The hits keep on coming for ObamaCare. First, Obama told us that if we liked our coverage we could keep it, now it looks like his claim that the law would reduce costly visits to hospital emergency rooms is being undermined by a new study out of Oregon. As a bit of background, ER visits are notoriously expensive and tend to be an inefficient way to deliver health care services, especially when people really don’t need emergency care.

Astute readers will recall that I have written in the past about Oregon having engaged in a massive experiment by holding a lottery to either give or not give poor people Medicaid. ObamaCare achieves most of its coverage increase by simply expanding Medicaid coverage (although the Supreme Court ultimately gave the states the final call on this).

Well, according to the new report, contrary to Obama’s assertions to the contrary, people on Medicaid are MORE likely to visit the ER than those who did not receive the expanded coverage. Oops! Just another ObamaCare lie and just another way this law will further harm American health care.

Recently, I penned a column that ran in several papers around New Mexico. Democratic candidate Alan Webber penned a response to that column.

While I appreciate Webber’s willingness to engage in a much-needed discussion over New Mexico’s flailing economy, his article wasn’t exactly reassuring insofar as Webber’s understanding of economic policy in the Land of Enchantment is concerned. In fact, Webber fails to even note that it is the Legislature that sets economic policy in New Mexico. The PRC and Courts also have a great deal to do with policies that help or harm New Mexico’s economy.

Speaking directly to Webber’s points, he either makes inaccurate statements or fails to specify what he’d do to improve our economy. For starters, Webber claims that our state is offering “hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts trying to lure big-box stores to New Mexico.” He offers no details as to the specifics of the policy or its harms, nor does he offer viable alternatives for developing our economy.

Webber also writes about education reform, citing the need to “leave politics at the door.” He offers no other specific education reforms while failing to explain how politics can be eliminated from an education system that is funded by taxes and operated by a combination of elected officials and government bureaucrats.

New Mexico has followed left-liberal economic policies for most of its existence. Our economy has also underperformed the economies of our neighbors, most especially Texas which has followed a more free market approach. New Mexico’s elected and aspiring to be elected officials should carefully study what Texas has done and figure out what New Mexico can do to compete with them.

Paul Gessing sat down for a few interviews over the Holidays with Mike Jaxson at KSVP Radio in Artesia. One discussion centered on a tax reform proposal that Rio Grande Foundation has supported.

The second discussion focused on new support from the State’s Land Commissioner for federal land devolution back to New Mexico, recent reports detailing our State’s reliance on Washington, and a brief review of 2013 and look forward to 2014.

Both interviews are about 10 minutes in length.

It’s been another tough year for New Mexico’s economy and a lot of people are less-than-optimistic about the future of our state, but I firmly believe that the right reforms and some genuine leadership can turn our economy and educational systems around.

For one positive example of that we need to look no further than today’s Albuquerque Journal editorial lauding Secretary of State Diana Duran for her management of New Mexico’s Corporations Bureau. Her efforts have resulted in significant efficiency improvements and cost reductions which, over time, should make our economy better as well.

Some in this state love to throw around the old Lew Wallace quote that “All calculations based on experience elsewhere, fail in New Mexico.” While there is some truth to the quote, the problem is that too often, policies that have been tried successfully in other states are never attempted here. Secretary Duran showed that leadership, demanding results, and a call to treat citizens as customers can lead to positive results.

Here’s hoping the rest of New Mexico’s government, especially the Legislature, resolves to learn from the Secretary’s example.

Our intellectual opponents over at Voices for Children have concerns about legislation, which the Rio Grande Foundation has expressed support for, that would enact a “hard reboot” of New Mexico’s tax code. That “reboot” would essentially restore New Mexico’s gross receipts tax to what it was originally intended to be: a low, flat tax upon all items and their inputs with a statewide rate of 2% and local options up to 3%. New Mexico’s corporate and personal income taxes would be eliminated.

“Voices” hates the plan because it might make New Mexico’s tax system more “regressive.” Regressive is a term that means the poor will pay a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than will the wealthy. Notably, New Mexico’s tax system is already rather regressive. Advocates of “progressive” taxation (meaning that the wealthy pay a higher percentage (not just more taxes) love income taxes because higher rates can be levied at higher income levels. While the US tax code is considered to be the most progressive in the world, I couldn’t find a US state that had a truly progressive code. California with its steeply-progressive personal income tax (topping out at 13.3%) comes close.

Which leads me to the most fundamental point of this discussion. An overly-regressive tax structure can be problematic, but taxes that dampen economic growth are at least as big if not a bigger problem. After all, you can’t redistribute poverty, just wealth. As we’ve already pointed out, taxing income (business formation and work) is damaging to economic growth in ways that taxing sales is not.

New Mexico’s economic woes are well-known. It is worth taking a hard look at how taxes are levied in this state to see if something can be done to spur private-sector economic growth. The gross receipts tax isn’t going away anytime soon because it allows New Mexico to generate revenue from federal activities in our state in ways that a sales tax cannot. Getting rid of the income tax and eliminating loopholes and the problem of high rates from our gross receipts tax seems to be the best available option.

And, on the issue of regressive taxation, perhaps some kind of basic credit could be written into the law to mitigate the effects of regressivity? I’m thinking of something along the lines of the “pre-bate” idea from the FairTax which has been proposed at the Federal level.

A link to the article can be found here, but it may not be available to non-subscribers. A relevant chart from the article can be found below:

While I spent a great deal of time talking to the reporter who is new to the NM beat, I was not quoted. James Jimenez of the left-liberal Voices for Children did have a choice quote “We can’t tax cut our way to prosperity.” I’m not sure where they get this stuff, but our research shows otherwise. In fact, between 2001 and 2010, states with no personal income tax grew their economies by a combined 56% while the 9 states with the highest personal income taxes grew by only 41%. Truly, there is no overnight solution (aside from fracking, perhaps), but over time, reducing taxes on productive activity (work, entrepreneurship) are proven to work.

Las Cruces Sun-News opinion columnist Jim Harbison has penned an excellent column on the proposed Organ Mountains Monument designation made by Sens. Udall and Heinrich. As Harbison notes, “Their bill will put more than 498,000 acres of public land under the more stringent control of the federal government.” Harbison notes many of the economically-productive activities currently on those lands that will be outlawed and the fact that those activities vastly outweigh the supposed benefits which have been debunked elsewhere.

As the great left-liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith said, “Where socialized ownership of land is concerned, only the USSR and China can claim company with the United States.” New Mexico’s economy is already negatively-impacted by an out sized federal presence in terms of land ownership. We need to demand a shift away from centralized, socialized land ownership not allow well-heeled “environmental groups” put even more of our lands off-limits.

The federal government is again proving itself to be a capricious keeper of New Mexico’s federally-controlled lands. Earlier this year, allegedly due to the sequester, the Obama Administration took $26 million in royalty payments from New Mexico. Now, under the new budget agreement which increased taxes and spending, New Mexico will lose $100 million in royalty payments over the next decade. Rep. Pearce is the only Congressional representative from New Mexico to have voted against the deal.

The unfortunate thing is not simply that New Mexico will receive less money from the oil and gas (and other resources) used on our federal lands. The problem is that it seems to be “open-season” on royalties. Because they, at least to Washington, represent “spending” once the funds are collected in DC, royalty payments are just another option for covering for Washington’s out-of-control spending habits. In other words, after two attacks on our royalty payments in a single year, expect this trend to continue.

As far as I know, there is only one way to stop Washington from stealing our royalties and that is for New Mexico to re-take control of its federally-owned lands. The good news is that we have bi-partisan support among New Mexico public officials for such a process. The important thing is for both houses of the Legislature and for Gov. Martinez to follow Utah’s lead and translate that nascent support into legal demands for that land to be turned over.

I don’t know former PRC Commissioner Douglas Howe, but I have to admit that his column on New Mexico’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from the Albuquerque Journal Saturday left me scratching my head. Howe (who was appointed by Gov. Martinez) opposes and voted against a recent proposal (passed and subsequently amended) to reduce the onerous nature of New Mexico’s standard. For the record, we at the Rio Grande Foundation support allowing New Mexicans to pay more to purchase renewable energy if they want to, but we oppose coercing utility consumers from doing so.

Back to Howe’s head-scratcher. In defending the RPS he discussed Texas which, like New Mexico has moderately-priced electricity,(see this chart for comparisons) and California, which has expensive electricity relative to most, but not all, other states. Fair enough, but then Howe gets crazy. He notes that both Texas and California have created more jobs than New Mexico despite equal and higher respective electricity costs. So what? There are literally thousands of factors at play. For starters, California went deeply into recession and is coming out of that recession. California is also not as reliant on Washington as we are and has a healthy tech sector despite what I believe are horrendous economic policies overall.

Texas, on the other hand, has no personal income tax, no corporate income tax, and is a right to work state. Perhaps these might also be factors in that state’s tremendous economic growth? Howe also fails to explain exactly how increasing the price of electricity (a significant cost for many businesses) will be good for job creation or economic growth in already-struggling New Mexico. (it hasn’t helped the Caribbean which suffers from much higher electricity costs despite rampant sun and an abject lack of fossil fuels)

He allude to “green jobs,” but perhaps he is unaware that study after study including those done by the liberal Brookings Institute and Reuters (not Heritage, Cato, or RGF) have found the so-called “green-economy” to be a failure.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation are on record as opposing the RPS (see link above). We think customers should be able to choose the source of electricity that suits them. If they want to set up their own utility or use wind/solar that is their choice, but other taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize them. And, while there are certainly externalities inherent in fossil fuels, they also exist for so-called “green” energy (a California solar project is in trouble due to expected wildlife deaths). It is nigh impossible to accurately measure and put an economic value on all of these externalities.

As a PRC commissioner Howe certainly had the right to use the coercive power of government to force us to use whatever source of energy he wants. I would just hope he’d be more upfront on the economics.

NOTE: This article was corrected to reflect that Howe is a former PRC commissioner and is no longer on the Commission.

The Fraser Institute, a free market think tank based in Canada, has released its annual “Economic Freedom of North America” report for 2013.

Unfortunately for New Mexico, the results are not good. Just like the 2012 report, New Mexico’s economic freedom ranking is dead-last.

See the cover of the report in which red states are the least economically-free and blue ones are the most economically-free (unlike American political elections)

According to the authors, “Economic Freedom of North America employs 10 components for the United States and Canada in three areas: 1. Size of Government; 2. Takings and Discriminatory Taxation; and 3. Labor Market Freedom.

Unsurprisingly, states that have little economic freedom also tend to be among the most economically-impoverished.

With the Christmas Holiday right around the corner, a lot of folks will focus on the family, spending time with them, and the enjoyment one derives (or does not derive) from being with the family. But what really makes one happy?

Arthur Brooks, head of the American Enterprise Institute has a great talk here about one of the greatest things that we as humans can control in terms of creating our own happiness. As Brooks explains, using relevant data, earned achievement is key to being happy. Of course, the economic system that best allows humans to achieve earned happiness is free market capitalism:

Despite the continued economic and educational difficulties faced by New Mexico’s economy, rhere are many hard-working elected officials who are striving to make things better. One of those people, a favorite of the Rio Grande Foundation, is Rep. Yvette Herrell. She was lauded this week by the national group Federalism in Action for her work on restoring states and the people to their role as the primary governing bodies in the various states.

Primary among Herrell’s initiatives is the Transfer of Public Lands Act which would restore certain federal lands in the West to state control, but Herrell works tirelessly to restore a proper balance between Washington and New Mexico. Kudos and thanks to Rep. Herrell!

Oh, and we’ll be on Scott Stiegler’s on 770KKOB show from 6 to 7pm on Thursday, December 19, to discuss the Transfer of Public Lands Act!

I recently wrote a column on the need for both leadership from policymakers when it comes to the economy and how the economy should be a top issue for elected officials regardless of party. Interestingly, Albuquerque Business First did an online survey of their readers to find out what we can expect in terms of our State’s economic performance during 2014. The results are not pretty and further lead me to believe that the economy must take center stage.

According to the non-scientific survey (however, I’d expect readers to be better-informed than average), approximately 50% believe the New Mexico economy will be “POOR,” 32% say “FAIR,” 13% say “GOOD,” and a mere 4% say “EXCELLENT.”

Of political interest is the comments section in which prominent Democrat and Martinez’s 2010 opponent, Diane Denish, slams the Gov. for the economic situation. Other readers are not so quick to blame Martinez, but the comment seems to indicate a primary line of attack during the next election.

Nothing pisses off the far-left greenies more than the reality that America is discovering and will use untold quantities of new, inexpensive, reliable energy from fossil fuels over the coming decades.

While humanity is clearly winning in the form of inexpensive, abundant energy, the latest battle on this front has been the Keystone XL pipeline. Rio Grande Foundation is co-sponsoring a rally in support of the pipeline.

Our reasons are simple: thousands of jobs will be created by the pipeline and the federal government should not stand in the way if a pipeline is desired. However, the evidence is that this fuel source will be used no matter what. Product will be shipped by train or will be shipped within Canada to the West Coast for transport to Asia. According to this article which links to and summarizes a report on the Pipeline from the US State Department, “Approval or denial of the proposed project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.”

That hasn’t stopped radical environmentalists from making stopping the pipeline a major issue. They have even organized a counter-protest against our rally (so be prepared!). Rational arguments are unlikely to persuade those who make decisions based on emotion and ignore data and research from Obama’s State Department. The treatment of birds killed in the production of environmentally-favored vs. hated energy is one obvious case of hypocrisy.

The year 2012 was a tough one for New Mexico’s economy. Without going through the litany of evidence, our state was the only Western state to be found on United Van Lines’ list of “top-outbound” states. And, while the US as a whole grew by an anemic 2.2% during the year, New Mexico grew by a downright pitiful 0.2%. Texas grew by 4.8%.

As the end of 2013 nears, new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that 2013 is not looking to be much better.

According to the report, the state’s labor force participation rate, a measure of how many working-age residents are employed or looking for work, was the fourth-worst in the nation in October. And, between April and October, the state lost 20,382 jobs, or 2.4 percent, and nearly 24,000 labor force participants.

To top it all off, According to CoreLogic, New Mexico was the only state to show a decline in home prices from October 2012 through October 2013.

According to a report from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, New Mexico is both the most reliant state on federal employment and has become even more so in recent years having lost more private sector jobs between 2007-2012 than all but eight states.

New Mexico has always been a relatively poor state, but it has not faced such a depressing economic outlook relative to the mildly-optimistic national outlook for at least two decades. What is to be done?

The Rio Grande Foundation has done groundbreaking research on New Mexico’s economy and is on record as supporting pro-growth tax reforms that address the massive disincentives for work and business formation in New Mexico’s tax code. We support adoption of a Right to Work law and broader regulatory reforms that would reduce the barriers to economic activity and employment. Lastly, we support dramatically-expanded school choice (Louisiana is a potential model) to improve workforce quality.

I certainly believe that these and other free market policies will move our state in the right direction. Other groups including Voices for Children and Think New Mexico have outlined ideas that they believe will, rightly or wrongly, spur our economy.

We have an election for Governor in 2014 and the New Mexico House is up for election as well. It is my firm belief that the poor state of New Mexico’s economy and what to do about it must be the top agenda item regardless of party affiliation.

Questions for Democrats, including the five who have entered the race for Governor, might include whether costly programs like the Richardson-era RailRunner and Spaceport are helping our hurting the economy. They also might be asked whether more regulations, more welfare, and more special interest subsidies like the one for film are really the answer to our economic woes, and why.

And, I would not let Gov. Martinez off the hook. Her significant economic development initiatives to date have involved attracting Union Pacific to Santa Theresa and a phase-down of New Mexico’s corporate income tax to 5.9% that will be completed by 2018. Obviously, these efforts alone have not done enough to improve our economic competitiveness.

I’d further ask Martinez what specific economic policy changes are needed to turn New Mexico around and why she hasn’t already introduced these reform ideas. Is political opposition from a hostile Legislature a stumbling block to even considering more dramatic reforms?

New Mexico is a beautiful state with a unique culture, but poverty has real, negative consequences for all of us. It is time to have an honest, far-reaching debate on our poor economic performance, our lack of a private sector, and our overreliance on Washington.

Our future depends on it.

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

In addition to researching and discussing the benefits of free markets and limited government, the Rio Grande Foundation and other free market organizations have been dealing with a series of coordinated attacks from left-wing liberal organizations. Ironically, these left-wing organizations, many of which are themselves 501c4’s, practice the very same donor non-disclosure that they decry among conservative organizations that they attack for non-disclosure which is perfectly legal under the law.

I don’t spend much time rebutting left-wing attacks. That would take too much time away from the business at hand — promoting ways to get New Mexico’s economy and educational system to perform better than bottom-five in the nation. But our friends from Texas at the Texas Public Policy Foundation have provided an excellent and detailed response over at National Review Online.

It’s worth a read to simply understand how broad and involved the left’s efforts go, but also to see how many on the organized left would rather engage in petty attacks over funding sources rather than engaging directly in debates over policy issues.

Rather than making the tough tax, regulatory, and education policy changes that have a proven track record of success in to better compete with our neighbors, it looks like the latest economic development plans under discussion involve more government spending. One plan involves:

Creating a discretionary “closing” fund that could be used to help entice out-of-state businesses to relocate to New Mexico.
Increasing funding for the state Department of Tourism’s marketing and outreach programs.
Increasing the amount of money from the state Severance Tax Permanent Fund available to be invested by the Small Business Investment Corp.
Coordinating the efforts of state agencies with regional council of government districts to improve data gathering and economic planning.

Will it work? It’s hard to say. There’s certainly no empirical evidence that such plans can boost a given state’s economy. I hope that if this plan is approved by the Legislature that it will succeed, but I must admit that I’m doubtful. After all, it is a classic case of the seen vs. the unseen. You are taxing one group of existing businesses and taxpayers to create incentives for a second group that you are hoping to attract.

A second economic development proposal involves spending millions of dollars on multiple facilities for a new business incubator. The spending on this new incubator — $4.5 million for the Aperture Center and $7.5 million for the First Baptist Church site would dwarf the $739,000 spent on all business incubators by the state over four years between 2007 and 2010.

Again, it is not that business incubators can’t work or that this one won’t, but it is a lot of money and of a scale far beyond every other incubator in the state in terms of taxpayer costs. It also will result in a significant reduction of property taxes paid given that the Aperture Center now pays $200,000 in property taxes and that would be taken off the tax rolls once it is purchased by UNM.

Hopefully these endeavors work out. They are certainly easier to achieve politically than reforms that take on the entrenched and concentrated special interests as outlined in the RGF paper above. Before allocating tax dollars for either project, taxpayers should demand careful cost-benefit analyses of both initiatives.

Conservatives in Congress have a funny way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. A recent budget agreement (not voted on by Congress yet) is the latest such example. For starters, it increases fees (taxes) on flying and, rather than any of those funds being dedicated to improving “service” by TSA at our airports, the money is simply going to the overall budget. It is thus a tax hike.

Arguably worse is the fact that with modest sequestration “cuts” in place that at least slowed the growth of federal spending, Congressional leaders including supposed fiscal hawk Paul Ryan are going along with higher spending. As Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity has said, this deal is both bad politics and bad policy.” I couldn’t agree more.

There’s no simpler way to create thousands of high paying American jobs in the immediate future than approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Of course, the far-left radical “environmentalists” who seem to be more anti-modern society than anything else continue to fight against it.

So, while the pipeline would not go through New Mexico, every little bit of support that can be generated for the project helps. To that end, the Canadian Consul General is visiting Albuquerque in a few weeks to help build support for the pipeline and that includes a public rally on behalf of the project that you are invited to. The event is co-sponsored by Rio Grande Foundation, but a union representative will be speaking at the rally once again proving that the Rio Grande Foundation is not inherently “anti-union.” See the flier below:

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Albuquerque Business Journal:

Kudos to the much-maligned Public Regulation Commission (PRC), specifically Commissioners Lyons, Hall, and Becenti-Aguilar for stepping up on behalf of New Mexico utility customers! I am not sure what the Sierra Club has against those on fixed incomes and the businesses that consume electricity in our state while creating jobs for thousands of our fellow citizens, but it certainly appears that “Big Enviro” cares little for the energy needs of average New Mexicans.

My organization has studied the Renewable Portfolio Standard and found that the mandates it contains will cost New Mexico’s struggling economy $2.3 billion between 2011 and 2020. We are on record as supporting a free market with no subsidies for any energy source, in electricity generation.

Obviously, the PRC did not go that far and yet the Sierra Club complains that “utilities will load up their grids on ‘cheap’ wind.” Suddenly, even wind is not “green” enough for these people? With solar electricity costing between three and six times that of wind (which in turn is more expensive than coal and natural gas), it would seem that at the very least, utilities should be free to use less costly, but still supposedly “green” wind to generate electricity.

Here’s hoping the PRC wins the inevitable legal wrangling with its well-funded opponents for whom wind is apparently no longer “green” enough.

Paul J. Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

(Albuquerque) New Mexico’s Two-Year Institutes and their leaders have made headlines recently with the termination of President Ana “Cha” Guzmán by the School’s governing board. Regardless of the specific issues at stake, there is no doubt that a new President will be hired at the School.

In the interests of greater transparency, the Rio Grande Foundation has requested and posted online a useful comparison of the salary and benefits packages at the various independent, two-year institutes of higher learning around the state. Actual contract information along with brief analysis and comparison of the compensation packages is available now.

As Rio Grande Foundation President Paul Gessing explained, “When the board enters into negotiations on behalf of taxpayers and the public has a chance to weigh in, we believe that all parties, including the public, should have an understanding of the compensation packages available at similar schools around the state.”

These compensation packages might include a base salary, performance/retention bonuses, a car, a house, retirement contributions, and paid leave.

Each contract is posted below (please note the addendum for New Mexico Junior College)

Central New Mexico Community College (CNM);

Clovis Community College;

Luna Community College;

Mesalands Community College;

New Mexico Junior College plus addendum

New Mexico Military Institute (NMMI);

San Juan College;

Santa Fe Community College;

After a close analysis of each contract, in terms of overall benefits, Gessing concluded, “The presidents of Mesalands, Luna, and NMMI are at the low end of the spectrum compensation-wise. The middle of the pack is represented by San JuanCommunity College and Santa FeCommunity College. The most generous packages are at CNM, Clovis, and New MexicoJunior College. Notably, however, CNM is by far the largest two-year institute in the state with a student population far bigger than any other similar school in the state.”

You simply can’t make terrible headlines up like this one from the Albuquerque Business First. It would get too depressing. A few nuggets from the article:

New Mexico’s economy nosedived between May and October, shedding thousands of jobs and labor force participants. And the state’s labor force participation rate, a measure of how many working-age residents are employed or looking for work, was the fourth-worst in the nation in October, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Also, “Between April and October, the state lost 20,382 jobs, or 2.4 percent, and nearly 24,000 labor force participants, according to preliminary BLS figures.” You can read the whole sickening thing at the link above.

Also, we are the ONLY US state where home prices continue to decline. While home price reductions are not inherently a bad thing, they may be an indicator of a weak or shrinking economy and of people leaving the state.

2012 was a bad year economically for New Mexico with only 0.2% growth. The corporate tax rate cuts take five years to phase in and represent a relatively minor reform. Perhaps they could be accelerated? That would be a start.

We know the Democratically-controlled Legislature is not particularly interested in embracing policies that have generated economic growth like reduced taxes on income, regulatory reform, or right to work. They haven’t done a very good job over the last 50+ years they’ve been in control of the Legislature. Unfortunately, the “jobs council’s” new plan doesn’t provide much hope either as it is consultant-driven requests for more spending. The plan includes:

Creating a discretionary “closing” fund that could be used to help entice out-of-state businesses to relocate to New Mexico.
Increasing funding for the state Department of Tourism’s marketing and outreach programs.
Increasing the amount of money from the state Severance Tax Permanent Fund available to be invested by the Small Business Investment Corp.
Coordinating the efforts of state agencies with regional council of government districts to improve data gathering and economic planning.

Spurring economic growth and promoting economic freedom is not even mentioned among Gov. Martinez’s top priorities on her website:

MY PRIORITIES:
Educating Our Children
Balancing the Budget
Ensuring Transparency and Ethics in Government
Keeping New Mexicans Safe

The sorry state of New Mexico’s economy provides both opportunity and peril for Gov. Martinez. If she takes the lead and explains that our economic situation is to a significant degree the result of poor policies enacted by the Legislature over the long-term. If she doesn’t get in front of the issue, however, Democrats are going to do everything in their power to blame her for New Mexico’s poor performance under her leadership.

Travis Brown of How Money Walks, a website that vividly illustrates how wealth and people move around the country using IRS data, has put together a map illustrating how money and people move throughout New Mexico and to/from what states people and money are coming to/leaving our state.

Check out the full series of charts here.

Mr. Brown’s original presentation along with an interview by Capitol Report New Mexico can be found here.

It would seem that taxes play a larger role in how people move around the nation than they do within New Mexico where the phenomenon is one of people leaving rural areas, even booming ones in the oil patch, to live in the Rio Grande Valley.

Also, people are moving to Bernalillo County, but their money is moving out of the County.

According to recent news reports, Congress is working on a deal that would eliminate half of the sequestration cuts AND result in higher taxes on Americans in the form of higher customs levies and airport charges.

The more-Pentagon-spending-at-any-cost crowd is eager to restore slight reductions in military spending even if it means raising taxes on airline passengers.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Republicans would be wise to stick to the Budget and Control Act’s spending caps, which have been highly effective in controlling discretionary spending. Federal outlays declined to $3.45 trillion and 20.8% of GDP in fiscal 2013 from $3.6 trillion and 24.1% of GDP in 2011. In 2010 discretionary spending peaked at 9.4% of GDP, but in 2013 it was down to 7.6% and in 2014 will fall to 7%. A testament to the success of the caps is that nearly every Democrat and spending lobby in Washington is desperate to get rid of them.

Our friends at the National Taxpayers Union are enlisting the support of regular Americans who want to continue common-sense fiscal restraint.