(Albuquerque, NM) – The Rio Grande Foundation, using data produced by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University (BHI) has analyzed the Obama Administration Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Air Regulations” and found that if consumers are concerned with the electricity rate hikes being proposed by Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), they will face an even greater impact under the new federal regulations.

The new report is available here. Among the report’s findings:

• Before factoring in PNM’s proposed 12 percent rate hike, New Mexico’s electricity prices are relatively high compared to other states. In part this is due to aggressive renewable portfolio standards;

• The EPA has introduced three new emission rules that will either force coal-fired generation plants to close or adopt expensive and unproven technologies such as carbon capture and storage;

• These rules will cost the New Mexico economy $185 million between implementation and 2030, according to data provided by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University;

• The rules’ effects on reducing the supply of inexpensive electricity production will increase electricity prices by 18%, cost 5,170 jobs, and reduce real disposable income by $578 million, according to the report.

According to Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing, all of this economic harm amounts to “all pain and no gain” since EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, in September 2013 testimony before a House committee, conceded that the agency’s climate-change regulatory regime would not affect the climate because the preponderance of current and future greenhouse-gas emissions originate in Asia.

“Of course,” argued Gessing, “The pain of dramatically-increased electricity costs will further hinder New Mexico’s already anemic economy while having real-world impacts on the thousands of hard-working taxpayers who are destined to lose their jobs under this misguided proposal.”

With PNM already looking for a 12 percent rate hike and many of New Mexico’s utilities looking to increase their “renewable” portfolios from 15 to 20 percent by 2020 to comply with New Mexico’s “renewable portfolio standard,” the price of electricity in the Land of Enchantment has already risen dramatically in recent years (as seen in the chart below) and is likely to rise dramatically in the years ahead.

Check out this new video outlining the serious issues facing the Obama Administration’s plan:

The following was penned by Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing and several RGF board members in response to an article by Jose Armas attacking RGF and its work.

Jose Armas recently penned an article attacking the Rio Grande Foundation, an organization with which we are involved. Armas’ critique trots out the usual misinformation about our funding sources and questions the non-partisan nature of our work.

Donations to RGF, like those made to all 501c3 organizations, are private. The right to privacy was affirmed in the 1958 US Supreme Court decision NAACP v. Alabama. While RGF closely follows IRS regulations on such matters, we are glad to report that 2/3rds of our 2014 funding (totaling $275,000) was from businesses and individuals based right here in New Mexico.

Of course, all of this does not address Armas’ specific concerns about the RGF’s policy recommendations. We are unsure how our work can be blamed for New Mexico’s lousy economic track record considering that New Mexico has been poor for decades and only now are we seeing serious discussion of RGF policy ideas like “right to work” and economic deregulation.

Contrary to Armas’ assertion, RGF research supports free market policies, not “corporate welfare.” In fact, RGF continues to oppose the very taxpayer-funded “corporate welfare” Armas decries.

In conclusion, RGF is indeed a non-partisan, free market, research and advocacy organization. This may not please those, like Mr. Armas who seem to believe that the rich and corporations are inherently evil while redistributionist government policies are inherently good. But that’s fine with us.

Signed by:
Paul J. Gessing, President and: Victor Bruno, Kathryn Minter, Tom Mullins, and Doug Turner, Members of the Rio Grande Foundation Board

The far-left group “ProgressNow” seems to think they have some kind of “smoking gun” in that the Rio Grande Foundation and/or proponents of a “right to work” law in New Mexico are doing something unsavory. They continue to use stolen emails from a man who remains in prison for his crimes in an attempt to make the Rio Grande Foundation look bad (even ProgressNow can’t come up with anything illegal or unethical done by RGF). In other words, advocates of making New Mexico more economically-competitive through a “right to work” law are winning on the merits (witness bi-partisan support in the first Committee) so they are getting desperate.

The “case” such as it is can be summarized in one of the emails (stolen from a third party) below in which I ask Mickey Barnett, a prominent attorney and conservative political activist familiar with “right to work” in New Mexico for advice on whether or not to have a study done on the issue. The study was to be based on methodology used in a similar report from a free market think tank in Minnesota:

Barnett’s response which includes cc’s to several other conservatives argues for funding and for using the “right to work” issue in future political campaigns (Right to Work is supported by 65% of Democrats nationwide).

RGF didn’t find any one person or organization to fund the study, so we used funds from our 2012 operating budget. Barnett’s email didn’t generate so much as a response from any other party on the email indicating that there was no outpouring of money from conservative political insiders to fund the project.

Lastly, it is pretty rich indeed for an organization funded in part by George Soros and relying entirely on stolen emails for evidence, to have their panties in a bunch over some offhand remarks by someone who has no formal role with Rio Grande Foundation.

Today in the House Business and Employment Committee, HB 75 which would make New Mexico the 25th state in the nation to adopt “right to work” legislation, passed with bi-partisan support. Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing provided expert testimony which can be seen below. Next up is House Judiciary Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the issue of whether to make New Mexico a “right to work” state. I believe that this is the most important single issue being addressed during the 2015 legislative session and I am pleased to be here.

Before I get started telling you what “right to work” is, I’d like to share with you what it is not.

“Right to Work” is not anti-union. Such laws simply restore individual choice over whether to join or not join a labor union. Moreover, federal law does not obligate unions to represent non-members. The National Labor Relations Act allows unions to sign “members’ only” contracts that apply only to dues-paying members. In 1938, the Supreme Court expressly upheld union’s ability to negotiate only on behalf of members. As William Gould, chairman of the NLRB under President Clinton, wrote, “the law now permits members-only bargaining for employees” — unions can exclude non-members from their contracts.

The second thing that “right to work” is not is that it is not an economic panacea. Supporters of the law hope that by adopting such a law New Mexico will be more economically-competitive. There is ample data to show that businesses, especially those providing high-paying jobs for skilled workers, tend to locate new facilities in “right to work” states far more often than they do in non-RTW states.

How do we know this? There are reams of data showing that RTW states create more jobs, are seeing faster population growth, and are experiencing faster personal income growth than their non-RTW brethren. And, while median incomes are higher in non-right to work states, once the cost of living is factored in, median incomes in RTW states are about $5,000 higher than in non-RTW states.

I’m happy to go into that data with the Committee in detail, but let’s look at real-world businesses and the site selection professionals who help businesses locate for a living.

The first and most famous case involves the airplane manufacturer Boeing which is primarily located in Washington State, a non-right to work state. In 2009, Boeing broke ground on a facility near Charleston, in South Carolina, which is a RTW state. The facility is expected to generate 3,800 jobs and invest $750 million over the next seven years.

Boeing’s move generated a great deal of controversy, but it was clearly a decision made in part to avoid future facility shutdowns. It is worth noting that Boeing’s employees are highly-skilled and well-paid. Boeing was not moving in search of lower wages, but to avoid having its technology and resource-intensive assembly lines beholden to frequent strikes.

Notably, Airbus, the European conglomerate and main competitor to Boeing, has 9 US facilities. As seen in Figure 1, only its Washington, DC-based government affairs division is located in a non-RTW state. Airbus could have chosen anywhere in the US to build its facilities having entered the market in 1990. It chose RTW.

They are not alone. Another foreign aircraft manufacturer, Embraer which makes regional and corporate jets, also could have built anywhere in the US. They chose RTW Florida as the location for not one, but two manufacturing facilities employing a total of 1,000 workers.

Of course, aviation is not the only manufacturing industry that favors RTW states. Even if Michigan’s shift to RTW is not included in the data, as Figure 2 illustrates, automobile manufacturing is increasingly moving to states that have RTW laws on the books.

It is no accident that manufacturers, especially those building new facilities, are choosing to locate in RTW states. After all, the people they trust to help locate their businesses also believe in the importance of RTW.

I just discussed the auto industry’s shift to RTW states. New Mexico was recently in the running for Tesla’s “gigafactory” which wound up choosing RTW Nevada for its facility. John Boyd, the principal at his namesake site selection firm said of New Mexico’s chances to lure Tesla “manufacturing companies look for reasons to scratch off states when considering where to build major facilities — and no right to work law is at the top of the list.”

Boyd also said, “I can’t underscore how critical right to work status is.” In conclusion, Boyd again reiterated the dire need for a right to work law in New Mexico saying, “New Mexico has enormous potential to become a manufacturing hub, especially if it were to adopt right to work legislation.”

Boyd is not alone. When Michigan went “right to work” in 2013, Site Selection Magazine interviewed several site selection experts on the issue. The following comments, all from professional site selectors relating to a real-world law passing indicate strong support for “right to work” laws:

Said Jason Hickey, principal of Hickey & Associates in Washington, D.C., “We believe there will be an enormous impact, especially for medium-tier companies who are poised to grow.”

Tracey Hyatt Bosman of BLS & Company in Chicago calls Michigan’s adoption of RTW “a dramatic demonstration of the state’s commitment to the transformation of their business environment.”

Bosman echoes other site consultants when she adds, “Some companies simply insist on locating in a right-to-work state. Michigan’s new legislation removes a roadblock and will bring the state’s extremely skilled work force into consideration for more projects.”

It was hard to find anyone in the site selection profession who saw a downside. Michigan’s swift reversal of decades of labor law.

Said Brent Pollina of Pollina Corporate Real Estate in Chicago, “Where it will have an effect is when there are companies who are looking for locations. Michigan will no longer be eliminated because they are not a right-to-work state. As a result, there should be a significant increase in the number of projects that Michigan receives because they are no longer being eliminated at the early stages of searches. The change also sends a strong signal to business and industry.”

As with any issue, if you look hard enough you can find those who will say RTW is “ineffective” or “not a factor” in businesses’ location decisions. However, I have never heard an economic development expert say RTW was a negative.

In conclusion, RTW costs taxpayers nothing. And, at a time when Washington is no longer a reliable base for our economy and with dramatically-reduced oil prices impacting our states’ most significant economic bright spot, there is no better or more important time for New Mexico to adopt a Right to Work law.

It is not a panacea, but a serious starting point for developing New Mexico’s under-developed private sector.

Thank you for your time and attention.

The New Mexico Coalition for Charter Schools (NMCCS) and the City of Albuquerque are Sponsoring The Sixth Annual School Choice Fair
Albuquerque Convention Center Thursday, February 5, 2015 5:00 – 8:00 P.M. The event is being held on the East Side Upper Level

At the event you can meet with leaders of many charters and private schools, find out about schools that can meet your specific needs, learn about programs you might not have known existed throughout the Albuquerque area, and receive information about how to apply.

If you have questions:

Call NMCCS at (505) 842 – 8203

Email Gilda Goldner: gilda@nmccs.org

or

See you there!

Join the RGF for a Reception with
Anti-Tax Activist Grover Norquist!

The Rio Grande Foundation is hosting a reception with Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform from 6:30pm to 8:00pm on Thursday, February 5th at the Marriott Pyramid.

Entrance to the reception is $15 per-person which includes light appetizers and a cash bar.

Click here for registration form!

Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a taxpayer advocacy group he founded in 1985 at President Reagan's request. ATR works to limit the size and cost of government and opposes higher taxes at the federal, state, and local levels and supports tax reform that moves towards taxing consumed income one time at one rate.

ATR organizes the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which asks all candidates for federal and state office to commit themselves in writing to the American people to oppose all tax increases. In the 113th Congress, 219 House members and 41 Senators have taken the pledge. On the state level, 14 governors and 1,035 state legislators have taken the pledge.

Norquist chairs the Washington, DC-based "Wednesday Meeting," a weekly gathering of more than 150 elected officials, political activists, and movement leaders. The meeting started in 1993 and takes place in ATR's conference room. There are now 60 similar "center-right" meetings in 48 states (including New Mexico).

Arianna Huffington calls Norquist "The dark wizard of the Right's anti-tax cult."

According to John Stossel, "No one in modern times has fought harder to shrink the state than the founder of the group Americans for Tax Reform."

In the words of Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist is "the person who I regard as the most innovative, creative, courageous and entrepreneurial leader of the anti-tax efforts and of conservative grassroots activism in America … he has truly made a difference and truly changed American history."

P.J. O'Rourke says "Grover Norquist is Tom Paine crossed with Lee Atwater plus just a soupçon of Madame Defarge."

Senator Mitch McConnell says, "It's because of soldiers like Grover that the conservative movement is so vibrant today and that the liberals who thought they had taken over two years ago are on the run."

Politico describes Grover as "the high priest of anti-tax orthodoxy who's convinced nearly every elected Republican to sign a pledge not to raise taxes."

The Hill named Grover one of the Top Grassroots Lobbyists of 2014 saying, "They say nothing is certain but death and taxes. In Washington, the third certainty is Norquist trying to kill the second."

Mr. Norquist holds a Masters of Business Administration and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics, both from Harvard University. He lives in Washington, DC with his wife, Samah, and his daughters, Grace and Giselle.

Click here for registration form!

It is often (wrongly) assumed that when policies are proposed by Democrats, they are inherently for the benefit of the poor with the reverse applying to Republicans who supposedly, reflexively either oppose the poor or support the rich. Well, it just ain’t so.

Take the recently-proposed 1/4 percent ($40 million) gross receipts tax increase which is being supported by the three Democrats forming the majority on Bernalillo County’s Commission. A final vote is to be held on the tax hike in a matter of just a few weeks, so be sure to contact your Commissioners now.

While liberals proclaim their support for the poor, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne might not be thrilled with the County’s liberal Commissioners’ desire to raise taxes. As Dionne noted in his recent column (linked above):

Most state and local governments rely on regressive taxes — particularly sales and excise levies. Poor and middle-class people pay more simply because they have to spend the bulk of their incomes just to cover their costs.

As if that were not enough, the liberal group NM Voices for Children recently noted that “Consumption taxes,” like NM’s gross receipts tax, “exacerbate poverty.” So, there you have it, by unnecessarily increasing the gross receipts tax in Bernalillo County, the liberal members of the Commission are “exacerbating poverty.” Not only that, but they are making New Mexico’s largest city and most-populous county less attractive to a wide array of businesses and economic activities at a pivotal time when no one knows what will drive New Mexico’s economy…federal spending isn’t getting the job done and with oil prices in the tank, the one economic bright spot around here has been snuffed out.

I guess the good news for economically-struggling New Mexicans is that they can always move to Texas.

New Mexico has extremely-generous film subsidies of 25% or 30% on the dollar depending on whether the production is a tv show or a movie. According to the Legislature’s own study, these subsidies are a money-loser, costing the state’s taxpayers $137 million between 2010 and 2014.

But it looks like New Mexico was shut out of the Oscar’s and thus, did not have any films qualify for the “Film Subsidy” Oscars as outlined in the following chart from Jared Meyer at the Washington Examiner:

As seen in the chart, the film American Sniper “won” with total taxpayer subsidies of $60 million. Alas, despite budgetary problems in Santa Fe with revenue from profitable businesses like oil and gas production falling, legislators face some tough decisions. Reducing New Mexico’s generous film subsidies is not likely to be among those “difficult” decisions.

HT: Rob Nikolewski

The most recent edition of the New Mexico Freedom Hour on 770 KKOB included an extensive discussion of the issue of civil asset forfeiture. Guest Brad Cates was involved in creating the current system, but has had a change of heart and Steve Allen of the ACLU is working along with other organizations, including Rio Grande Foundation, to reform asset forfeiture laws.

Here is an article about a serious racial profiling/forfeiture abuse issue that happened right here in New Mexico. The father and son were represented by the ACLU.

The show can be found here.

RGF president was also interviewed on issues facing the 2015 New Mexico Legislature by Dave Marash of KSFR, the NPR station in Santa Fe. As one might imagine, the NPR station in Santa Fe is not a conservative bastion, so there is ample disagreement (without being disagreeable). Check out the interview which lasts just under an hour.

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 is 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 January, Liberty on the Rocks will take place on Thursday, January 22nd from 6:00 to 7:30PM. Liberty on the Rocks is normally held the third Thursday of each month but has been moved to the fourth Thursday this month only to accommodate Paul’s travel schedule.

We’ll be talking about the NM Legislature and a variety of other freedom-related issues facing our state and nation.

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!

© 2014 Watchdog.org. All rights reserved.

I visited Deming late last week and spoke to a Rotary Club there to help make the case for a “right for work.” You can read a newspaper article about that visit.

There is also a petition on “right to work” being circulated online by “Jobs for All New Mexico.”

Lastly, at the end of 2014 it was noted that New Mexico is among the six states that lost population during that year. As the map below from KOB TV illustrates, all of the six population-losers in 2014 were non-“right to work.” Not a surprise, just another factual illustration of the importance of RTW.

New Mexico In-depth recently published a legislative guide It is worth taking a look at it here.

I have a full-length article about government transparency and openness in government as well as a few quotes in the booklet, but Rio Grande Foundation was able to take out a full-page ad illustrating the serious problems facing New Mexico arising from our relative lack of economic freedom. One chart from the ad showing New Mexico’s lagging performance relative to its neighbors can be found below:

The full ad which includes several proposed solutions for the Legislature to consider in the upcoming session is on page 17 of the booklet which was published and inserted into newspapers (not including the Albuquerque Journal) across New Mexico over the weekend .

As the 2015 legislative session approaches, the Rio Grande Foundation has been working on a variety of issues. One that has not been as public (to date) is “civil asset forfeiture” reform. And, while there is work to be done at the state level, it is worth acknowledging an important move by the Obama Administration to reduce the likelihood of forfeiture abuse.

Simply put, “civil asset forfeiture” had become ripe for abuse with police departments seizing the possessions of otherwise innocent people who were not provided due process in the same way as accused criminals. Details on civil asset forfeiture can be found here.

A detailed Washington Post article on the Obama Administration’s move can be found here.

A press release from our friends at the Institute for Justice can be found here.

Here is an article relating to recent comments from the Las Cruces former city attorney that spurred outrage nationwide.

Note: this week on the NM Freedom Hour on 770 KKOB, I’ll be sitting down with an ideologically-diverse panel of experts to discuss asset forfeiture reform including this move by the Obama Administration.

With gas prices dropping quickly, there are increasing calls on both sides of the political spectrum for increasing the gas tax. I penned the following article offering a few policy ideas for what policymakers both in Washington and New Mexico ought to do before such a tax hike is considered.

With the precipitous decline in gas prices, there have been increasing calls at both the federal and state level for raising gas taxes. While opposition may seem to be founded on mere anti-tax sentiment, the reality is that there are several reasons not to increase gas taxes on either the state or federal levels.

First and foremost, it is time for Washington to step aside when it comes to most transportation policies. Transportation was largely under state control until the advent of the Interstate Highway System in the late 1950s. This system involved the creation of a massive network of highways designed to exacting specifications as laid out by federal policymakers.

Since the Interstate Highways were developed partially for defense purposes, Washington was involved in funding and implementing it. But the system is built. Now that it is, the focus should be on devolving most transportation programs to the states. This “devolution” concept was proposed in the most recent Congress as the “Transportation Empowerment Act” by Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rep. Tom Graves (Georgia).

Essentially, the Act would eliminate Congressional “pork,” the mandatory diversion of tax revenue from roads to transit, beautification projects, and bike paths, and it would give states greater flexibility in how they fund transportation initiatives within their borders. After all, mass transit may work well in New Jersey or densely-populated parts of California, but are unnecessary in Wyoming or New Mexico.

Devolution would also free states from costly labor regulations known as “Davis-Bacon” which inflate the cost of federal highway projects by an estimated 10 percent.

Raising the federal gas tax would simply lock the current system into place with all of the costly diversions and over-priced labor while costing motorists and our economy at the pump.

Of course, Washington is only one part of the transportation puzzle. New Mexico’s Legislature will also be considering legislation to increase the gas tax. This effort is misguided as well.

For starters, New Mexico policymakers have unnecessarily raised the cost of state-funded public works projects including roads and schools through “Davis-Bacon” prevailing wage laws. Since labor is such a significant component of the cost of construction projects, it is only sensible to pay fair market wages rather than arbitrarily inflating them. Legislation has been introduced by Rep. Nora Espinoza to reform New Mexico’s Davis-Bacon law.

It also makes sense for New Mexico to consider alternatives to gas taxes as a means of funding road construction. With the increased efficiency of gas-powered vehicles and the development of gas-sipping hybrids and even electric vehicles, there can be no doubt that gas taxes don’t go as far as they used to. To the extent that gas taxes are a “user-fee” paid for by those who use the roads, it makes sense for all road users to pay something for the construction and upkeep of New Mexico roads, even if your vehicle of choice is not fueled by gasoline.

This leads directly to the potential for alternative financing methods including so-called “PPPs” or “Public-Private Partnerships.” PPP’s are a means of bringing private investment dollars to public projects which in turn can result in more and better-maintained infrastructure.

To the extent that New Mexico’s transportation infrastructure is in need of additional funding, policymakers should enable entrepreneurs and private capital to help fund these needs.

If, after all these reforms have been implemented and New Mexicans still see infrastructure funding as inadequate, then it may be reasonable to consider raising the gas tax, indexing it to inflation, or both. Fortunately, there are still numerous inefficiencies in the current system that can and should be unlocked.

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

Santa Fe’s ban on plastic bags isn’t making the city greener.

Less than a year after formally implemented the ban, the City Council is now looking for a more effective solution. As recent studies have shown, instead of bringing reusable bags on their shopping trips, Santa Fe citizens have simply traded plastic for paper – nullifying the law’s sustainability objectives.

In the months following Santa Fe’s bag ban, the Environmental Services Division surveyed local retailers on its effects. After two months, 97 percent of stores reported that less than one percent of customers were bringing their own reusable bags. Two months later, according to 68 percent of respondents, that number was still below five percent.

Without reusable sacks at the ready or the option of plastic at the checkout, shoppers in Santa Fe are forced to use paper bags for their purchases. But as numerous studies have shown, paper isn’t the best choice for the environment. Plastic bags require 70 percent less energy to manufacture and generate 80 percent less waste.

Even the preferred reusable bags aren’t a perfect option. Most – made from non-recyclable nonwoven polypropylene – are used fewer than eight times before they too end up in the waste stream, where they take up more space than plastic bags. In fact, plastic shopping bags are only a tiny fraction of the country’s solid waste stream – a mere .4 percent.

Of course, no amount of litter is acceptable and any effort to minimize waste is commendable, but we can keep Santa Fe pristine without banning an option that both customers and businesses prefer.

As the report goes on to say, both have begun to feel the negative consequences of the ban. Santa Fe citizens, who previously used their old plastic bags for other reasons, miss the availability of this convenient and durable option. And Santa Fe isn’t alone in this – nine out of ten Americans reuse plastic grocery bags for everything from padding valuables for storage to packing lunches and lining trash bins.

Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of retailers in Santa Fe have already indicated a significant negative impact from providing the more expensive carryout options – options that also leave them more susceptible to shoplifting.

With clear evidence that the plastic bag ban isn’t working as intended, one would think Santa Fe’s City Council would begin considering more viable methods for meeting sustainability goals. Think again.

Despite legal uncertainties, local officials are now reconsidering ways to levy a fee on paper bags in addition to the ban. A 10-cent fee was part of the original ordinance passed last summer, but was dropped after the city attorney expressed concerns of it constituting an illegal tax.

Others have raised similar concerns. According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, fees on single-use bags violate the state’s Solid Waste and Disposal Act. And in California, concerned citizens are working to overturn a statewide ban that promises to line the pockets of grocers and special interest groups at the expense of the environment and hardworking Californians. Under SB 270, funds collected from the paper bag fee won’t go to an environmental or government initiative, but to the grocery store owners themselves.

The same potentially illegal – and certainly, unacceptable – transfer of wealth could occur in Santa Fe if the City Council has its way.

Across the country, 82 percent of Americans believe the types of shopping bags they use should be their choice, not a decision mandated by the government. Instead of meddling in the choice of consumers – and spending thousands in the process – local officials should turn their attention to consumer education and recycling for effective environmental stewardship.

As Santa Fe has experienced firsthand, plastic bag bans aren’t an environmental silver bullet. Amending the ineffective law won’t change that fact. The City Council must consider alternative green initiatives that don’t also harm the local economy.

It was only a few short years ago when the economically-misguided (both Republican and Democrat) were engaged in a witch hunt against the issue of “price gouging” at the gas pump. See my comments about then Rep. Heather Wilson. Wilson was by no means the only one. President Obama called an investigation and pundit Bill O’Reilly mocked him for not being tough enough.

Of course, these days no one is talking about “price gouging” at the pump because prices are dropping like a rock. OPEC which has, in the past, been able to reduce supply somewhat in order to drive up prices, has lost its power due to market forces (the US fracking boom).

And, of course, remember Democrats mocking Sarah Palin for saying “Drill Baby Drill?” Thanks not to government policies, but to market forces and new technology, that’s exactly what has been in recent years. The result, dramatically-lower gas prices (despite federal policies). Ingenuity and market forces are amazing. Government regulations and cartel pricing conspiracies, not so much.

According to recent news reports including this one from the New Mexico Watchdog, there is broad, bi-partisan support for an expanded $50 million “closing fund” for New Mexico to attract businesses.

Interestingly, the fact that New Mexico’s economy will be among those most harmed by falling gasoline prices is being used by advocates to justify “diversifying” New Mexico’s economy through the use of gas taxes (nearly 1/3rd of which were generated by oil and gas in the first place). Obviously, falling revenues mean that there is less revenue left to be spent on New Mexico’s fast-growing Medicaid program or on an expanded “closing fund.”

As I make clear in the Watchdog piece, we at RGF are free market first and pro-business second. We’re not fans of spending money to bring businesses here. We’d rather do the basics like adopt a “right to work” law and reform regulatory and tax policies in order to attract businesses. Taxing productive citizens and businesses in order to transfer that to attract new businesses is a losing proposition.

Interestingly enough, for Republicans in particular the $50 million closing ideas is fraught with political peril. Liberal Democrats who support the idea could easily cite support for the idea in the future and say that they worked on a bi-partisan basis to grow New Mexico’s economy. Unfortunately, a Republican embrace of the idea absent broader economic reforms will saddle the GOP with responsibility for the economy and free liberals from the “obstructionist” label.

There has been some controversy over whether site selectors — the professionals who help businesses locate facilities — and their clients value “right too work” laws as a business location benefit.

Back in July as New Mexico was in the running for the Tesla “gigafactory,” one site selection manager spoke out strongly in favor of “right to work” as an economic development tool. John Boyd, the principal at his namesake site selection firm said of New Mexico’s chances to lure Tesla “manufacturing companies look for reasons to scratch off states when considering where to build major facilities — and no right to work law is at the top of the list.”

Boyd continued saying, “I can’t underscore how critical right to work status is.” In conclusion, Boyd again reiterated the dire need for a right to work law in New Mexico saying, “New Mexico has enormous potential to become a manufacturing hub, especially if it were to adopt right to work legislation.”

More recently, Dan Mayfield of the Albuquerque Biz First talked to some other site selectors who called “right to work” “old thinking” and “steadily less important as a factor for companies to the point that it hasn’t come up in 10 years.”

What’s the reality? When Michigan went “right to work” in 2013, Site Selection Magazine interviewed several site selection experts on the issue. The following comments, all from professional site selectors relating to a real-world law passing seem to indicate strong support for “right to work” laws among site selectors:

“We believe there will be an enormous impact, especially for medium-tier companies who are poised to grow,” says Jason Hickey, principal of Hickey & Associates in Washington, D.C.

Tracey Hyatt Bosman of BLS & Company in Chicago calls Michigan’s sudden change “a dramatic demonstration of the state’s commitment to the transformation of their business environment. It also will shine a big spotlight on all of the other work they have been doing, including overhauling their corporate tax structure, simplifying regulatory processes and bringing innovative approaches to economic development.”

Bosman echoes other site consultants when she adds, “Some companies simply insist on locating in a right-to-work state. Michigan’s new legislation removes a roadblock and will bring the state’s extremely skilled work force into consideration for more projects.”

It was hard to find anyone in the site selection profession who saw a downside to Michigan’s swift reversal of decades of labor law.

“Where it will have an effect is when there are companies who are looking for locations, Michigan will no longer be eliminated because they are not a right-to-work state,” says Brent Pollina of Pollina Corporate Real Estate in Chicago. “As a result, there should be a significant increase in the number of projects that Michigan receives because they are no longer being eliminated at the early stages of searches.”

The change also sends a strong signal to business and industry, adds Pollina.

Albuquerque Mayor RJ Berry spoke at a January 7, 2015 press conference in support of “right to work.” Pardon the poor camera work and the loud passing fire truck! I believe it is very important and powerful that supporters of “right to work” have such a great ally in the Mayor of New Mexico’s largest city.

Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry speaks on “right to work’s” importance for New Mexico from Paul Gessing on Vimeo.

Do businesses look at Right to Work to base manufacturing operations? Of course. Boeing had a highly-publicized fight with the Obama Administration over the company’s desire to build a manufacturing plant in Right to Work South Carolina. Check out this interactive map of the airplane make Airbus’s US operations. Out of nine US facilities, their only non-RTW operation is their Washington, DC office. Brazilian jet manufacturer Embraer’s first US manufacturing facility is in “right to work” Florida.

And then there is automobile manufacturing. As seen in the chart below and as noted in Wards Auto, (even before Michigan went “right to work,” more and more of automobile manufacturing is happening in “right to “work states:

This goes hand in hand with the automakers’ growth in non-union manufacturing:

It is often mis-stated that the “rich” don’t pay their share. When it comes to federal income taxes, as the Tax Foundation’s new chart points out, they most definitely do pay their share (and more).

There is always the rejoinder that other taxes are not so progressive and that payroll taxes are “regressive.” This is true and is yet another reason to reform those broken and heavily-indebted programs from the ground up.

If you haven’t seen the news reports, the radical anti-modern-society types were out in force yesterday in Santa Fe (it is their home-base after all) protesting against PNM’s proposal to actually keep using coal to generate electricity (read Carla Sonntag’s Albuquerque Journal piece on the issue).

While the PNM plan is not perfect, the radical anti-energy crowd would love nothing more than to completely kill New Mexico’s economy. In other words, like most political compromises, PNM’s plan is better than the alternative. I have submitted comments to the PRC via the following email address: svincent.martinez@state.nm.us

Dear PRC Commissioners,

As a ratepayer and constituent, I encourage all NM Public Regulation Commissioners to SUPPORT the PNM plan submitted under Case #13-00390-UT.

The plan is not perfect. Unfortunately, it requires PNM to shut down two perfectly good coal-fired units at San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) and retrofit the remaining two units with expensive equipment meant to improve visibility in the Four Corners region.

However, opponents of the PNM plan who are advocating a complete shutdown of the SJGS are out of touch with reality and the need for affordable, reliable electricity in our state.

In conclusion, I hope you support the imperfect PNM plan over the economically-devastating alternatives.

The newest edition of the United Van Lines report on the leading outbound and inbound states is out and the news is bad (again) for New Mexico which finds itself among the top-10 “outbound” states for the third year in a row. Check out reports from 2013 and 2012.

See this year’s map below:

Based on historical trends and weather, New Mexico should pretty consistently be on the “inbound” side of things, but public policies seem to push it into the negative time and again.

Interestingly enough, there is a strong correlation in terms of the “right to work” issue: 8 of the 10 leading outbound states are DO NOT have a “right to work” law on the books; and 7 of the 9 leading inbound states are RTW (Washington, DC is listed in the top-10 inbound “states,” but isn’t a state) and given its small size and unique economy, it shouldn’t be considered.

The top inbound states of 2014 were:

Oregon
South Carolina (RTW)
North Carolina (RTW)
Vermont
Florida (RTW)
Nevada (RTW)
Texas (RTW)
Oklahoma (RTW)
Idaho (RTW)

The top outbound states for 2014 were:

New Jersey
New York
Illinois
North Dakota (RTW)
West Virginia
Ohio
Kansas (RTW)
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Connecticut

I had a relatively relaxing Holiday season and made sure to enjoy it because I know it is going to be an exciting and intense legislative session. The issue of “right to work” and whether New Mexico should become such a state continues to receive attention, specifically in the Albuquerque Journal where two articles appeared.

The first was an opinion piece by an English professor at CNM. The author repeats the myth that “unions must represent all unit members whether or not they pay dues.” This is demonstrably false. Unions are under no obligation to represent anyone, but it is a useful myth to repeat.

The author also makes the spurious claim that “right to work” laws increase inequality. There is simply no evidence for this statement (and the author rightly fudges the statement without citing any data to back her argument up). Here is a list of states by gini coefficient which measures inequality. There is simply no discernable pattern when it comes to “right to work” and inequality as many of the least unequal (most equal) states have “right to work” and vice-versa.

And then there is Thom Cole’s article from the front page of today’s Albuquerque Journal. Cole seized on my statement that “right to work” would impact unions’ bottom lines. This is an obvious truism as unions and their allies directly benefit from the forced-deduction of union dues which, in many cases are then donated to Democratic Party candidates.

The balance of the article is a platform for Jon Hendry of the AFL-CIO to share all the great things unions supposedly have done for New Mexico workers. Omitted is how union-supported left-wing economic policies are killing New Mexico’s economy and forcing more of our citizens to look for work in “right to work” states like Texas.