No matter what your views on climate change, whether you think it is a clear and present danger caused by man, man-made but not a crisis, or simply not happening or caused by humans at all, we should all agree that the ability to discuss and debate the issue is fundamental to being an American and must be defended at all costs. Unfortunately, New Mexico’s attorney general, Hector Balderas, has joined with more than a dozen attorneys general from around the nation in an effort to stifle free speech  and debate on climate change.

Today, the Rio Grande Foundation joined the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) by signing on to a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting abusive efforts by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and a coalition of other “AGs United for Clean Power” to silence the speech of more than 100 businesses, nonprofits, and private individuals who question the AGs’ positions on climate change.

CEI has found itself squarely in the cross hairs of the AGs including aggressive subpoena’s and other efforts to undermine the non-profit organization.

View the ad as a full color PDF here. Full text of the ad is below.

ABUSE OF POWER

All Americans have the right to support causes they believe in.

The right to speak out is among the most fundamental principles of American democracy. It should never be taken away.

Yet, around the country, a group of state attorneys general have launched a misguided effort to silence the views and voices of those who disagree with them.

Recently, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and a coalition of other “AGs United for Clean Power” announced an investigation of more than 100 businesses, nonprofits, and private individuals who question their positions on climate change.

This abuse of power is unacceptable. It is unlawful. And it is un-American.

Regardless of one’s views on climate change, every American should reject the use of government power to harass or silence those who hold differing opinions. This intimidation campaign sets a dangerous precedent and threatens the rights of anyone who disagrees with the government’s position—whether it’s vaccines, GMOs, or any other politically charged issue. Law enforcement officials should never use their powers to silence participants in political debates.

We are standing up for every American’s First Amendment right to speak freely. We hope you will join us. This is a critical battle, and it will determine whether our society encourages spirited debate or tolerates only government-approved opinions.

The biggest economic issue facing New Mexico these days is budget uncertainty, especially declining revenues due to the price of oil being lower than in the recent past. It is worth noting that a barrel of oil is now above $48 for the first time in 7 months. Nonetheless, New Mexico’s oil producers are still dealing with the rapidly-changing market and a great deal of uncertainty (both from the market and from Washington). That all impacts how much oil is actually produced and sold in New Mexico which in turn impacts state revenues.

The  following story which I haven’t seen anywhere else was run in the Albuquerque Journal on Thursday, May 12. It states that state revenues are down by 10% for the first 7 months of 2016. With a $6.2 billion annual general fund budget,  that puts New Mexico short by about $620 million. Rainy day funds can help temporarily, but with the cost of Medicaid expansion growing rapidly, New Mexico’s elected leadership faces some real challenges (and tough decisions) sooner than later.

Chief Executive has issued its annual analysis of the Best & Worst States for Business. The “canvas of CEO opinion” examines taxes, regulations, workforce quality, and quality-of-life metrics.

No, New Mexico doesn’t rank last. Our low costs and favorable weather make it virtually impossible for the Land of Enchantment to score as poorly as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois.

But predictably, New Mexico was the Southwest’s poorest performer. Each of our neighbors fared better.

Chief Executive‘s editor-in-chief noted that “Texas and Florida top the list, as they have every year for the past 12 years that we have conducted this survey. Despite having been hit hard by the shale energy bust, Texas is still held in high esteem by CEOs for its favorable economic reforms. But each year, Florida steadily edges up in the qualitative measures. The Sunshine State added 1 million private-sector jobs over the last five years, cut taxes 50 times and got rid of 4,200 burdensome regulations.”

Meanwhile, New Mexico’s economic-development groupthink slogs ahead, pressing the same tired, proven-to-be-ineffective measures that have failed to build a vibrant private-sector economy here. Last week, at a Legislative Finance Committee hearing, the brain-dead inertia continued. The Santa Fe New Mexican‘s Bruce Krasnow reported that witnesses — he mislabeled them “top economic development experts” — told lawmakers that “education and workforce development” were the tools to “to create jobs and set New Mexico’s economy on a path of long-term growth.”

NMSU’s Christopher Erickson, Krasnow wrote, recommended that the state “do a better job of investing in education to build a smarter, more talented state.” (An educrat advocating for more education funding. Shocking.)

Workforce quality matters, of course, but it’s not the sole determinant of success. Far from it. South Carolina, Tennessee, and Nevada are hardly intellectual powerhouses, but all three score well on Chief Executive‘s survey. (South Carolina is the breakout star of the Rio Grande Foundation’s monthly tally of Right to Work’s advantage in job-creation.) Massachusetts and Maryland, where educational attainment is stellar, landed near the bottom.

How many more reminders do New Mexico’s elected officials need? Deregulation, tax cuts, labor freedom, school choice, and smart infrastructure spending (i.e., no “transit” boondoggles, no empty spaceports) offer the best chance to build prosperity in our deeply dysfunctional state. How much longer do we have to wait?

On Sunday, the chief of New Mexico’s Children, Youth And Families Department bragged that since 2010, spending on the state’s “early childhood service programs — child care assistance, home visiting, pre-K and early pre-K — has grown by $47 million.” Monique Jacobson further beamed that “a new report from the State Preschool Yearbook showed that New Mexico increased pre-K enrollment and improved its rank 10 spots to 18th in the nation.”

Taxpayers are supposed to be happy about that?

As the American Enterprise Institute’s Katharine B. Stevens noted, “there’s no evidence that universal pre-K comes even close to its touted capacity to move the needle for disadvantaged children.” Since 1970, “the percent of 3- to 5-year-olds attending pre-primary education has increased dramatically,” yet the development has “had literally no effect on students’ [National Assessment of Educational Progress] reading and math scores by the time they reach 12th grade.”

Closer to home, and more recently, in New Mexico, between 2011 and 2015, NAEP scores for fourth-grade reading fell from 233 to 231. Fourth-grade math scores fell from 208 to 207. There’s zero evidence that the past decade of mounting preschool expenditures has produced results. Stagnant achievement remains the norm.

Reflexive support for preschool in the Land of Enchantment is a bipartisan scandal. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to face the truth that “early childhood education” is not living up to its hype. Instead, the subsidies keep flowing, liberals preen themselves on their “compassion,” educrats collect their paychecks, and taxpayers receive zero return on their “investment.”

What we do know is that PV solar costs considerably more than traditional energy sources (as seen in the chart below). If people want to buy their own solar, that is their choice, but the City of Albuquerque should not be foisting higher cost electricity on taxpayers in an already-struggling economy.

Our luncheon with Ilya Shapiro on the legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia and the future of the US Supreme Court was a big success. More than 70 people showed up to hear Shapiro’s message.

You can listen to the audio of Shapiro’s interview with Bob Clark of 770KKOB AM here. Just look for the interview labeled “The Future of the US Supreme Court 5-12-16.” A few photos of the event can be found below.

The Journal’s Winthrop Quigley responded to the Rio Grande Foundation’s recent op-ed appearing in these pages by assembling a team of ideologically sympathetic economists from around New Mexico to generate a six-page policy brief. Clearly, our work is touching a nerve.

The paper, which we have reviewed, contains some points of agreement (the gross receipts tax in its current form is seriously flawed) and many more points of disagreement, but neither in his most-recent column, nor in their paper, do Quigley and friends ever make a clear (let alone convincing) case for raising taxes on hard-working New Mexicans.

The tax-hikers’ most compelling point is that when state and local burdens are taken together, New Mexico’s overall tax bill is slightly below average. A 2016 Wallethub report places New Mexico 26th among US states in this regard, with a burden that is 0.48 percent less than average. That hardly justifies tax hikes. Delaware, for example, imposes a burden that is 44 percent below average. Does that mean their politicians must raise taxes immediately? Hardly.

Besides, we agree with Quigley’s economists (and most any economist around) that New Mexico’s tax structure is deeply flawed. So let’s come together to reform the gross receipts tax in ways that don’t lead to rent-seeking among interest groups while causing pyramiding and chasing small businesses and entrepreneurs out of state. Why make a bad system (and New Mexico’s struggling economy) worse by increasing the burdens it imposes?

It is worth reminding readers that our response to Quigley came after three separate columns from him arguing for higher taxes. He has now taken a fourth column to respond to our response.

In those three columns, Quigley included data that would lead readers to believe that New Mexico’s government is smaller than most and that higher taxes are a reasonable and necessary response to the state’s financial woes. While the Rio Grande Foundation spends a vast majority of its time researching and reporting on our state’s heavy regulatory burdens, business-unfriendliness, and corporate welfare, ample data do suggest that New Mexico’s government workforce is both bloated and overcompensated.

Quigley’s economists – some of whom are government employees – argue that because New Mexico teachers are considered state workers, data showing that New Mexico has the 2nd-largest (state and local) government workforce among U.S. states is wrong. But Governing magazine’s most recent data ranks New Mexico 10th in the nation for non-education, full-time government workers per capita.

According to Governing, New Mexico has 268 per 10,000 while neighboring Texas has 212 and Arizona has 188.

Quigley’s economists take issue with our data which indicate that New Mexico state and local workers make 20 percent more than their private-sector counterparts when retirement and other benefits are included. They somehow argue that salaries of New Mexicans working at federal installations should be included in the comparison.

This is just silly. Yes, New Mexico has far more than its share of federal workers. That workforce looks even larger when you consider our state’s anemic private sector. But adding federal employees – whose salary is politically determined in Washington and is minimally impacted by local economic forces – makes no sense. In reality, New Mexico’s state and local governments are competing with the private sector for workers. And, when everything is accounted for, those government employees are well-compensated.

Like Quigley and his friends, we at the Rio Grande Foundation wish to have an honest and open discussion about New Mexico’s struggling economy. It is an issue that impacts educational attainment, crime, and the state’s fiscal condition.

Unfortunately, for too long (decades, not years), New Mexico policymakers have relied on federal spending and the oil and gas industry to drive our economy. For a variety of reasons, those economic engines have stalled.

We believe that raising taxes would further hinder the growth of New Mexico’s private sector economy and will continue to research and share ways to make our State government more efficient, not bigger.

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

Joel Kotkin is an invaluable demographer. An expert on how Americans actually live — as opposed to how Nanny State elites want us to live — he’s issued his 2016 list of “The Best Cities For Jobs.”

Kotkin’s survey documents “the robustness of a region’s growth both recently and over time, with a minor addition to mitigate the volatility that the Great Recession has introduced into the time series.” The goal is “to capture a snapshot of the present and prospective employment outlook in each MSA.”

You know where this is headed.

Of 98 mid-sized metro regions, Albuquerque ranked a dismal 85th. Even Canton, Worcester, New Haven, Green Bay, Toledo, Portland (Maine), and Springfield (Massachusetts) fared better. For the 253 smaller urban regions Kotkin examined, Santa Fe ranked 156th, Farmington 169th, and Las Cruces 191st.

Mired in Big Government, federal dependence, one-party rule, and implacable resistance to pro-growth policy changes, policy-wise, the Land of Enchantment is stuck on stupid. Broad, sweeping changes are needed — now. Let’s get started.

Various health care experts have noted that ObamaCare, which was created by an Administration and Party that opposes the very free market principles underpinning health savings accounts, actually made HSA’s an increasingly-popular option for Americans. HSA’s are simply tax-free savings accounts that allow people to use those pretax savings dollars for daily medical expenses and then only use the insurance policy for serious health problems or accidents. Today, more than 11 million Americans (including me) have an HSA.

Unfortunately, having already lost my insurance once thanks to ObamaCare, thanks to Obama Administration efforts to kill HSA’s, I may lose my insurance — which covers my wife and three young daughters — yet again as early as January 2017.

As health care expert Grace-Marie Turner notes:

The Obama administration has published final regulations that “will make it impossible to offer HSA-qualified plans in the future” in the ACA exchanges, according to HSA expert Roy Ramthun.

The Department of Health and Human Services published final regulations last month that will make it virtually impossible for plans offered in the exchanges to comply with both HSA and ACA rules.

The new rule governs the “standard benefit designs” for Bronze, Silver and Gold plans in the exchanges.  According to Ramthun’s analysis, the new rules mean that 1) the specified deductibles for the plans and out-of-pocket limits to be offered in the exchanges will be outside the requirements for HSA-qualifying plans, and 2) plans will have to cover services below the deductible which are not allowed under the legal definition of HSAs.

Ramthun believes it is unlikely any HSA plans will be offered in the exchanges in 2017 as a result.

I see ObamaCare as being quite similar to the housing market/US economy circa early 2007 (as portrayed in The Big Short for example). It is clear that something is wrong and the system is not sustainable, but no one knows when it will collapse. Clearly, ObamaCare is NOT working as promised. It is “covering” people primarily through the costly and ineffective Medicaid program.

It may take awhile to utterly collapse (and who knows what will happen then), but it is coming.

Rep. Lujan-Grisham wants to “get creative” in the areas of job creation and economic development per a recent article in the Albuquerque Journal. I’m a sucker for headlines like that because I always hope someone writing in the paper actually has a creative idea. Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed in Rep. Lujan-Grisham who has supported common-sense economic policies, despite partisan opposition from liberal members of her own delegation.

So, what’s Lujan-Grisham’s “big” idea? Get a better contract written to encourage contracts flow to businesses in New Mexico. Yep, that’s really about it.

It would be one thing to be disappointed if Lujan-Grisham were going to stay in Washington, DC, but the rumor mill places her among the likely Democrats running for Governor. She has previously opposed “right to work” legislation for New Mexico. “Right to work” and other pro-market reforms have a far-greater likelihood (and track record) of succeeding in helping New Mexico generate jobs than yet another effort to “leverage” federal dollars (an effort that has been made continuously in our State for decades).

The announcement that Intrepid Potash will lay off 300 is a reminder that when it comes to getting stuff out of the ground, in New Mexico, it’s not all about oil and gas.

We don’t have numbers for 2015 yet, but between 2013 and 2014, mining employment in the Land of Enchantment dropped from 7,112 to 6,145. Potash mining accounted for 17.5 percent of all jobs in the sector. Only copper and coal accounted for a greater share of employment.

Potash, “mined from accent ocean deposits over 300 million years old,” is used as “an agricultural fertilizer (plant nutrient) because it is a source of soluble potassium, which is one of the three primary plant nutrients required for plant growth and maturation.” New Mexico is the nation’s top producer.

Commodities are a boom-and-bust industry, and government has no place propping up miners going through a rough patch of low prices. That’s called the marketplace, and it should be left alone. But the Obama administration’s across-the-board assault on industrial production, founded on junk science, can’t be making things easier for miners of potash or any other substance. Too bad most members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation won’t stand up to the constant regulatory assaults on industries vital to their state.

The following op-ed ran in the Carlsbad Current-Argus on May 8, 2016.

New Mexico has a “Dr. Abernethy” problem.

In 2014, The Wall Street Journal explored the ways that Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid was “straining some health-care systems that already don’t have enough doctors and staff” and challenging “medical practices’ bottom lines in ways that lead them to turn some away.”

Reporter Louise Radnofsky described how Dr. Holly Abernerthy, a family practitioner in Farmington,

has turned away all newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries because she can’t sustain her practice expenses if her proportion of Medicaid patients grows much beyond her current 13 percent.

For a moderately complex office visit, she is paid about the same as [a] nurse practitioner: about $80 from Medicaid and about $160 on average from commercial insurance.

Says Dr. Abernethy, “I would love to see every Medicaid patient that comes through my door. If you give people coverage, they should be able to utilize it.” But making it work would extend her workday, and “I have three small children and I miss them.”

A year and a half later, things are about to get a whole lot worse for Dr. Abernethy — and her colleagues.

The New Mexico Human Services Department is preparing to implement the legislature’s mandate that it “reduce reimbursement rates paid to Medicaid providers.” The healthcare bureaucracy’s plan does not impact prevention or obstetrics, but cuts for inpatient, outpatient, and dental services would range from 1 percent to 8 percent. As the Associated Press noted, the “University of New Mexico Hospital would see the steepest reimbursement reductions — 8 percent for inpatient services and 5 percent for outpatient.” Previously “enhanced” rate for uncompensated care at 29 state hospitals would be reversed.

Why all the cuts? Medicaid, expanded by Governor Martinez under Obamacare, is spewing a river of red ink. It’s projected to generate a deficit of $417 million in the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years. And the future is likely to be even darker. By 2020, the state estimates that 43 percent of New Mexicans will be signed up for “free” healthcare.

Last year, the legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee asked the Rio Grande Foundation to provide an analysis of Medicaid’s costs and benefits in the Land of Enchantment. Paul Gessing, our organization’s president, explained to legislators that nationally, “over half of providers no longer accept Medicaid patients,” and of the “doctors who do accept Medicaid, the provider networks are narrow and nearly one-third face wait times of over a month.”

The committee’s far-left members assured us that such conditions don’t prevail in New Mexico. Except … they do. A recent investigation by the Legislative Finance Committee uncovered average Medicaid wait times “from three weeks to nearly two months,” as well as “significantly fewer [primary care providers] accepting new Medicaid patients than has been reported by the [managed care organizations].”

With reimbursements about to decline, look for even longer wait times and more providers denying services to Medicaid patients. It’s Econ 101 — a subject the proprietors of New Mexico’s taxpayer-funded healthcare empire consistently flunk.

Another inconvenient reality willfully ignored by Medicaid’s fans: the research consistently showing that the program generates less-than-impressive outcomes. In Oregon, where Medicaid was broadened prior to Obamacare, a sweeping study concluded that expansion “produced no statistically significant effects on physical health.”

Ineffective and outrageously costly, Medicaid is an albatross around the necks of taxpaying New Mexicans. It’s time for the state to reverse its disastrous expansion. Such a return to fiscal sanity is possible. In the words of the Foundation for Government Accountability’s Jonathan Ingram, options include the elimination of “Medicaid expansion eligibility, effective on a specific date,” or a freeze “at current levels,” allowing “enrollees [to] cycle off as their conditions improve.” Next up: A lobbying effort with other states to implement meaningful, market-oriented reforms of a program that has gotten completely out of control.

Tinkering with reimbursement rates can cut costs in the short run, but it’s no long-term solution to New Mexico’s Medicaid mess. Policymakers need to think bolder, and bigger.

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.

Recently, Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing sat down with Fred Martino of KRWG-TV in Las Cruces. Unlike most television appearances, Gessing was not being called upon to debate a liberal on issues of limited government in New Mexico. Rather, in this interview, Gessing and Connor Gordon of Young Americans For Liberty at New Mexico State University discussed the battle for liberty in New Mexico.

Connor is a smart young guy and defies his generation’s unfortunate embrace of left-wing liberal policies. He is ahead of where Gessing was when he was a college student. Anyway, the interview provides an opportunity for both to go into their understanding of the state of liberty in New Mexico and what needs to be done to improve it.

Do you want to find out if your doctor has been disciplined by the medical board, the feds, or has faced a high number of malpractice cases? In New Mexico, you may be out of luck. Of course, we at Rio Grande Foundation (like Milton Friedman before us) had little use for government-mandated professional licensing.

Recently, I sat down with KRQE Channel 13 to discuss a new report from Consumer Reports that ranked state medical licensing boards on their public disclosure on websites etc. of information relating to disciplinary actions taken against doctors as well as malpractice payouts and criminal convictions. Neither of New Mexico’s licensing boards performed particularly well in the report (osteopathic or the regular medical board). You can check out the study for yourself on pages 26-28 of the report.

Watch the full interview which aired earlier this week below:

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, liberal columnist Winthrop Quigley cited a “white paper” by some of his friends in the field of economics. He relies on statements contained in this paper to again call for higher taxes and to, theoretically refute a recent RGF column written to counteract Quigley’s calls for higher taxes.

Quigley did not include a link to the new “white paper” in his column either in print or online. There is nothing at the UNM Bureau of Economic Research page as of this posting. Nothing contained in this paper has been shared with me or anyone at RGF. I have reached out to Jim Peach at NMSU (a co-author of this white paper) who I know personally as well as Quigley himself to obtain a copy. Until we receive the actual critique of our work, it is hard to even formulate a response (rest assured, we’ll push for the ABQ Journal to give us such a response).

Anyway, at least from looking at Quigley’s article in today’s paper, he brings up some interesting points that one could argue mean NM does not spend as much and as a somewhat less bloated workforce relative to other states than we argue, but he fails to provide specific data or analysis to justify his arguments. More importantly, he doesn’t even attempt to make an economic argument that higher taxes would be beneficial or are necessary to improve New Mexico’s economy.

All that said, we do agree that eliminating loopholes and flattening the rate of New Mexico’s gross receipts tax would be good things.

The Foundation is tracking announcements of expansions, relocations, and greenfield investments published on Area Development‘s website. Founded in 1965, the publication “is considered the leading executive magazine covering corporate site selection and relocation. … Area Development is published quarterly and has 60,000 mailed copies.” In an explanation to the Foundation, its editor wrote that items for Area Development‘s announcements listing are “culled from RSS feeds and press releases that are emailed to us from various sources, including economic development organizations, PR agencies, businesses, etc. We usually highlight ones that represent large numbers of new jobs and/or investment in industrial projects.”

In April, of 11,468 projected jobs, 8,792 — 76.7 percent — were slated for right-to-work (RTW) states:

The non-RTW figure was highly skewed by Amazon’s choice of New Jersey for two new fulfillment centers, and 2,000 jobs. Take that one investment out of the analysis, and RTW would have grabbed 92.9 percent of all projected employment.

As is usually the case, no projects are to be located in New Mexico.

Twelve domestic companies based in non-RTW states announced investments in RTW states. Just one announcement went the other way.

RTW prevailed in foreign direct investment, too. Seventeen projects are headed to RTW states, with five to occur in non-RTW states.

Two relocations went from non-RTW states to RTW states. None journeyed from RTW to non-RTW.

Marquee RTW wins included a manufacturing facility in Florida for OneWeb Satellites, a company building a “satellite based communications network capable of delivering internet connectivity globally” (250 jobs), the decision by New Jersey-based Creston Electronics to “attract top talent in R&D, customer support, engineering, manufacturing and IT support” in Texas (275 jobs), and India-based Aurobindo Pharma’s choice of North Carolina for a “state-of-the-art national headquarters for specialty pharmaceutical R&D” (275 jobs).

Methodological specifics:

* All job estimates — “up to,” “as many as,” “about” — were taken at face value, for RTW and non-RTW states alike.

* If an announcement did not make an employment projection, efforts were made to obtain an estimate from newspaper articles and/or press releases from additional sources.

* If no job figure could be found anywhere, the project was not counted, whether it was a RTW or non-RTW state.

* Intrastate relocations were not counted, interstate relocations were.

For nearly two years, skeptics, critics and opponents have assembled an impressive arsenal of arguments against Albuquerque Rapid Transit, the proposed dedicated busway along Central Avenue.

The mayor, seven of nine city councilors and the city’s transportation bureaucrats don’t care.

Adamantly committed to the project, and unpersuaded by intense public opposition and a plethora of policy-grounded objections, ART’s overseers have forged ahead. They’ve dedicated municipal-bond revenue to the busway. They’ve asked for, and secured, White House approval for $69 million in federal subsidies. And they had planned to begin construction in May.

But last month, two significant obstacles to ART emerged. One lawsuit, filed in state court, lists a number of small businesses and residents as plaintiffs. Another, filed in federal court, is backed by the “Coalition of Concerned Citizens to Make ART Smart,” an “unincorporated association,” as well as Jean and Marc Bernstein, the owners of the Flying Star restaurants.

The state complaint filed last month said Route 66 is “one of the most historic and well-known iconic roads in the U.S.,” and ART will impact “over 150 places on the National Historic Register.” The National Historic Preservation Act “requires that any federally funded undertaking” consider the impact on “any site, building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places,” the suit said. But the analysis of ART’s threat to history was perfunctory, the suit alleged. Plaintiffs requested “a full review of Historic Landmarks and the impact of the project there-on rather than the illegal cursory indication that no significant impacts would occur with regard to Historic Properties.” In addition, the complaint charged that ART would “constitute a complete nuisance and interference with the rights of the existing businesses to continue to contract with their customers and to function.”

The state complaint is strong. Its federal counterpart is stronger. The federal lawsuit charges that the city misrepresented the facts when it asked the Federal Transit Administration for an exemption to the requirement that ART account for its environmental footprint. Central Avenue isn’t known for rich wildlife, but the issue isn’t biology — traffic congestion, traffic patterns, economic vitality and the like, in an urban area must be assessed. Yet Washington approved the city’s request for an exclusion.

It gets worse. In its request to relax environmental scrutiny, according to the federal suit, the city answered “no” to the question: “Is the project likely to generate intense public discussion, concern or controversy, even though it may be limited to a relatively small subset of the community?” Whoa. Last summer, when the city applied for its exemption, the city was well aware of mounting citizen and business opposition. (And since then, resistance has only intensified.)

The federal complaint tacks on a number of other counts, including (like the state case) violation of the National Historic Preservation Act; violation of the state-level Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act; and nonconformity with the city’s “Complete Streets Ordinance,” which mandates that “the need to move vehicles efficiently” must be balanced with “placemaking, pedestrian-friendliness, historic preservation and economic development,” according to the suit.

We’ve long known that ART is wrong for Albuquerque. The corridor doesn’t have anywhere near the population density to support bus rapid transit. The project would severely reduce mobility by creating more traffic congestion, and is all but certain to put many Central Avenue restaurants and shops out of business. And Washington is nearly insolvent, with no surplus funds to spend on a dubious transit project in a city suffering from a high crime rate and subpar job growth.

Thanks to the state and federal lawsuits, we now know that ART has an even darker side. The city’s proposed busway likely violated federal law, a state statute and a local ordinance. Albuquerque’s residents and businesses should not have had to resort to the courts to block a proposal that’s sure to prove disastrous to both transportation and economic development in their struggling city. But let’s hope that the legal actions, however costly and time-consuming, help put a permanent end to Albuquerque’s budding bus boondoggle.

D. Dowd Muska is research director of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization.

Layoffs at Intel, out-of-control Medicaid expenditures, and oil still below revenucrats’s target price. New Mexico is in dangerous fiscal territory.

Can we cut welfare for Hollywood — and its unions — finally?

Dead-ender proponents of “film and television incentives” never tire of defending their faith-based policy. (Last week the Albuquerque Journal claimed that “New Mexico in general and Albuquerque in particular can thank television and film productions for keeping the local economies real.”) But facts are stubborn things, and the latest federal data are discouraging. In the third quarter of 2012, New Mexico’s employment in NAICS 51211, motion picture and video production, averaged 2,280. Three years later, it averaged 2,059.

The spectacular, and costly, failure to build a viable, sustainable entertainment industry in New Mexico surely ranks among the worst corporatist boondoggles perpetrated by the state’s taxpayer-compensated proponents of “economic development.” As legislators and the governor consider budget cuts for the fiscal year that starts July 1, the first place to start is a no-brainer.

Have you heard of “Keep It in the Ground”? It’s the latest eco-left assault on coal, oil, and natural gas, and it’s a missile aimed right at the heart of New Mexico’s economy and fiscal health.

According to The Atlantic‘s CityLab: “The explicit language of ‘keep it in the ground’ appears in a letter written by 400 green advocates requesting that President Obama cut off drilling on federal lands. A bill with that name sits in the U.S. Senate … . The websites of leading environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace proclaim Keep It in the Ground as a top priority for fighting climate change.”

Earlier this week, the reality-based analysts at the Institute for Energy Research examined KIITG, and found that the campaign “hurts our economy” and “imperils our health and well-being.”

“Exploring the Dangers of the Keep it in the Ground Campaign” looks at the issue from a national perspective, so let’s focus on the impact on New Mexico. Over 30 percent of the state’s general fund is derived from hydrocarbon taxes, royalties, and fees. As reported by the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, 56 percent of New Mexico’s oil production is on federal lands. For natural gas, the share is 63 percent.

End energy production on “public” property, and New Mexico’s already-fragile economy would go into a horrific tailspin. KIITG represents a dire threat to the Land of Enchantment.

The headline from  Washington Post blogger Catherine Rampell is “Millennials are increasingly rejecting voodoo economics.” Now, the term “voodoo economics” was inaugurated in 1980 by then-presidential candidate George HW Bush.

It was a slam against Ronald Reagan’s “supply side” tax cutting strategy which, while I’m not necessarily in the “supply side” camp has proven far more successful than Obama’s “tax and spend” policies:

The blog further goes on to state that, “Compared with responses from the past few years, today’s 18-to-29-year-olds are more likely to believe “basic health insurance is a right for all people,” “basic necessities, such as food and shelter, are a right that government should provide to those unable to afford them,” and “the government should spend more to reduce poverty.”

In other words, there is a reason these people are voting for avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. Too many young people don’t understand basic economics.

While I believe that economic deregulation and spending restraint MUST be a part of any serious economic policy that spurs economic growth, a strong majority of economists surveyed by CNN back in 2010 believed that cutting taxes was the best single way for Congress to improve the economy. That’s far better than the response even liberal economists gave to Bernie Sanders’/Millennial economic ideas:

The state’s healthcare program for “the poor,” expanded by Governor Martinez under Obamacare, is spewing a river of red ink. Medicaid is projected to generate a deficit of $417 million in the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years. And the future is likely to be even darker. By 2020, the state estimates that 43 percent of New Mexicans will be signed up for “free” healthcare.

To cut costs, the Human Services Department is proposing to “rescind previous reimbursement increases to nearly 2,000 general physicians and trim payment rates to hospitals by between 3 percent and 8 percent.” Obstetrics and preventive care would be exempt, but previous “rate increases also would be rolled back at 29 hospitals that receive supplemental payments to offset uncompensated care.”

Late last year, the Foundation explained to legislators in Santa Fe that nationally, “over half of providers no longer accept Medicaid patients,” and of the “doctors who do accept Medicaid, the provider networks are narrow and nearly one-third face wait times of over a month.” (Not surprisingly, the Health and Human Services Committee’s far-left members assured us that such conditions don’t prevail in New Mexico.)

With reimbursements likely to fall here, look for more providers to follow Farmington family physician Holly Abernethy, who The Wall Street Journal reported:

has turned away all newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries because she can’t sustain her practice expenses if her proportion of Medicaid patients grows much beyond her current 13%.

For a moderately complex office visit, she is paid about the same as [a] nurse practitioner: about $80 from Medicaid and about $160 on average from commercial insurance.

Says Dr. Abernethy, “I would love to see every Medicaid patient that comes through my door. If you give people coverage, they should be able to utilize it.” But making it work would extend her workday, and “I have three small children and I miss them.”

A recent investigation by the Legislative Finance Committee uncovered average Medicaid wait times “from three weeks to nearly two months,” as well as “significantly fewer [primary care providers] accepting new Medicaid patients than has been reported by the [managed care organizations].”

Medicaid provides lousy services, and is an albatross around the necks of taxpaying New Mexicans. It’s time for the state to reverse its disastrous expansion, and work with other states to lobby Washington for meaningful reforms of a program that is completely out of control.

To say that government policies are often absurd is to state the obvious, but one ridiculous federal law caught our attention recently: that is a federal law that makes it illegal to ship dentures across state lines.

Interestingly, this issue impacts two distinct areas that have gained RGF’s attention in recent months. The first is “dental therapists.” Dowd Muska wrote a piece about how New Mexico could deregulate dentistry slightly to improve the lives of thousands of New Mexicans. Obviously, the denture shipment law was meant to benefit a protected industry, not consumers who may have left their dentures in an hotel room in Topeka.

On the other hand, there is likely widespread ignorance of this law. So, imagine the surprise of a senior citizen getting busted by law enforcement for this ridiculous “crime.” It’s the kind of that might make average folks realize that the old adage “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is simply not realistic and that intent must be considered (mens rea).

On this week’s “Eye on New Mexico” on Channel 4, KKOB, Chris Ramirez talked to Commissioner de la Cruz and Marcos Gonzales of the Bernalillo County Economic Development Department about economic development and the Commissioner’s trip to France. My interview starts at the 4 minute mark and de la Cruz defends the $20K spent on the trip after that.

So far, the Commissioner admits that no specific projects have resulted from the trip. I’m sure we’ll be notified if that changes.

States and cities, the Pew Research Center found, are launching apps that empower citizens and public employees to report waste, fraud, and abuse. While there have long been “hotlines for reporting misuse of government resources,” the new tech is adding “a new level of sophistication.” The smartphone-enabled systems “allow people to submit photos and videos in support of their claims; and in some cases auditors can use the app to respond and ask for follow-up information, all while maintaining a tipster’s anonymity.”

A quick search found that the Land of Enchantment doesn’t have any W/F/A apps in place. But the Office of the State Auditor’s division of Special Audits & Investigations takes tips via phone and a website. The New Mexico Human Services Department does the same, for “public assistance fraud” and “Medicaid provider fraud.” The Program and Network Integrity Department of OptumHealth, which “manages behavioral health services for New Mexico’s Behavioral Health Collaborative,” can be reached here. The City of Albuquerque’s Inspector General is online as well.

With governments at the city, county, and state levels facing mounting fiscal woes, New Mexicans can do their fellow taxpayers a solid by reporting the misuse of public resources. Waging war on W/F/A cannot be the sole answer to solvency issues — solutions include welfare reform, privatization, school choice, smart infrastructure spending, and public-sector compensation packages that are based on market realities — but it’s a start.