Nothing seems to unite New Mexicans like the desire for “free” money.

Over the past few weeks,  no fewer than three opinion pieces have run in various media outlets in support of Medicaid expansion. Two of these articles were from Democrat legislators.

While “compassion” and alleged health care improvements – unsupported by real-world data – were cited, a central argument involved “free” money that is flowing into the State from Washington.

Recently, I had the chance to testify before an interim committee of the New Mexico Legislature on the economic impact of Medicaid. The program for the poor was expanded under the federal health care law commonly known as “ObamaCare.” New Mexico was one of 24 states to expand the program in January 2014.

Initially, the expanded portion of the Medicaid program is being financed 100% by the federal government. Starting in 2017, that will go down to 95% and by 2020 federal support will drop to 90%. As 2017 approaches, New Mexico legislators have been quoted as saying that the increased cost of Medicaid is a “runaway train” and “you can’t put the brakes on health care costs.”

New Mexico’s budgetary outlook is indeed bleak as total Medicaid expenditures are projected to rise to $5.5 billion with state taxpayers kicking in nearly $1 billion of that annual total. It has been the fastest growing item in the budget and with the State paying an increased share of the program’s expansion costs, that growth rate will rise rapidly in the years ahead. This at a time when New Mexico’s budget is expected to be stagnant as oil and gas prices remain depressed.

Unfortunately for New Mexico, the “stimulus” effects of having the federal government pay 100% of the cost of Medicaid expansion are nowhere to be found. The Rio Grande Foundation examined job growth in the expansion and non-expansion states and found that the 20 states that turned down the “free” money by not expanding Medicaid saw slightly faster overall job growth than the expansion states.

How could “free” money not stimulate New Mexico’s economy? There are many explanations, but one is that welfare programs like Medicaid provide yet another reason for workers to drop out of the work force.

Another explanation is that much of the money doesn’t actually do anything to improve health care. It may result in additional hiring in the health care industry, but these are “paper-pushers” and relatively unproductive bureaucrats. Their productive labor is consumed by a wasteful bureaucracy rather than being put to work in the private sector economy.

Again, these are just two potential reasons why Medicaid expansion may not have “stimulated” New Mexico’s economy or the economy of other states that expanded Medicaid with temporarily “free” money.

New Mexico has long been reliant on federal dollars. As federal spending is increasingly consumed by entitlements (as opposed to research labs and military bases), we are seeing that this reliance has not been healthy.

A new Rio Grande Foundation report sheds some light on the negative side effects of federal dependency. The report shows that federal dollars increase state and local government spending by 99 cents for every federal dollar. Bloated state government makes it harder for businesses to operate in our State. In other words, those “free” dollars come with economically-harmful strings attached.

Rather than trying to jump-start New Mexico’s economy by pilfering more money from Washington, New Mexico’s leaders should embrace basic economic reforms. Taxes, occupational licensing,and labor reforms like “right to work” and repeal of the State’s “prevailing wage” law can positively impact the economy right away.

Longer-term, policymakers must improve the education system (and thus the viability of our workforce) through dramatic expansion of educational choice.

There’s no such thing as a “free” lunch and so-called “free” money is not the road to prosperity.

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

It used to be that New Mexicans could say “Thank God for Mississippi…or West Virginia…or whatever.” As oil and gas prices have dropped, federal spending has shifted to “entitlements,” and the Democrat-controlled NM Senate has remained staunchly-opposed to needed reforms, the new mantra for New Mexico my be “New Mexico….we’re 51st.”

That was already the case recently when a national construction trade group labeled New Mexico the dead-worst place for the construction trades in the USA putting us even behind Washington, DC. Among the factors included in the report was “right to work” and “prevailing wage laws,” both of which New Mexico remains on the wrong side of thanks to the State Senate. And, as if losing to Washington, DC, wasn’t bad enough, our neighbor, Arizona, placed first.

Now, we have the November unemployment rates placing New Mexico…wait for it…51st (again). At 6.8 percent, New Mexico’s rate is higher than that of Washington, DC or West Virginia. Notably, West Virginians, realizing that their previously-blue state is in dire economic straits thanks to the Obama Administration’s “war on coal,” are seriously looking at becoming the nation’s 26th “right to work” state. 

It would be great if West Virginia and New Mexico which have a great deal in common economically despite very different cultures, became the next two “right to work” states as a means of kick-starting their respective economies.

The good news out of the recent omnibus bill agreement in Washington is that finally, after 40 years, the unwise ban on exporting crude oil from the United States has ended. The bad news is…well, pretty much everything else in the bill. That includes a five-year extension of the investment tax credit for solar and an extension of the production tax credit for wind retroactively to last year and ending in 2019. There is a silver lining, however and that is that the wind tax credits will be phased down by 20 percent each year over that time span.

The solar tax credit on the other hand, currently a 30 percent credit for utility, commercial and rooftop solar installations — would get phased down through 2022. The credit would stay at 30 percent through 2019, and then fall to 26 percent in 2020. It would drop to 22 percent in 2021 and 10 percent in 2022.

So, “energy” is a big winner in all of this, but there is a major difference. According to the Washington Post reporter covering this story:

Despite rapid reductions in the cost of wind and solar, both still rely heavily on government subsidies. Bloomberg New Energy Finance has estimated that without the extension of the investment tax credit, solar installations would fall 70 percent in 2017 whereas an extension would boost solar projects by 50 percent through 2022.

In other words, the free market side was simply looking to overturn an obstacle to free trade in their product while the wind/solar lobby was looking for special favors from the taxpayer. It will be interesting to see if wind and solar can make themselves viable in the marketplace before these special favors end (there are other subsidies and mandates at the state level).

As a sign of just how clear-cut the case for crude exports was, none other than Larry Summers (Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary) said, “The merits [of lifting restrictions] are as clear as the merits with respect to any significant public policy issue that I have ever encountered.” And yet, Mr. “All of the above” Obama remained bitterly opposed to the very end.

New Mexico’s political establishment sees Washington as an ATM. The Land of Enchantment depends, inordinately, on federal largesse, and a steady stream of press releases constantly reminds citizens of the jobs and tax revenue that come our way courtesy the nation’s taxpayers.

That’s why Carlsbad Caverns National Park’s announcement that its broken elevator won’t be fixed until next summer is worth noting. Busted since early November, it’s causing visitors to “hike in and out of the cave via the 1.25-mile Natural Entrance trail.” Not good for tourism, that.

It’s nearly unimaginable that a private-sector facility would take so long to fix a critical piece of infrastructure. The phrase “good enough for government work” comes to mind.

The news isn’t all bad, though. As highlighted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the U.S. Forest Service has spent “nearly $25,000” to “build the Smokey Bear Laundromat at the Lincoln National Forest in Ruidoso, N.M. — all while the closest laundromat can be found 0.2 miles away.”

I apologize for the late notice, but we could really use some help…today. It will take just a few moments of yUour time. Simply put, the IRS and the Treasury Department are proposing regulations to “allow” non-profits to collect the Social Security numbers of donors who give more than $250. Read more here. Unfortunately, the comment deadline closes today, December 16. The good news is that the comment process is very simple and can be accessed here and comments can be submitted online.

If you are inclined to comment, but don’t know what to say, the Rio Grande Foundation’s submitted comments are below. Feel free to borrow.

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-138344-13)
Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service
POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of my organization, the Rio Grande Foundation, a non-profit organization organized under 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Service Code, I write to express opposition to proposed regulation: REG-138344-13.

The proposed regulation from the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service would permit, but not require, charities to file a new information return with the IRS (in addition to Form 990) by February 28 every year to substantiate contributions of more than $250 in value. The new return would require the charity to collect the donor’s name, address, and Social Security number or other taxpayer identification number.

The stated purpose of this regulation is to “simplify” current law requiring individuals and organizations claiming a charitable deduction for contributions of $250 or more to obtain a written acknowledgement from the charitable nonprofit receiving the donation, while providing the IRS with an alternative means to substantiate charitable contribution deductions.

Our concerns over this regulation are based on the following:

• Current law is working. There is no widespread initiative on the part of either charities or donors seeking change;
• The proposed change increases the administrative burden on charities that will continue to acknowledge gifts of all sizes from donors as a function of good stewardship while additionally completing an unnecessary return for the government;
• The IRS is violating its own advice to taxpayers about never giving out their Social Security numbers unless “absolutely necessary;”
• Given the danger of identity theft, charities themselves are understandably reluctant to collect and store donors’ Social Security numbers, and are justifiably concerned that the suggestion of such disclosure will significantly reduce charitable donations.

• The fact that the proposed rule is voluntary at the moment provides little assurance that it will not become mandatory in the future.

This is a simple issue and thus our response is quite simple. Non-profits, especially small ones like mine with an annual budget of less than $300,000, don’t need additional regulations.

Opponents of the Obama administration’s “Waters of the U.S.” overreach notched an important victory yesterday, when the Government Accountability Office concluded that in attempting to drum up public support for the new regulation, the EPA violated both the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act and the Antideficiency Act.

As The New York Times put it, EPA “blitzed social media” to “counter opposition to its water rule, which effectively restricts how land near certain surface waters can be used.” The effort, congressional auditors found, “obligated and expended appropriated funds in violation of statutory prohibitions.”

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, minced no words in his reaction to the revelation: “G.A.O.’s finding confirms what I have long suspected, that E.P.A. will go to extreme lengths and even violate the law to promote its activist environmental agenda.”

New Mexico is one of more than a dozen states suing the feds over the rule. The case’s outcome will have significant repercussions for major industries in the Land of Enchantment, including farming, ranching, mining, and hydrocarbon extraction. In October, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide stay of WOTUS implementation, ruling that “petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims.”

Stay tuned.

The Canada-based free market think tank, The Fraser Institute, has released its 2015 report “Economic Freedom of North America.” After jumping up to 40th in the 2014 Index, New Mexico settled back down to 46th, tied with Hawaii see chart on p.1.2b).

Notably, New Hampshire won the top slot while neighboring Texas came in 3rd in the Index. New Mexico outperformed only Alaska, California, and New York in the Index. As the Institute notes, states with higher levels of economic freedom have faster economic growth and higher living standards.

A brief video outlining the results can be found below:

Dot coms. Stem-cell research. Nanotech. Film productions. Spaceports. Millennials.

Bureaucrats charged with fostering “economic development” fall for fads at a faster clip than teen girls. Look no further than Friday’s Albuquerque Business First. In an interview with reporter Blake Driver, Albuquerque Economic Development’s Ray Smith endorsed the creation of “a tax-defferred [sic] district in Downtown Albuquerque” as a means to “spur investment both in businesses and housing and help us create an environment that would allow us to retain and return our millenials [sic] to New Mexico.”

Smith’s recognition that it’s jobs, rather than “coolness,” that draws young adults, is admirable — and frequently missing in most discussions of tools to attract the cohort. As the Foundation noted this summer, economic opportunities count for much more than growers markets and poetry slams.

But why should downtown Albuquerque be the focus for “investment both in businesses and housing”? As was the case with their generational forebears, Millennials are headed to the suburbs. (Scholar Wendell Cox, examining the latest figures from the American Community Survey, found that “contrary to conventional wisdom, Americans continue to disperse,” with “virtually no ‘return to the city.’”) Shouldn’t the entire metro area, and not a favored portion, be made attractive to economic development? And wouldn’t doing so benefit entrepreneurs, workers, and taxpayers of all ages? (Even old-timers who, like, remember the 1980s?)

Of all the justifications proffered to support Medicaid expansion, none is more dishonest than the claim that broadening the program will contribute to “economic development.”

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, Sen. Howie C. Morales, a Democrat from Silver City, asserts that Medicaid is “a driver of economic growth,” adding over 4,800 social-services and healthcare jobs between the first quarters of 2014 and 2015.

Not so fast. That industry has been increasing its workforce for at least the past decade. As the chart below shows, even during the Great Recession, as well as more recently — when the state’s population has been stagnant or in decline — employment has grown.

Source: Regional Review, Economic Research & Analysis Bureau, New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, Winter 2014.

It’s not at all clear that Medicaid is causing a boost in social-services and healthcare jobs. What is clear is that the expansion lobby will make any argument, however specious, to justify its support for an unaffordable and poor-quality program.

The latest figures from the Legislative Finance Committee include $232 million of “new” money for the Legislature to spend in 2016. I hope they don’t actually expect that money to be there, however. In fact, it would be great if we could see some actual belt-tightening in Santa Fe. There is plenty of waste and unnecessary spending throughout the budget.

One area that the RGF has covered in the past is higher education. According to our friends at the National Education Association, New Mexico spends 7th most among US states on higher education and 4th most among the states on capital spending in higher education (see charts H-7 and H-18 of the linked document).

In that vein, I ran across an article entitled “A BRAC for UNC” from the Carolina Journal. The idea being to apply the successful Base Realignment and Closure Commission which has been done successfully at the federal level, to the proliferating number of campuses and institutions in higher education.

This is an ambitious reform idea. New Mexico will not likely lead the way, but hopefully North Carolina will do it and we’ll be able to see how things work out there first. Unfortunately, given the moribund New Mexico economy, rapidly-declining price of oil, and rising cost of Medicaid, we may not have time to wait for results from the Tarheel State.

It would have been nice to have been overlooked, but New Mexico makes an appearance in “Wastebook: The Farce Awakens.”

The compendium of “wasteful federal spending,” compiled by U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), includes a five-year program for “weight sensitivity training.” New Mexico State University got $17,500 for the project, courtesy the U.S. Department of Agriculture — i.e., the American taxpayer.

One component of the training: An “Empathy Exercise in which a 20 lb. fat vest will be worn by participants for a minimum of 12 consecutive hours.”

As Flake notes, the “federal government has been spending a lot of money over the years nagging Americans about being overweight.” And at the same time, it is now encouraging “‘social acceptance’ of those who are overweight.”

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.”

In November, of 12,464 projected jobs, 8,949 — 72 percent — were slated for right-to-work (RTW) states:

Nine domestic companies based in non-RTW states announced investments in RTW states. Four announcements went the other way.

RTW prevailed in foreign direct investment (FDI), too. Sixteen projects are headed to RTW states, but just six are to to occur in non-RTW states.

Marquee RTW wins included Santander’s expansion of its operations in Arizona (970 jobs), GE Aviation’s pick of Alabama for “two manufacturing centers that will produce silicon carbide materials” (300 jobs), and the decision by China-based Sinomax Group, a designer and manufacturer of “high quality memory foam products, including mattresses, mattress toppers and pillows,” to locate two factories in Tennessee.

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.

// <![CDATA[
DM_redirect("http://m.watchdog.org");

// ]]>//

//

// 3e3):(d.fillText(String.fromCharCode(55357,56835),0,0),0!==d.getImageData(16,16,1,1).data[0])):!1}function e(a){var c=b.createElement(“script”);c.src=a,c.type=”text/javascript”,b.getElementsByTagName(“head”)[0].appendChild(c)}var f,g;c.supports={simple:d(“simple”),flag:d(“flag”)},c.DOMReady=!1,c.readyCallback=function(){c.DOMReady=!0},c.supports.simple&&c.supports.flag||(g=function(){c.readyCallback()},b.addEventListener?(b.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,g,!1),a.addEventListener(“load”,g,!1)):(a.attachEvent(“onload”,g),b.attachEvent(“onreadystatechange”,function(){“complete”===b.readyState&&c.readyCallback()})),f=c.source||{},f.concatemoji?e(f.concatemoji):f.wpemoji&&f.twemoji&&(e(f.twemoji),e(f.wpemoji)))}(window,document,window._wpemojiSettings);
// ]]>

amp;lt;img src=”https://d5nxst8fruw4z.cloudfront.net/atrk.gif?account=3Q+km1akGFL15T” style=”display:none” height=”1″ width=”1″ alt=””

Another day, another terrible ranking for New Mexico on a list of state successes/failures. According to the website 24/7 Wall Street, New Mexico is the “worst-run state in America.” As the website says:

Debt per capita: $3,468 (22nd highest)
Credit rating (S&P/Moody’s): AA+/Aaa
Unemployment rate: 6.8% (2nd highest)
Median household income: $44,803 (8th lowest)
Poverty rate: 21.3% (2nd highest)

New Mexico is the worst-run state in the country with some of the worst social and economic outcomes. Only a handful of states struggle with similar levels of extreme poverty as New Mexico. More than one in every 10 households in the state earns less than $10,000 each year, the second highest proportion after Mississippi. The state also struggles with one of the nation’s highest violent crime rates. Close to 600 violent crimes are reported each year per 100,000 state residents, one of the highest rates nationwide.

Like a number of other states towards the bottom of this list, more people left New Mexico than arrived from April of 2010 through the middle of last year. Only Illinois reported a larger net population decline over that period.

It is hard to argue with any of that, but I don’t think it is a complete picture (no ranking is). For starters, poverty rates should be adjusted for regional living cost to gain a complete picture of REAL poverty.

Also, I would argue that while government policies can have an impact on violent crime, there are cultural and geographical issues at play as well.

Lastly, it is worth noting that New Mexico has always been poor and always had relatively high crime. Our private sector economy has always been weak. Those who would point at this ranking and blame one politician would be mistaken, but there is no doubt that New Mexico faces some big challenges whether it is really the “worst-run” or not.

Recently, the Albuquerque Journal’s economics reporter, Winthrop Quigley, decided to take some time off from pimping for Voices for Children and asked some economists what to do about New Mexico’s flailing economy. To his credit, Quigley started on a strong note by saying that governors receive too much blame when times are bad and too much credit when times are good. Obviously, this depends on the legislative hands they are dealt as well. In Gov. Martinez’s case, she has had a GOP-controlled House for one session, but nearly all of her agenda was blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Below I have summarized each economist’s points and briefly discuss their merits.

Jim Peach, NMSU: Tax incentives and job-training funds don’t work. We need a skilled workforce. Peach is generally on-target. Targeted incentives and job-training funds are inadequate. A better education system from the Kindergarten to the higher education level would help. My only quibbles with Peach are: It will take at least a decade to create a skilled workforce. Do we want to wait that long? What are your specific ideas, more spending on schools or reforms like school choice etc? While incentives don’t work, how about real policy changes that would make us more attractive to the construction industry (NM was just ranked 51st in the nation on friendliness to the construction industry)?

Jeffrey Mitchell, BBER at UNM: Similar to Peach, focus should not be on tax incentives, cheap labor and low business costs. Need to invest in human capital for decades. Mitchell echoes Peach, but implies that New Mexico has not invested in human capital. This is often a proxy for “we need to spend more on education.” According to this data — H3 on page 52 — from the National Education Association (NEA), New Mexico spends 13th-most in the nation per-capita on “all education.” I’d hardly say that represents “under-investment” in higher education.

M. Brian McDonald, former BBER director, now a consulting economist: Richardson’s tax cuts were bad, the Spaceport and RailRunner were also bad as was elimination of the grocery tax (which resulted in a higher gross receipts tax). It is certainly true that the projects mentioned as well as the grocery tax were bad public policy. I’d take issue with the idea that reducing New Mexico’s income tax didn’t have a salutary impact. They did improve it, but the national economy went into a deep recession shortly after those cuts were phased in. Again, “workforce” issues are McDonald’s focus.

Conclusion: It is easy to see that New Mexico needs to improve its workforce and its education system. Quigley seems to be making the case for expanding early childhood programs yet again when in reality there are several immediate and cost-effective policy reforms that can be undertaken first. Those have been consistently ignored by Quigley who seems to see only two options for New Mexico policymakers: 1) expand welfare 2) expand corporate welfare.

A new report put out called the <a href="<a href="http://meritshopscorecard.org/“>Associated Builders and Contractors gives neighboring Arizona the nation’s highest marks among US states, but ranks New Mexico an astonishing 51st in the nation.

The story is written up hear by the folks at BizJournals and is called the Merit Shop Scorecard. It is worth a look.

New Mexico scored poorly because it is not a “right to work” state. It also has a “Davis-Bacon” prevailing wage law which raises construction prices by giving unions control over labor pricing. Interestingly, New Mexico which is not especially heavily-unionized nonetheless performed even worse in the report than several states like California, Alaska, and Pennsylvania that have much higher unionization rates. Of course, when you get beat by Washington, DC on any policy report card, you are doing A LOT wrong.

The ABC is a an organization whose mission tracks closely with that of the Rio Grande Foundation, but specifically focused on construction as their statement below shows:

According to the ABC, the general merit shop philosophy is based on free enterprise and free market principles, characterized by open and fair competition and diverse, engaged parties. The philosophy supports the concept that employees and employers have the right to determine wages and working conditions as they choose, within the law, and that all branches of government should be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, awarding contracts based solely on merit to the lowest responsible bidder, regardless of labor affiliation.

As even the most passive onlooker of New Mexico’s traditional public policies are aware, this is not the way things have been done in The Land of Enchantment. It has been much to our detriment.

Mayor Berry’s proposed bus rapid transit system (ART) down Central saw a massive price hike recently when a study done for the Albuquerque-Bernalillo Water Authority indicated that moving sewer lines and other infrastructure would cost as much $30 million. That’s a 30% increase in the overall cost of ART or a 150% hike in the share paid by New Mexico and Albuquerque residents (as opposed to Washington).

Last night, I testified on this issue in front of the Water Authority Board, made up of: County Commissioners Hart-Stebbins, O’Malley, and De La Cruz, City Councilor: Jones and Sanchez, and Mayor Berry (a role filled last night by COO Mike Riordan). Garduno’s seat must be in a transition as he wasn’t there. I noted that already rate-payers are seeing 5% rate hikes every other year and that Gov. Martinez would be a fool to saddle state taxpayers with $30 million in costs for a local “prestige” project like ART. In other words, rate-payers, not all of whom live in Albuquerque, will be stuck with further unnecessary rate hikes for this transit boondoggle.

Sadly, despite the fact that several members of the Water Board expressed a clear understanding of the potential negative impact on the entity’s finances and rate-payers (only Riordan called tearing up Central for the ART “an opportunity”), not a single member of the Board presented a motion to remove the $30 million request. Clearly, they’d rather stick their heads in the sand than make a tough decision on behalf of their “customers.”

I’m not sure who I’m more disappointed by: Trudy Jones for simply falling in line with Mayor Berry based on party affiliation or the Democrats who were unwilling to stand up for fiscal responsibility even when it provided them a perfect opportunity to stand on behalf of rate-payers (many of whom are poor or on fixed incomes) against a profligate mayor of the opposite party.

Notably, Dowd Muska, Research Director at the Rio Grande Foundation pointed out in a policy paper released a few months ago that utility re-routing could be an added expense related to the bus rapid transit system. Of course water is by no means the only utility that uses the Central “right of way.” We don’t know how much PNM and New Mexico Gas Company will need from their customers in order to accommodate ART.

Can a spaceport be a spaceport if it never puts anything in orbit?

One month. That’s how long “Spaceport America” has to put something in orbit before it goes 0-for-2015.

The facility did launch a single suborbital rocket last month, but it was the only liftoff of the year. Awfully disappointing, given the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars devoted to the spaceport. (But hey, at least it’s got a nifty bus, pictured above.)

Something to remember the next time a New Mexico politician or bureaucrat pushes a subsidized scheme for “economic development.”

Geeks are geeking out over the release of the trailer for Captain America: Civil War, set to premiere in the spring.

The movie looks to be mighty entertaining, but New Mexico taxpayers should know that unlike 2012’s The Avengers, Captain America: Civil War was not filmed in their state.

Six movies in the “Marvel Cinematic Universe” series have been produced since The Avengers: Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Ant-Man. Not one was shot in New Mexico. Looking further ahead, neither Doctor Strange nor the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy will be be shot here.

The Foundation has repeatedly examined and analyzed the data that expose the state’s film-subsidy program as expensive and ineffective. But Marvel’s obvious lack of interest in returning to New Mexico makes its own statement about the Land of Enchantment’s ability to successfully compete in the Hollywood-subsidy game.

Recently, former NM State Senator had a column in the Albuquerque Journal in which he laid out several long-standing liberal priorities: a higher minimum wage, gun control, caps on interest rates for payday loans, campaign finance reform, and term limits. I like former Sen. Fischmann and we agree on several things (including term limits), but he conveniently omits a number of free market policy reforms that also poll well, but have failed to gain traction (mostly in the Democrat-controlled New Mexico Senate) in recent years.

*70 percent of New Mexicans support adoption of a”right to work” law
*68 percent support reducing worker’s compensation benefits when workers show up drunk or stoned on the job and injure themselves.
*No less than 62 percent support school choice tax credits.

These are just a few significant free market issues that have polled well. I’d like to see if the public thinks the Legislature should act to explicitly allow ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft to operate in New Mexico. Legislation on that also died in the New Mexico Senate. I’ll bet it is a strong majority though.

As much as I like polling and finding out what the public wants, we don’t have a direct democracy. Government is not run on polls alone. And then there are the ambiguities of polling. For example on the minimum wage: once job losses due to minimum wage hikes are mentioned (and we know jobs are lost when minimum wages rise), support for raising the minimum wage reverses as shown below. Polling can be helpful and we’d definitely like to see some of these free market ideas voted on (at least), but implementing public policy isn’t as easy as just doing a poll.

Good news for Albuquerque’s vaping community: Los Angeles-based Firebrand has opened a shop on Eubank. The company’s “flagship e-liquid boutique” is the first of what “could be as many as four locations in Albuquerque by the end of 2016.”

But you’ll find nothing about the company’s plans on the websites of the various local and state bureaucracies that claim to foster “economic development” in Albuquerque and throughout the Land of Enchantment. Vaping is well along the path to demonization, so the corporatism crowd wants nothing to do with electronic cigarettes.

The process works the other way, too. When a business or industry is fashionable with government and media elites, no amount of subsidization is too much. “Green jobs” have been peddled by corporacrats for many years. The results have been lousy, but that hasn’t kept the grants, tax credits, infrastructure giveaways, and loan guarantees from flowing.

Real economic development doesn’t play favorites — it neither rewards trendiness nor penalizes political incorrectness. It keeps taxes low and regulations reasonable. Most importantly, it focuses the public sector on its proper role: the protection of lives, liberties, and property.

Chilly nights have more and more New Mexicans making use of their fireplaces and stoves. But watch out — state law controls how wood is “advertised and sold.”

That’s no joke. Earlier this month, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture issued a press release warning that with the exception of “packaged bundles,” wood must be sold “either by the cord or fraction of a cord.” A cord is “128 cubic feet of wood, commonly seen in a tight stack 4 feet wide by 4 feet high by 8 feet long, with logs stacked parallel to one another.” Wood can be sold “by weight, but the seller must declare the price-per-cord equivalent.”

“We sometimes see firewood sellers using a variety of terms — face cord, loose cord, Albuquerque cord, truckload, load, rack, pile — but none of these are [sic] actual legal units of measurement,” said Ray Johnson, assistant division director of the department’s Standards and Consumer Services Division. “So when you see firewood labeled in these ways, it’s impossible to know whether you’re getting a fair deal or not.”

This morning, a bureaucrat appeared on KKOB AM to remind listeners of the law. And today, the Mountain View Telegraph is running the department’s release.

Heaven forfend vendors and their customers deciding between themselves what’s being sold, and at what price. Don’t state bureaucrats have bigger concerns on their plate?

The following chart recently appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. The most relevant data point is the “full time equivalent” number of city workers per 10,000 residents. According to the chart, Santa Fe has nearly triple the number of city government workers as does Rio Rancho.

Local government size doesn’t always jibe with political ideology, but it is not a surprise that liberal Santa Fe has the largest bureaucracy in the State.

Depressed about the Rail Runner? You’re not alone. New Mexico’s taxpayer-ripoff train wastes tens of millions of dollars a year, and in the middle of the next decade, $112 million in balloon payments will be due.

To our east, an intriguing plan to link Dallas and Houston by rail is underway. Texas Central Partners is working with Central Japan Railway Company, which operates 323 trains a day between Osaka and Tokyo, to cut the travel time between the Lone Star State’s two largest metro regions from several hours to 90 minutes.

Earlier this week, “Middle Class Joe” was in Texas, and praised the bullet-train proposal as leading “this country into an entire new era of transportation.”

But unlike the vice president’s beloved Amtrak, the Texas line will be run by “a privately funded company,” and is “not backed by public funds.”

There are many obstacles for Texas Central Partners to get past before its proposal becomes a reality. No matter what the outcome, though, taxpayers won’t be on the hook for its expenditures.

Once again, Texas is leading the way on pro-growth, pro-taxpayer, pro-freedom public policies. When will elected officials in New Mexico notice?