Most educated New Mexicans know that oil and gas production is largely based in the Northwest and Southeast corners of the state. That is reflected in the map below which was taken directly from Gov. Martinez’s recently-released energy plan. I thought the information was interesting enough to be posted online. Interestingly, Eddy and Lea County produce the most revenue from oil and gas, but traditionally-liberal Rio Arriba County trails San Juan County by just a little in terms of revenue.

Perhaps even more interesting is how the funds from the oil and gas industry are distributed around the State. As can be found in the chart below from the same publication, Bernalillo County receives the greatest total benefit from the oil and gas industry without producing a drop. All New Mexico counties share revenues generated by the Industry although it is certainly worth noting that producing counties see far less economic return from production than they receive.

Given the reality of the impact of oil and gas and how it benefits all New Mexicans, it will be interesting to see how Senators Heinrich and Udall vote on crude oil exports when the time comes. Exports would benefit the entire New Mexico economy as seen below. Rep. Lujan-Grisham voted to support the bill that recently passed the House.

The results of yet another report on New Mexico’s film subsidy program were recently released. This study was commissioned by the New Mexico Film Office and conducted by the Canadian accounting firm MNP. It included payroll data, industry interviews, and financial reports filed with the Film Office.

The report further casts doubt on the idea that New Mexico’s generous film subsidy program will ever lead to a permanent, sustainable film industry presence in the Land of Enchantment.

According to the report, “total statewide spending on goods and services by … film and television productions declined from 2011 through 2014, with $118.7 million being spent in the 2011 budget year and $82.8 million being spent in 2014.” In addition, direct employment fell between the 2010 and 2014 fiscal years.

The value and size of New Mexico’s film and television industry also declined from $276.7 million in 2011 to $162.1 million in 2014. New Mexico residents accounted for just 46 percent of performing artists, 35 percent of “key creative” employees, and 24 percent of post-production staffers.

This is a program that is authorized to spend up to $50 million annually (any unspent funds roll over to the subsequent year) with 25% of total costs of films and 30% of television show costs being reimbursed directly to production companies. In other words, the industry is spending $82.8 million annually at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $50 million. True, $80 million is bigger than $50 million, but this is a hugely expensive way for taxpayers to generate a relatively small amount of economic activity.

Notably, New Mexico’s poor performance occurred as other states are moving away from film subsidies. Alaska’s governor, staring down a state fiscal crisis, signed legislation that repealed that state’s program. State Sen. Bill Stoltze (R-Chugiak) noted that the tax credits had “done some good things to different communities around Alaska,” but “had a pretty heavy cost to our treasury.”

Michigan has also ended incentives for the film industry and phased out funding for the state’s film office. In response, Rep. Dan Lauwers (R-Brockway Twp.) declared that it was time to “time to drop the curtain on this failed experiment,” in favor of “funding our transportation system.”

While these are relatively conservative states under Republican control, critics of film subsidies come from both sides of the political aisle and all political perspectives. A 2013 report by the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice noted, “Not only do film tax credits cost states more money than they generate, but they also fail to bring stable, long-term jobs to the state.”

This admonition is, of course, reflected in the recently-released study which found that despite ongoing and even growing subsidies, New Mexico’s film industry has shrunk in recent years.

The need for ongoing, generous subsidies is in part due to the nature of the industry. It is highly mobile and needs little in the way of permanent infrastructure. At least if a state throws money at a car company or another manufacturer (an endeavor we at the Rio Grande Foundation discourage), the company bears the expense of building a manufacturing facility and training local workers.

The film industry, on the other hand, goes where the subsidies are most generous and can pick up and leave as soon as they change. This mobility and rapid response to subsidy cuts is often cited by film industry supporters in their critiques of Gov. Martinez’s efforts to scale New Mexico’s incentive program back in 2011.

Gov. Martinez and the New Mexico Legislature should embrace sound economic principles and stop throwing money at Hollywood’s biggest and wealthiest business. Taxpayers in one of America’s poorest states shouldn’t be subsidizing Disney, Time-Warner, Fox, and other profitable corporations.

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

Liberty is Rockin'!
Please join us at Liberty on the Rocks!
 

Note New Location!
 

Join the Rio Grande Foundation For an Evening of
Discussion and Fellowship in Albuquerque!
 

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

In October Libery on the Rocks will take place on Monday, October 19th from 6:00 to 7:30PM. We'll be returning to a prior location at the Slate Street Cafe which is located at: 515 Slate Ave NW in Albuquerque. A private room has been reserved for this event.

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 quick and free!

Whatever one thinks about Barack Obama, unemployment has fallen during his administration. It peaked at 10.0 percent in October 2009, nine months after the 44th president was inaugurated. Since then, it’s declined slowly but steadily, to 5.1 percent.

For a time, it appeared that New Mexico was following suit. Unemployment in the Land of Enchantment peaked at 8.3 percent in July 2010, then tumbled to 5.9 percent in the first month of this year.

That’s when the progress stopped.

By August, New Mexico’s unemployment rate climbed back to 6.7 percent. In Albuquerque, the rate bottomed out at 5.4 percent in the final month of 2014, then increased to 6.6 percent in August. (If joblessness is rising during a national recovery, what’s going to happen to New Mexico when the next recession hits?)

Fewer employment opportunities help explain the state’s dismal employment-to-population ratio for 25-to-54-year-olds.

Errors of Enchantment has written it before, and we’ll write it again: New Mexico needs an effective and aggressive economic-development strategy, implemented yesterday.

It’s no secret that the folks at Bernalillo County (at least the Democrat majority on the Commission) want to break up with the City of Albuquerque. For a variety of reasons, they say, being “roomates” with the City at their shared downtown office building. The idea is to snap up one of the many available office buildings to be found around downtown.

I honestly don’t know whether new County headquarters would be a good thing or not, but there are concerns not the least of what is the County’s burgeoning real estate empire (a full list of the County’s holdings can be found here). Several vacant properties are included. Perhaps it is time for the County to sell off some of its land holdings to raise funds for the new headquarters? At least the public should be given an idea that some of the properties currently owned by the County will be sold off once the new headquarters comes online. That’s the way most families do it.

The second, added benefit of selling some County property is that it could collect taxes as those properties return to private hands. After all, whatever property the County winds up buying will likely be pulled off of the tax rolls. It would be great to see something added back elsewhere.

Either way, there’s no rush for the County to buy. The local real estate market remains relatively depressed with more than 25% of downtown office space vacant according to recent data.

The economist Milton Friedman famously said (as have other economists) that there’s no such thing as a “free” lunch. Apparently, Dr. Friedman never visited New Mexico.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, New Mexico has a higher proportion of its students on the federal free and reduced lunch program than any other state besides (thank you Mississippi). As seen in the chart we put together below, New Mexico has seen rapid growth in the proportion of students on the federal program, the parameters of which are often used as a proxy for poverty. Perhaps this is related to yesterday’s post on the dramatic decline in the number of working age New Mexicans who actually work?

On a personal note, many New Mexico schools now also provide breakfast in the classroom to all students regardless of need on top of the “free” lunch. If you are one of those crazy “old-fashioned” parents who actually decide to feed your kids at home (like me), wouldn’t that second breakfast at school conflict with Michelle Obama’s crusade against childhood obesity? Nah….

Recently, a report from the Pew Center had what can only be described as extremely troubling news for New Mexico’s economy. While the politicians emphasize the few jobs that have been created or the recent boost in tourism, the reality of New Mexico’s struggling economy is clearly shown in the data.

The following chart really tells the story. According to this chart from the Pew Center, New Mexico’s employment rate for 25-54 year olds dropped more dramatically than did the rate of any other state in the nation between 2007 and 2015. Sadly, New Mexico is “number one” (or 50th) with a “bullet” as the decline in people working in New Mexico exceeded the rate of decline in the second-worst state (Georgia) by a jaw-dropping 33%.

A lack of jobs, an unprepared workforce, and an out-migration of talented workers to other more economically-free states could all be blamed, but the fact is that New Mexico has definitely not recovered from the economic downturn.

Failed mayoral candidate Pete Dinelli has an op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal today, gushing about the “real leadership and courage” displayed by the voters who hiked their city’s gross receipts tax last week.

Dinelli whines that there was “absolutely no support from the business community and lukewarm support from a few city councilors” for the GRT increase, but he ignores the massive lobbying effort mounted by the New Mexico BioPark Society. When a dedicated group pushes an initiative in the face of zero organized opposition, a big win is usually guaranteed, particularly in a municipal election. But opponents of the tax hike grabbed 43.5 percent of the vote — hardly a ringing endorsement.

In addition, as Dinelli admits, turnout was abysmal. The Journal reports that it was lower “than in any citywide election since 1974, when Albuquerque’s modern form of government started.” Is there a giant reservoir of support by Duke City voters for a higher GRT to fund the BioPark? The truth is, we don’t know. One things’s for sure: With locals leaving, it’s clear that whatever Albuquerque’s political establishment is doing to enhance “quality of life” isn’t working.

We didn’t need more evidence that New Mexico’s welfare-for-Hollywood is a disaster. But we just got some.

Today the Albuquerque Journal reported that a new study, “conducted by the Canadian accounting firm MNP and [relying] on payroll data, industry interviews and financial reports filed with the New Mexico Film Office,” found that “total statewide spending on goods and services by … film and television productions declined from 2011 through 2014, with $118.7 million being spent in the 2011 budget year and $82.8 million being spent in 2014.” In addition, direct employment fell between the 2010 and 2014 fiscal years.

Errors of Enchantment ran the numbers recently, and came to the same conclusion.

Curiously — or maybe, not — MNP’s study is not available on the website of the New Mexico Film Office. Nor is it accessible via the New Mexico Economic Development Department. The Foundation has requested, via phone and email, a PDF of the study. Stay tuned….

Update: We’ve obtained the study. Some findings not covered in the Journal‘s story:

* Production spending in New Mexico declined from $276.7 million in 2011 to $162.1 million in 2014.

* New Mexico residents accounted for just 46 percent of performing artists, 35 percent of “key creative” employees, and 24 percent of post-production staffers.

* Production spending by region of the state was 5.3 percent in the northeast, 2.5 percent in the northwest, 0.3 percent in the southeast, and 0.5 percent in the southwest. Congrats, taxpayers in Raton, Farmington, Hobbs, and Deming!

What's Next for Justice?
Civil Asset Forfeiture and the
Path Forward in New Mexico.

Click here for registration form.

In 2015, New Mexico became one of the first states to largely abolish civil asset forfeiture. The legislature unanimously passed and Gov. Susana Martinez signed a bill requiring that a person be convicted of a criminal offense before having his or her property seized. The reform was perhaps surprising given the state's record: Since 2008, New Mexico law enforcement agencies have spent $24.5 million in seized funds.

Despite facing serious opposition from federal, state, and local levels of law enforcement, New Mexico's civil forfeiture reform has signaled serious changes for the state's criminal justice system.

Can New Mexico policymakers use this momentum from enacting civil asset forfeiture reform not only to defend their hard-earned gains but to provide a springboard towards additional, meaningful criminal justice reforms in the state? What other areas of reform are necessary to increase public safety and reduce the high cost of both crime and incarceration? How can New Mexico's reform serve as a model for the rest of the United States?

Please join the Charles Koch Institute and the Rio Grande Foundation for dinner and a discussion on the future of justice in New Mexico, featuring remarks from those involved in the reform process.

About The Event:

• When:  Wednesday, October 14, 2015, at 6:30pm; doors open at 6:00pm. A light dinner reception will follow the evening's discussion.
• Where:  Hotel Albuquerque at Old Town, 800 Rio Grande Boulevard NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87104.
• Cost:  Free!

Participant Information:

• Moderator:  Paul J. Gessing, President, Rio Grande Foundation
• Panelists:  Steven Robert Allen, Director of Public Policy, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico; Brad Cates, Former Director, U.S. Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program; Diego Esquibel, Attorney, The Barnett Law Firm; Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute
• Remarks:  Representative Antonio Maestas, (D), New Mexico House of Representatives

Click here for registration form.

Yesterday, Governor Martinez announced that “tourism in 2014 generated the largest economic impact in state history, injecting $6.1 billion into New Mexico’s economy and supporting nearly 89,000 jobs.”

It’s good news for a state that has yet to recover from the Great Recession. (The Land of Enchantment has fewer jobs today than it did in early 2008.)

But it’s also a reminder that taxpayers foot much of the bill to market the tourism industry. This fiscal year, the Tourism Department will spend $13.6 million, while the budget for the Department of Cultural Affairs tops $30 million.

Do all those millions represent a wise “public investment”? Probably not. Earlier this year, the Mackinac Center’s Michael J. Hicks and Michael D. LaFaive found that in Michigan, “while government marketing of tourism activities does generate value for some industries, the benefits were puny and outweighed by the costs to the state’s economy as a whole.”

Even without tourism promotion — be it funded by government or the private sector — New Mexico would draw plenty of visitors, from hikers to Ufologists, foodies to art aficionados. The governor and legislators should recognize that there is no legitimate role for government to play in bringing tourists to the state, and pursue privatization-oriented reforms. With the industry on the rebound in New Mexico, there’s no time like the present.

It’s Election Day in Albuquerque. Two city council races are contested, and voters will decided the fate of several bond issues and charter amendments.

But the big faceoff today is between supporters and opponents of a GRT increase for the BioPark.

Here’s the Foundation’s case against the tax hike, which appeared last month in Albuquerque Business First.

KRQE’s Candace Hopkins spoke to the Foundation about the “revenue enhancement” recently, as did KKOB’s Stephanie Claytor.

Rio Grande Foundation Speaker Series Event:
Luncheon with Jay Nordlinger
Senior Editor of National Review:
Children of Monsters

Jay Nordlinger writes the “Impromptus” column
for National Review Magazine and
will discuss the current political scene.

Click here for registration form.

What’s it like to be the son or daughter of a dictator? An absolute and ruthless dictator on the Stalin level? What’s it like to bear a name synonymous with oppression, terror, and evil?

Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor of National Review, set out to answer that question. And he does so in his new book, Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators. He looks into the families of the worst of the worst: Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and so on.

Some of the kids are down-the-line loyalists. Some even succeed their father as dictator (as in North Korea and Syria). Some have doubts. A few defect. All are rocked by prison, war, exile, and the like. These men and women lead all too interesting lives.

And from this new book, we learn a little more about tyranny, freedom, fate, choice, and people.

“A magnetic page-turner that nonetheless is complex and deep.”
—Mark Helprin, author of Winter’s Tale, A Soldier of the Great War, etc.

“Nordlinger’s exceptional investigation into the children of 20 modern dictators grips and convinces.”
—Andrew Roberts, author of The Storm of War, Napoleon, etc.

Nordlinger will also discuss the current political scene.

• Location:  Marriott Uptown, 2101 Louisiana Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87110 (note new event location).
• When:  Wednesday, November 4, 2015, 12:00 noon to 1:00pm.
• Cost:  Seating is limited and can be purchased at the discounted price of $30 through Tuesday, October 28, 2015; $40 thereafter.

Jay Nordlinger is a senior editor of National Review and a book fellow of the National Review Institute. He writes about a variety of subjects, including politics, foreign affairs, and the arts. He is music critic for The New Criterion. Since 2002, he has hosted a series of public interviews at the Salzburg Festival. For the National Review website, he writes a column called “Impromptus.” With Mona Charen, he hosts the Need to Know podcast, and he also hosts a podcast called “Q&A.” In 2011, he filmed The Human Parade, with Jay Nordlinger, a TV series bringing hour-long interviews with various personalities. His latest book is Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators. He is also the author of Peace, They Say, a history of the Nobel Peace Prize. Some 100 pieces are gathered in Here, There & Everywhere: Collected Writings of Jay Nordlinger. A native Michigander, Nordlinger lives in New York.

Co-sponsored by:

While at a recent conference with fellow free market think tanks, I sat down with Caleb Brown of the Cato Institute to discuss New Mexico’s successful reform of the State’s civil asset asset forfeiture laws.

The podcast is just a few minutes in length and can be found below.

The Rio Grande 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.”

Last month, of 17,908 projected jobs, 12,274 — 71.9 percent — were slated for right-to-work (RTW) states:

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

Foreign direct investment was also highly skewed. Eighteen projects are headed to RTW states, but only four are to to occur in non-RTW states.

Marquee RTW wins included the decision by Mercedes-Benz to spend $1.3 billion on a “major expansion” of its factory in Alabama, Boeing’s announcement of 200 new employees to “produce 747 fuselage panels” in Georgia, and Blue Origin’s pick of Florida for “launch, manufacturing and support facilities for its Orbital Launch Vehicle program.” (Ouch — another loss for “Spaceport America.”)

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 by elected officials and economic-development bureaucracies.

* 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.

Michael Dukakis famously claimed that the 1988 election “isn’t about ideology; it’s about competence.”

Taxpayers in Albuquerque might want to remember that line, as they vote in this year’s election. In the last few days, KRQE has reported that:

* The city, which “declined to go on camera but admits [it] messed up,” aligned an iron fence enclosing Sierra Sunset Park improperly. Since then, neighboring property owner Liz Alvarez built a brick wall to “separate me from the city park and the sidewalk.” Earlier this week, workers returned to fix their mistake, leaving “a piece of Alvarez’s wall … on city property.”

* “[D]ozens of blue … lights have gone dark” on the Bear Canyon Arroyo pedestrian bridge, necessitating replacements that will cost $210,000.

* “[A]nywhere from 100 to 200 bottles” of urine, covered with old newspapers, are littering an alley near I-25 and Coal. “I called a couple times with the city,” resident Richard Reycraft told KRQE’s Lysee Mitri. “They kept saying they’d get at it and get at it, but nothing.”

* The city has used “its own employees rather than use a professional construction company” for maintenance projects at the Biopark. “Building the elephant barn, for example, took three years and cost $4.4 million. [The mayor’s chief of staff Gilbert] Montano said estimates show private crews could have done the work in a year for almost a million less.”

The Albuquerque Journal has a solid editorial today on the EPA’s impending decision on tightening the standard for ozone. Writing for CNBC earlier this year, Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and John Thune (R-SD) averred that the regulatory ratcheting “could be the most expensive regulation in history and place undue burden on counties still working to comply with existing obligations, as well as impose costly regulations on new communities.” The Journal notes that “the state’s high elevation, where increased interaction of sunlight, heat and pollutants create excellent conditions for producing smog,” is sure to push many New Mexico counties into noncompliance.

The National Association of Manufacturers predicts that the tighter standard will hammer New Mexico’s gross state product, kill jobs, and cause a big drop in average annual household consumption. The benefits? Not much. In June, the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives pointed out that the EPA’s own data show that “ozone concentrations have declined over 30 percent since 1980 and will continue to do so under the 2008 standard.”

The new federal fiscal year starts October 1, and without a budget in place, D.C. “will officially run out of the legal authority to spend money.”

With an egregiously underdeveloped private sector, the Land of Enchantment is at particular risk when Congress and the president can’t agree on a spending plan. As the Tax Foundation documented earlier this year, 36.6 percent of the state’s revenue comes from Washington:

The feds are $18.2 trillion in debt, but that hasn’t kept the moolah from flowing. In the last few weeks:

* The U.S. Justice Department awarded the New Mexico Department of Public Safety a $561,000 grant “to combat methamphetamine trafficking and related violence.”

* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave the New Mexico Department of Health $850,000 to “stop prescription drug overdoses.”

* The U.S. Department of Commerce handed $1.4 million to the Siete del Norte Community Development Corporation.

* The National Institute of General Medical Sciences wrote a $11.6 million check to UNM “to find new ways to help people recover from strokes and traumatic brain injuries.”

Without an aggressive economic-development strategy, implemented yesterday, New Mexico will remain dangerously exposed to federal budget shenanigans. Isn’t it time to break free from D.C. dependence?

Didn’t make it to the the New Mexico Solar Energy Association’s 2015 “Solar Fiesta”? No worries, the Foundation was on hand for all the silliness.

Keynote presenter John Perlin, the author of Let the Sunshine In: The 6,000 Year History of Solar Energy, offered plenty of predictable bromides. The self-proclaimed “Indiana Jones of solar energy” argued that “a lot of ‘progress’ has been regress,” “the sun wants to cooperate with us,” and “the sun belongs to everyone.” His look at the use of passive solar in China, the American Southwest, and Europe was interesting, but he stumbled badly when describing modern times. For example, if photovoltaic technology goes back to the 1950s, why does it make such a paltry contribution to electricity generation today?

Tom Solomon, representing the New Mexico chapter of “350.org,” gave a glowing overview of a preposterous proposal by “The Solutions Project.” The scheme is to “transition to 100% clean, renewable energy” by 2050 — hey, it’s got to be feasible, because it’s backed by Mark Ruffalo! What’s standing in the way of the death of “fossil” fuels? One of Solomon’s slides was a picture of the Titanic, which he said was under the command of “Captain David Koch.” (Memo to Solomon: Describing the wonders of your Tesla is not the best way to appeal to the rather hefty portion of the population that cannot afford a vehicle with a $100,000 price tag.)

Other speakers toed the eco-left line. A local “futurist and philosopher,” warned of “catastrophic global warming” unless per capita energy use was restricted. He recommended “local products for local consumption,” public transit, and “permaculture.” An employee of Sandia National Laboratories swooned about federal loan guarantees for solar projects, particularly molten-salt power plants. A lobbyist with the Sierra Club boasted of the group’s “climate action teams” in New Mexico, and described a trip she took with other activists to the EPA’s recent methane hearing in Denver. A representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists bashed Governor Martinez’s state energy plan because of its reliance on natural gas.

It was same old, same old. Lots of conspiracy theories (most involved “Big Oil”) and apocalyptic ravings about “climate change.” But little about how paltry a role solar plays in New Mexico’s energy demand. Despite the federal and state subsidies speakers extolled, and our status as the fourth-sunniest state, just 1.1 percent of the Land of Enchantment’s electricity comes from the sun. And need we revisit the state’s disastrous “investments” in solar companies?

The 2016 legislative session is four months away, but it’s not too early for New Mexico’s solons to think seriously about fiscal restraint.

Field production of crude in New Mexico more than doubled between 2007 and 2014. But the boom, at least for now, is over. ConocoPhillips is laying off workers, and in August alone, the state lost 1,000 jobs in the mining sector, which includes oil and gas. Goldman Sachs thinks oil may drop to as low as $20 per barrel. And as the U.S. Energy Information Administration noted this week, “upstream investment is highly sensitive to changes in oil prices”:

But wait, it gets worse. The state’s Medicaid bill keeps rising. Yesterday the Albuquerque Journal reported that “226,783 of … newly eligible adults have enrolled in the program” since Governor Martinez expanded it in 2013.

Legislators from both parties never tire of floating big-spending initiatives, from “infrastructure” projects to economic-development schemes to “universal preschool.” But it’s looking more and more like revenue declines and runaway Medicaid expenditures will enforce budget discipline during next year’s session.

Recently, an article appeared in the Rio West section of the ABQ Journal stating that the troubled Santa Ana Star Center’s finances were “looking up.” Having followed the Center and its financial issues over the years, I felt it imperative to set the record straight, so I submitted a letter to the editor to clarify that while the Center’s finances are not quite as bad as they once were, the Center was and remains an extraordinarily bad “investment” of taxpayer dollars. My letter appeared in the Rio West section of the paper on the 19th of September.

Letters to the Editor

Rio West – ABQ Journal

Your story about the finances of the Santa Ana Star Center “looking up” couldn’t have been further off the mark. It may be true that the annual operating subsidy for the Center has dropped from $874,000 to $769,000, but with Rio Rancho taxpayers on the hook for an additional $2.2 million annually through 2032, the Center’s finances will continue to be a major burden on City taxpayers.

It is true that a vast majority of arenas and events centers are money losers. That’s hardly a justification. Rather, it is an indicator that cities like Rio Rancho are overinvesting in such facilities relative to the market’s willingness to pay for them. In basic economic terms, supply is outpacing demand.

For Rio Rancho, it is too late. City taxpayers are paying what currently amounts to 80 percent of their annual gross receipts tax collections for an arena. Yes, bond money is separate from the general fund budget, but when you put the City’s financial obligations in that light, you see why the Center was a major mistake.

The good news is that Rio Rancho’s experience can be a lesson to Albuquerque and other cities that might be considering such major and potentially burdensome spending projects.

Paul J. Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

It received very little media attention, but the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey figures on state-level poverty yielded ho-hum news for New Mexico.

From 2013 to 2014, the poverty rate in the Land of Enchantment fell slightly, from 21.9 percent to 21.3 percent. (Only Mississippi fared worse.)

A look at poverty in the era of the Great Recession/Weak Recovery shows how little progress has been made:

Centrally planned economic development, a too-generous welfare state, no right-to-work law, little innovation in government education, and a cumbersome and pervasive tax on gross receipts. Is it any wonder New Mexico can’t escape its poverty trap?

Bernardo Saracino should stick to acting.

Last week the New Mexico native, who has a role in the critically acclaimed film Sicario, told KRQE: “Albuquerque is definitely on the map. No matter whom I talk to, when they ask where I’m from, I’m like ‘Albuquerque’; they’re like ‘wow there’s a lot of work there.’”

Not exactly. Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate that film-and-video employment in the state is declining:

Writing in the weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal, Chris Hudson and Donald Bryson noted that “Michigan and New Jersey ended their handouts earlier this summer, while Louisiana capped its subsidies — albeit after doling out more than $1 billion in the past five years. Arizona, Idaho, Indiana and Missouri have also either rolled back or shut down their programs in recent years.”

Isn’t it time for New Mexico’s elected officials to admit that subsidizing film and television productions has been an expensive failure? Isn’t it time to follow the wisdom of the states that have ended welfare for Hollywood?

The following op-ed was written in anticipation of an attempt by Missouri’s Legislature to override a gubernatorial veto of “right to work” in the Show-Me State. Rio Grande Foundation was one of 80+ organizations nationally that signed a letter in support of Missouri becoming the 26th “right to work” state. Unfortunately for Missourians,  the Legislature did not succeed, but Missouri is now competing with New Mexico to become the state that tips the balance to a majority of US states being “right to work.”

One notable policy shift that is picking up steam is the adoption of “right to work” laws. In the past few years, the idea that workers should be able to choose to associate with and/or pay dues to labor unions has spread to the traditionally heavily-unionized “Rust Belt” states of the Midwest. Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin have all adopted such laws while serious “right to work” efforts have been put forth in Missouri, West Virginia, and my home state of New Mexico.

With 25 states currently in the “right to work” column and 25 states still practicing forced unionism, we at the Rio Grande Foundation decided to track in real time where jobs were actually moving across America. “Right to work” laws have traditionally been associated with greater job growth, but how did this process work in real time?

So, we looked to the experts at Area Development for information. 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.

While not “all-inclusive,” the jobs tracked on the site will tend toward being high-paying “economic base jobs,” not fast food and retail.

^[1]

Every month this year, we at the Rio Grande Foundation have tracked job announcements from Area Development at our blog www.errorsofenchantment.com ^[3]. When it comes to job creation in 2015, “right to work” states are America’s job creation powerhouses. Despite somewhat smaller populations overall, Area Development notes 105,229 jobs created or added in the 25 “right to work” states. During the exact same time period, forced-unionism states created or added a mere 25,311 jobs.

In other words, during 2015, using real-world jobs data from Area Development, “right to work” states have created or added more than 80 percent of jobs.

This is not a new trend. Over virtually any time period, “right to work” states have dominated American job growth. Between 1993 and 2009, for example, “right to work” states saw 37.9 percent job growth while forced unionism states grew by just 19.6 percent.

Americans have been moving in search of greater economic freedom since before the country was founded. The original settlers left Europe in search of economic opportunity and then spread from coast to coast for the same reason. Blacks fled the South before and for more than a century after the Civil War and are now returning in part due to the economic freedom to be found there.

Given this history and “right to work’s” success in terms of job creation, it is no surprise that Americans overwhelmingly support such laws. When Gallup polled Americans on a variety of labor issues in August, 2014, 77 percent of independents, 74 percent of Republicans, and even 65 percent of Democrats said they supported “right to work” laws. Americans said they support “right to work” even as they say they expressed strong support for unions 53-38 percent.

The freedom to choose is one of the unique features of America. For decades, Americans have “voted with their feet” by moving themselves and their jobs from forced unionism to worker freedom. Other states can and will soon benefit from this form of worker freedom.

---

Article printed from Watchdog.org: http://watchdog.org

URL to article: http://watchdog.org/238473/right-work-boosts-job-creation/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://watchdog.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/11/jobsreport.jpg

[2] www.errorsofenchantment.com: http://riograndefoundation.org/errorsofenchantment.com