska, research director with the Rio Grande Foundation and author of the new report. “When adjusted for purchasing power, RTW states are at least as wealthy as their compulsory-unionism competitors – and in all likelihood, wealthier.”

“Contrary to the allegations of Big Labor’s well-funded lobbyists and activists,” concluded Muska, “RTW is not a ticket to impoverishment. Life is good where unions must earn their members’ financial support. Little wonder why so many RTW states have strong economies and growing populations.”

Sen. Phil Griego is one of the key Senate votes on the issue of “right to work.” While I regularly appear on Harvey Twite’s radio show on KEDU FM in Ruidoso (Fridays from about 8:30 to 9am), I asked Harvey if I could come on this morning to discuss the impending vote in the House on “right to work” and what Sen. Griego and others in the Senate can do to make sure that “right to work” receives a fair hearing and a vote in that body. Listen to a podcast of the discussion here.

Sen. Griego wound up calling in and we had a good, direct discussion of the issue. Clearly, Griego is in a difficult position on the “right to work” bill. On one hand he knows that “right to work” is extremely popular (60%-26% according to the ABQ Journal) and 70%-19% according to polling commissioned by Rio Grande Foundation. On the other hand, Griego is understandably wary about standing up to the unions and Majority Leader Michael Sanchez.

Ultimately, Griego changed the subject from “right to work” to tax reform which RGF does indeed support, but which is nothing more than a diversion from “right to work” at this point in terms of the legislative process. I did discuss the issue w/ bill sponsor Bill Sharer on the New Mexico Freedom Hour recently.

One way or another, the next 48 hours will truly represent a turning point for New Mexico’s economy. Are we going to continue down the same path of relative economic unfreedom (check out the following economic freedom ranking map below from our friends at the John Locke Foundation):

And, is New Mexico, despite its beautiful weather and great offerings, going to continue to lose population as it and 5 other non-“right to work states” did in 2014?

The Bernalillo County tax-and-spend crowd is at it again. Due to steadily-increasing opposition among citizens like you the Bernalillo County Commission has scheduled a special Meeting on Thursday March 26 at 9:00 am. The planned tax hikes could raise tax rates by 1/4 of a cent per dollar and cost taxpayers up to $42 million a year.

As seen in the chart below, the County’s spending has grown dramatically in recent years:

Even more troubling is the fact that County employee benefits are eating up much of the budget. As pointed out recently by Dan Herrera of the Albuquerque Journal, benefits cost county taxpayers about 40 percent above the basic payroll cost.

So, if an average county employee earned $40,000 in salary, he or she also would be paid about $16,000 in benefits. Or, a total compensation of roughly $56,000.

Considering that the typical cost of employee benefits in the U.S. private sector is about “18% to 26% more than a worker’s base salary, it would seem that Bernalillo County’s over-spending on employee benefits is a serious part of their budget problems.

If you can attend the special GRT increase meeting on Thursday and let Bernalillo Coounty Commissioners know how you feel about a tax increase, that would be ideal.

If you cannot attend the meeting, click on the link below to send an email to each Bernalillo County Commissioner or use this email address: Thanks to those of you who took time to send a message to your County Commissioners. Unfortunately, on a party line 3-2 vote, the Commission voted to raise taxes by 3/16ths of a cent per dollar.

The various issue-oriented license plates offered were discussed recently on KRQE Channel 13 and Rio Grande Foundation was asked to weigh in. In the grand scheme of things, there are many more wasteful government programs, but it is hard to see how New Mexico taxpayers come out ahead on the license plate deal. Full story below:

I recently sat down with Gwyneth Doland at KNME and CNM President Katharine Winograd to discuss the Obama Administration’s proposal for “free” community college. Needless to say, we are not big fans of Obama’s proposal. Even Winograd doesn’t seem to be fully-convinced that the program is the best use of taxpayer dollars.

And, while RGF opposes the Obama proposal, we do value the educational value of community colleges and emphasized their importance in a 2014 paper outlining needed reforms for New Mexico’s lottery scholarship program. Community colleges (like CNM) are one way to get more “bang” for lottery scholarship bucks.

The full interview is below with a “web extra” below that.

It pleases me to no end that a report published by my organization back in July of 2012 has recently become an object of such criticism and outrage among left-wing critics of “right to work.” It shows that our efforts to put “right to work” at the top of the Legislature’s policy agenda have paid off and that New Mexico may finally be on the verge of adopting some long-overdue reforms that will shake our economy out of its torpor.

Both the union-funded, Washington-based Economic Policy Institute and University of New Mexico sociology professor Tamara Kay made news recently by giving the report an “F-grade” and calling it “kindergarden math.”

To be clear, truly conclusive data are hard to come by in the social sciences. The statistical tool known as regression is useful and it was used in our 2012 report, but the ideal method would be to have two or more experiments running with New Mexico moving forward with or without a “right to work” law in place. After a given period of time you compare notes and draw conclusions. That is impossible in the real world so “proof” is elusive and debates (and name calling, apparently) continue.

But what impact do “right to work” laws have in the real world? For starters, Michigan adopted such a law in March 2013. From that time through November 2014, Michigan saw 4% payroll manufacturing job growth, beating an average of 2.8% in right-to-work states and 0.9% in non-right-to-work states, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Indiana joined the right-to-work ranks in 2012, and from March 2012 to November 2014 factory payroll employment grew 9.4% compared to 1.2% average growth for states without right-to-work laws. Data are admittedly limited due to the relatively recent adoption of these laws, but so far the results are promising.

Data out of Oklahoma which shares a border with New Mexico and adopted “right to work” back in 2001 are even more promising. In the five years preceding adoption of “right to work” (1996-2000) per-capita personal income in Oklahoma lagged the region (save New Mexico) and the national average.

In the decade following adoption of “right to work,” (2001-2010) Oklahoma led the region with per-capita personal income growth of 36% and beat the national average growth rate of 28% handily.

This does not “prove” that Oklahoma’s “right to work” effort “caused” personal income rates to jump, but our critics such as Professor Kay and EPI claim that “right to work” results in “slower job growth, lower wages, and greater income inequality.” Shouldn’t they be asked to at least make a coherent argument of their own using real-world examples and data?

And to her point on inequality, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2012 report “Pulling Apart,” New Mexico faced the greatest income inequality between top and bottom during the late 2000s. I’d like to see our critics blame New Mexico’s, as of yet non-existent, “right to work” law for that one.

Paul Gessing is the President of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

Original article available here.

“Even in cases where a person has not been convicted, or even accused of a crime, the police can seize personal property and keep it for their own gain,” said Paul Gessing, President of the Rio Grande Foundation. “This practice should outrage any American who values the property rights guaranteed to them by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”

Bipartisan legislation has already been introduced in both houses of Congress that would dramatically reform federal civil asset forfeiture laws. The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Angus King (I-ME) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). In the House, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) introduced an identical version of the FAIR Act.

STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT:

The bill to end civil asset forfeiture in New Mexico is supported by an ideologically diverse range of organizations including the Rio Grande Foundation, the Institute for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico, and the New Mexico Drug Policy Alliance.

No one acquitted of a crime in criminal court should lose property through forfeiture in civil court. This legislation ensures New Mexico remains tough on crime. Guilty people will lose the fruits of their crime. Equally important, innocent people will keep the fruits of their labor.

– Lee U. McGrath, Legislative Counsel, Institute for Justice

Policing for profit is very much alive and well in New Mexico. In 2011, the ACLU of New Mexico took legal action after police seized thousands of dollars from a vacationing father and son, even though they were never even accused of a crime. Innocent people in New Mexico should never fear that law enforcement officers will strip them of their property without due process.

– Peter Simonson, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico

For decades civil asset forfeiture practices have robbed innocent people, taking money right out of their wallets—or even taking their home and their car—without even charging them with a crime. Like other drug war programs, civil asset forfeiture is disproportionately used against poor people of color who cannot afford to hire lawyers to get their property back.

–       Emily Kaltenbach, State Director, Drug Policy Alliance

MORE ABOUT PROFILING FOR PROFIT IN NEW MEXICO:

Profiling for Profit? Cops Take $17K From Father, Son (ABQ Journal)

VIDEO: “Police Profiling for Profit in New Mexico” – An interview with civil asset forfeiture victim Stephen Skinner (YouTube)

Institute for Justice report on Policing for Profit in New Mexico

In depth investigation into civil asset forfeiture (Washington Post)

The point was made in today’s Albuquerque Journal that six of the top 10 states in terms of those having the highest unemployment rates are “right to work.” Whether that is relevant or not is another story, but as the chart below from our friends at the Illinois Policy Institute shows, unemployment rates for blacks and Latinos are somewhat lower in “right to work” states than in non-right to work states.

The question is what impact “right too work” has on a particular state’s unemployment rate. After all, there are serious, well-documented problems with unemployment rate as a measurement.

We do know, however, that Americans are leaving “forced unionism” states and moving to “right to work” states:

And we also know that over time, far more jobs are going to “right too work” states.

A “snapshot” approach of one moment in time is interesting, but not adequate to understand the long-term impact of policies whether they be “right to work” or something else. Our 2012 study attempted to look at the long-term impacts of “right to work” laws and what they’d mean for New Mexico. A lot of critics want to use temporary blips in the data or inadequate measuring tools in an attempt to hurt our credibility.

Oh, and if you want a detailed, historical, discussion of the benefits of “right to work,” this is a good place to start.

I recently appeared on “Local, National, Global” to discuss a variety of economic policy issues facing New Mexico with Giovanni Haquani. I discuss “right to work” in the first segment:

In the second segment, we discuss education and the NM budget:

Lastly, we concluded with a discussion of some potential obstacles NM faces to economic growth:

Join the Rio Grande Foundation For an Evening of
Discussion and Fellowship at Liberty on the Rocks!

"Liberty on the Rocks" is a no-host happy hour discussion and information-sharing session.

Liberty on the Rocks will be held at Scalo Northern Italian Grill which is located in Nob Hill at 3500 Central Avenue SE in Albuquerque. A private room has been reserved for this event. In October, Liberty on the Rocks will take place on Thursday, February 19th from 6:00 to 7:30PM.

There is no cost for this public event, but attendees are encouraged to have dinner or drinks. Registration is not required but is much appreciated. Click here to register online … it's fast and it's free!

Come celebrate liberty with us!

There have been so many things going on during the 2015 legislative session, that keeping up has been a real challenge. The interview below was done with Fred Martino of KRWG TV in Las Cruces at the beginning of the legislative session in January. A lot has happened since then, but the discussion remains extremely relevant.

A recent report from a union-funded, anti-“right to work” organization dealt with Oklahoma’s experience in the wake of adoption of a “right to work” law. After all, we haven’t had a great deal of time since Indiana and Michigan adopted such laws and Oklahoma borders New Mexico and more closely resembles the Land of Enchantment then the “Rust Belt” states.

Well, when it comes to Oklahoma and the unions’ favorite talking point that it’s “right to work for less,” nothing could be further from the truth. Check out the following chart showing the growth in personal incomes in the states surrounding New Mexico for the five years preceding adoption in Oklahoma (original data from BBER at UNM is available here):

Oklahoma and New Mexico lagged the region during that time span.

Compare that with the ten years following adoption of “right to work” in Oklahoma as seen below during which time Oklahoma (and New Mexico) led the region. Of course, New Mexico’s turnaround is nearly as dramatic as Oklahoma’s. What happened? For one, New Mexico adopted some of the biggest pro-growth tax cuts of any state at that time…and they worked:

Note: Education tax credit legislation has been introduced this year in the New Mexico House as HB 333 by Rep. James Strickler

Children aren’t widgets. Each child learns differently, and one-size-fits-all education cannot work for every pupil.

That’s why a growing number of elected officials and school-reform activists support education tax credits. The idea is simple: Shouldn’t parents decide which learning environment is best for their kids? And shouldn’t the options include public, private, or religious schools?

Offering scholarships to low-income children is smart policy for two reasons: boosted academic achievement and tax relief. Here’s how the system would operate: Individuals and corporations would receive tax breaks to fund scholarships to low-income students through qualified nonprofit organizations. Previous bills set the credits at up to $500 for individuals — $1,000 for married couples filing jointly — and up to $50,000 for corporations. Participating students need to qualify for the federal school-lunch program. Parents could use the scholarships to enroll their children in a secular or religious school, a charter school, or a Bureau of Indian Education school.

Tax credits are a longtime policy tool. This year alone, New Mexico lawmakers will consider offering breaks for owners of electric cars, solar-panel manufacturers, buyers of eldercare insurance, and hydrogen-fuel producers. A tax credit for parents who want their children to get the best education possible promises to have an immediate, positive, and far-reaching impact in The Land of Enchantment.

School choice is not untested. A number of states, including Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania and Georgia, have programs geared to low-income families and/or children with special needs. Demand consistently outstrips supply — parents know a good thing when they see it.

It gets better. Any tax-credit measure could be structured to be “revenue neutral,” meaning it wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny. The scholarships could be capped — earlier proposals limited the value to a fairly modest $5 million per year. If implemented properly, taxpayers could come out ahead, if the program let the state decrease the level of funding it provides to K-12 schools.

New Mexico’s lawmakers have debated education tax credits for over a decade, but the idea isn’t ideological or polarizing. All of the choice bills drafted during previous sessions have been introduced with bipartisan support, only to fall victim to opposition from party leadership.

A few years ago, Rep. Ray Begaye, D-Shiprock, summarized the underlying rationale for tuition tax credits. “It’s a fairly simple principle,” he said. “It goes back to parents being pro-active and the parents deciding the best educational opportunity for their children.”

School choice works because competition works. When schools compete for kids, kids win and schools win.

Nearly two dozen empirical studies have looked at choice programs. Twenty-two found that choice improves public schools, and one found no impact. But as the Foundation for Educational Choice notes, no study has found that choice harms public education.

New Mexico’s families deserve more education options. Jan. 25-31 is National School Choice Week, and thousands of parents, children, activists, and elected officials across the country will rally in support of a diversity of alternatives for kids. The need couldn’t be clearer. It’s time for New Mexico to embrace education scholarships.

D. Dowd Muska (dmuska@riograndefoundation.org) is research director of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

Anti-tax, limited government activist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform recently visited New Mexico to speak to supporters of the Rio Grande Foundation. His remarks can be seen below:

The local daily morning tv show “Morning Brew” has been revamped with ABQ Biz First’s Dan Mayfield as the host. It is a very professional show and Mayfield does a great job keeping the show moving and asking probing questions. I was honored to be on the show on Wednesday, Feb. 4 with a true “all star” cast that included the Lt. Gov. John Sanchez and Bernalillo County Sheriff Manny Gonzales and Undersheriff Rudy Mora. As you can see below, the discussion tackled a wide array of issues.

First, Lt. Gov. John Sanchez and I discuss “right to work” and other economic issues facing New Mexico with host Dan Mayfield

Then, Sanchez and I are joined by Bernalillo County Sheriff Manny Gonzales and Undersheriff Rudy Mora explore the impact of poverty on crime and crime on our State’s economic situation and what can be done about it (including education reform and school choice).

A third segment included a discussion of “double dipping” and vocational education:

Sen. John Arthur-Smith has been a relatively fiscally-conservative Democrat in the New Mexico Senate. Unfortunately, he has cooked up a piece of legislation, SB 355, that makes little sense. Smith’s bill would allow lottery tickets to be purchased with credit cards.

The New Mexico Lottery has recently been dealing with some unwanted national attention for seemingly ripping off a winner, but the lottery which funds the lottery scholarship program is looking for more suckers…er customers and allowing people to buy lottery tickets on credit is one way to increase the system’s revenues.

It is worth nothing that primarily low-income people play the lottery in the first place and that it is middle and upper class New Mexicans that benefit from the scholarship program.

But, it is most important that if we are going to accept this kind of uber-regressive “taxation,” that the program it finances, the lottery scholarship program, should actually use the money in a sensible manner. RGF laid out a few basic reforms that were mostly ignored by the Legislature in 2014. With Obama pushing community college and so few New Mexicans prepared by the K-12 system for college, it would seem that focusing scarce lottery scholarship resources on vocational and technical training at the state level would be the most sensible option for extending the system’s funds.

Unfortunately, Smith’s bill just pours more money into a poorly-managed system. There are real social costs to the lottery. Any effort to expand that pool of resources should at the very least come with reform “strings” attached.

I often disagree with Albuquerque Journal columnist Winthrop Quigley, but once in awhile he hits upon a very important issue and sheds some real light on it. His recent article on problems with America’s “anti-poverty” programs. The problem can be illustrated in the chart which accompanied Quigley’s column:

Basically, as an individual (in this case a single woman with a child) works harder, improves her skills, and earns more money, the various government programs conspire to limit her improvement in living standards. So, she works harder, invests in herself and her education and winds up back where she was before (or arguably worse off because she is working harder).

Libertarians have argued for a variety of reforms including simply giving the cash equivalent of these programs to the poor. Others have argued that anti-poverty programs should be block-granted to the states where the “50-state laboratories of democracy” can come up with better ideas than a one-size-fits-all policy dictated out of Washington. Still others argue that private charity is the best option.

No matter what changes are made to current welfare programs, it is hard to say that those who are out to dramatically reform the current welfare system “hate the poor.” Rather, it is the current system that keeps the poor trapped in a discouraging cycle.

During recent testimony before the House Business and Employment Committee dozens of union representatives asserted that unions are required to represent all workers in a given workplace. That statement was asserted again by Dr. Gordon Lafer, a political economist and a professor at the University of Oregon, in a recent interview with New Mexico Political Report (a project of ProgressNow). I also sat down with the New Mexico Political Report.

Unfortunately, the reality is that unions are not required to represent those who do not want to pay dues (as could be done in a “right to work” state). As James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation writes:

The law requires unions to represent nonmembers only if they negotiate as “exclusive bargaining representatives.”[13] That status lets them negotiate on behalf of all workers, union and nonunion alike. If they do so, the law requires unions to bargain fairly. They cannot selectively negotiate the minimum wage for nonmembers. But unions do not have to claim exclusive representative status; they could negotiate contracts covering only dues-paying members.

This was decided by the US Supreme Court in Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd. in 1938.

Separate laws relating to certain groups of government workers in New Mexico may apply (and could be addressed by the Legislature), but there’s no federal law forcing unions to represent those that don’t want to pay for their services.