Gov. Martinez has attracted the attention of at least one major news outlet for her recent statements about reducing the State’s role in providing the flow of money to government employee unions in New Mexico.

EDITORIAL: New Mexico challenges its public-sector unions
Gov. Martinez works to loosen the grip of AFSCME

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES Friday, April 4, 2014

The success of governors holding unions to account in the union strongholds of Wisconsin and Michigan has inspired imitators.

Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico — often mentioned as a prospective Republican vice presidential nominee in 2016 — wants the state government to quit collecting dues for the public-sector unions.

Government collection of union dues is not particularly costly for taxpayers, but it’s a unique and valuable perk for the unions. It’s so valuable, in fact, that Ms. Martinez was immediately scolded by a spokesman for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, who called her announcement a “declaration of war.”

Given the chance to avoid mandatory dues collection, many government employees choose not to pay the tribute. Most employees would rather keep what they earn than send any of it to distant union bosses.

Membership plunged in the Milwaukee-area government employee union after Gov. Scott Walker freed employees from the burden of mandatory contributions. The Milwaukee union declined from 9,000 members and an income of $7 million in 2010 to 3,500 members and a deep deficit by the end of 2013.

Unions see direct deduction of dues from paychecks as key to their survival. The Rio Grande Foundation, a free-market think tank in New Mexico, argues that, far from a “declaration of war,” Ms. Martinez’s proposal is well to the left of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s opposition to the very existence of government employee unions. “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood,” Mr. Roosevelt said in 1937, “cannot be transplanted into the public service.”

FDR understood that government unions had the power to manipulate bargaining to their benefit. Union dues could be used to elect the politicians who sit across the bargaining table.

Instead of an adversarial process that would lead to a fair bargain, it skewed the system. Union negotiators sat across the bargaining table from cronies eager to do their bidding. The taxpayers lost big.

The system became so unworkable in Detroit that the city collapsed into bankruptcy, but in other places government unions have been smart enough not to kill the host.

This isn’t so in New Mexico, where the host is gravely ill. Unlike neighboring Arizona and Texas, New Mexico is a blue state firmly controlled by Democrats. Republican governors are the exception, and the state House of Representatives has been in the hands of Democrats in New Mexico since the Eisenhower administration.

Liberal policies have not been kind to the Land of Enchantment. The Fraser Institute finds it to be the “least-free” state in the United States. Reliance on federal spending has impoverished the state. Despite clear skies and beautiful weather, it’s one of the 10 states losing population. Incomes are stagnant and the economic recoveries of its neighbors have dwarfed New Mexico’s.

Having Gov. Martinez in charge in Santa Fe, eager to implement authentic labor reform, puts New Mexico on track for an economic turnaround.

(Albuquerque) In a first step for “free trade” in legal services, the New Mexico Supreme Court has adopted partial reciprocity for attorneys (also known as reciprocal bar admission). In its pure form, lawyer reciprocity enables experienced attorneys from other states to practice in New Mexico. This basic regulatory reform was discussed in a 2013 Rio Grande Foundation policy brief that dealt broadly with regulations that hold back New Mexico’s economy.

Said Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing of the Court’s decision, “We are pleased that the Court has concluded that failing to recognize the credentials of out-of-state attorneys – while providing protection to a small group of marginal, in-state attorneys – is unfair to New Mexico consumers of legal services and ultimately harms our economy.”

Gessing continued, noting that “In today’s economy, businesses can set up their headquarters wherever they choose. State requirements that attorneys be ‘barred’ once again to practice in New Mexico after having already gone through that process elsewhere, is not helpful as our elected official attempt to bring jobs and economic growth to our state.

Attorney Pat Rogers who has been leading a pro-reciprocity effort before the Court noted that, while pleased with this first step, “The Court did not adopt the less restrictive proposal favored by his group and the Rio Grande Foundation. The Court did, however remove a good portion of the existing restrictive barriers to competition in the practice of law, in NM. Consumers should be the winners.”

Concluded Gessing, “The New Mexico Supreme Court’s move towards reciprocity is a small, but necessary step forward in terms of reducing unnecessary regulations on New Mexicans.”

It has been a few years since our friends in the Albuquerque Tea Party and other Tea Party groups around New Mexico put together the tax-day rallies attended by thousands of New Mexicans. Those rallies have had an impact and have forced politicians in Washington and here in New Mexico to pay attention to issues of limited government. The Albuquerque Tea Party is planning a major April 15 “Tax Day” rally this year and I’ve been invited to speak to rally the troops. In formation on the Albuquerque rally follows:

At this point I don’t have information on Tea Party activities throughout the rest of New Mexico, but you can check here for contact information for Tea Party groups in your community. Of course, I’m sure I speak for the Albuquerque Tea Party in saying that you are welcome to visit the Duke City on April 15.

If you want to put your career and standing as a public figure at risk, it appears that there is no quicker path to destruction than to take on the gay rights lobby these days. Just ask the now-former CEO of Mozilla who just resigned due to pressure put on him as a result of a $1,000 contribution he made to a 2008 California ballot measure that banned gay marriage in that State (at least until the Courts got hold of it).

Regardless of your position on gay marriage (I share Jonah Goldberg’s view on the issue), this state of affairs where you have to toe the, now popular line on any public issue, is downright scary. More importantly, this kind of debacle provides an excellent argument on behalf of those, like us, who support donor privacy and understand the need to keep at least some donations to politicians and public issue campaigns private.

A group of Democrat legislators posted an open letter on incentives for the proposed Tesla “gigafactory.” In their letter, the legislators laid out some concerns and ideas related to incentives that may or may not be provided by the State of New Mexico to bring the factory here. The letter mentioned Rio Grande Foundation and our previously stated position on the proposed incentives which we’ve discussed here and here.

First, it is great to see a group of people with whom we generally don’t agree on economic development issues citing us as an authority on important economic development issues. Also, it is worth noting that “corporate welfare” and business subsidies are an area in which the left and right can agree, so, there are many good points made in the letter, however, there are also several points made in the letter that need to be addressed.

1) No unlimited subsidies for Tesla: It’s hard to disagree with this one although it is worth clarifying that tax exemptions are much different than outright subsidies. Schott Solar received actual payments totaling $16 million from New Mexico taxpayers. The film industry receives outright payments (made by other New Mexico taxpayers) of 25 or even 30 cents on the dollar and these folks have been some of the biggest cheerleaders for this policy (despite opposition from prominent left-wing economists).

In summary, RGF has supported tax breaks as an economic development tool for Tesla, but we don’t support the “investment” of taxpayer dollars.

2) Leverage the universities and Labs: Another worthwhile albeit somewhat obvious point. To the extent that research going on at New Mexico’s Labs can be of use to Tesla and that locating in the same geographical area as those institutions can be helpful to Tesla, this point makes eminent sense.

3) Disclosure of Costs and Benefits: Another worthy point. New Mexico needs to do a better job on behalf of its policymakers of understanding the real-world economic impact of tax incentives and subsidies. Getting objective research is not always easy, but it is worth pursuing.

4) Money-back guarantees (strong clawbacks): Sounds good in theory, but not realistic. Despite all of the hype, Tesla is an extremely speculative business. There’s no way they’ll put themselves on the hook for reimbursements to the State in the case of a failure. Negotiating aggressive clawbacks will likely kill a deal. New Mexico policymakers need to structure incentives in such a way as to not be “out” millions of dollars if Tesla were to fail.

5) Job quality standards: I have no doubt that a vast majority of Tesla employees (even on the assembly line and in the absence of unions) will earn very good salaries and will thus not be a burden on our Medicaid and social welfare systems. The bigger issue is the Democrats’ demands for in-state hiring quotas. This is another deal-killer. Tesla is going to want the best workers possible in its plant and isn’t going to want to deal with unnecessary and artificial in-state hiring rules.

Policymakers should know that if Tesla moves here, they will hire lots of New Mexicans to work in its facility. To hire 6,500 workers, there is no doubt that some of those people will have to come from elsewhere. The good news is that whether Tesla ever pays a dime in corporate taxes, those well-paid workers will pay taxes and generate economic activity in our economy.

One additional point not mentioned in the Democrats’ piece, but mentioned elsewhere is that New Mexico has plenty of water. Nearly 80% is used for agriculture, much of which is not economically-viable. Some of the water rights for flooding fields to grow hay, alfalfa, and corn in places where such crops are not a wise use of water can and must be eliminated whether Tesla comes here or not.

Rob Nikolewski cites three recent reports detailing New Mexico’s poor showing on a variety of national reports over at Capitol Report New Mexico. These reports center on our state’s weak personal income growth, our higher education system’s inability to get students to graduate, and our ongoing dependence on the federal government.

Here at Errors of Enchantment, we’ve detailed plenty of negative data surrounding the New Mexico economy, but quite frankly, it isn’t really news anymore. It is just another report that comes out with nothing but yawns elicited in the Legislature where the policy prescriptions in 2014 included raising the minimum wage, using the general fund to prop up a poorly-designed lottery scholarship program, and spending $550,000 to build a movie studio back-lot near Las Cruces to further subsidize the film industry.

Minor course corrections aren’t enough. New Mexico is on the wrong economic path (of dependence and a perpetual belief that government spending is the solution to our problems). It didn’t get their overnight and the switch to a free market economy won’t be easy or quick.

Check out the following chart from our friends at Liberty Foundation which details how states that have Right to Work protections for workers have grown faster during the economic recovery than forced-unionism states. The relevant data point is the way the lines move from left to right which illustrates job growth between 2010 and 2014:

RGF also welcomes the Commercial Association of Realtors New Mexico to the debate over whether New Mexico should become a Right to Work state. The group put together a white paper on the issue which cites a variety of data in support of Right to Work. Citing several business friendliness reports as well as the fact that citizens of Right to Work states have greater disposable incomes, the report makes a persuasive case for New Mexico adopting such a law.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” George Orwell

Recently, Gov. Martinez stated that her administration wants to stop allowing union dues to be withdrawn automatically from state employee paychecks.” The head of one government employee union called this statement a “declaration of war” against the unions.

What could generate such heated rhetoric from one of New Mexico’s most powerful special interest groups? Simply put, government employee unions benefit greatly from having their members’ dues and non-members’ “fair share” payments automatically deducted from their paychecks (“fair share” payments are funds extracted from non-union workers for the supposed purpose of funding union bargaining efforts).

Before the unions and their supporters “go to war,” it’s worth pointing out that former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the hero of so many liberals, opposed the very existence of government employee unions and expressed these views in a 1937 letter, writing, “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.

FDR was right. Whereas private sector unions are limited by the ability of their employers to survive in a competitive marketplace, government unions can use their tremendous political power to put politicians in power that will tap the tremendous taxing and spending powers of government to provide ever higher wages and benefits. This system eventually faltered with Detroit’s bankruptcy, but that is the exception that proves the rule.

It would seem that using taxpayer resources for the benefit of a private organization is a violation of New Mexico’s “anti-donation clause.” Undoubtedly, collecting union dues is a benefit given to the unions that is not available to other, similar organizations. Imagine the State of New Mexico collecting dues on behalf of the National Rifle Association, National Right to Life, or the ACLU for that matter!

The idea that refusing to collect dues on unions’ behalf is a declaration of “war” illustrates the unions’ strong sense of entitlement.

The government unions will make several arguments against the proposed change. For starters, they will claim that they need to take “fair share” payments from non-members because State law mandates that unions negotiate wages and benefits on behalf of all workers, not just union members. Of course, government unions are the ones that have demanded such collective bargaining laws as a means of accumulating political power in the first place.

When given the choice, many government workers choose not to support the unions. According to the Wisconsin-based Capital Times, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) in the state suffered a 45 percent drop in revenue as workers opted out of dues payments in the wake of reforms in Wisconsin that included the end of taxpayer-funded dues collection.

This is why Martinez’s proposal to stop collecting dues on behalf of the unions strikes such fear in the hearts of union bosses. Whether they will admit it publicly or not, union dues are fungible. They can be used for whatever the bosses wish, including political activity. Less dues money to spend means less political power for government employee unions.

To be sure, this political activity is incredibly-partisan. According to Followthemoney.org, one prominent New Mexico-based government labor union, AFSCME Council 18, gave 100% of its political contributions between 2004 and 2012 to Democrats. Even if collecting union dues were somehow a justifiable use of taxpayer funds, is it any surprise that Gov. Martinez, the elected leader of New Mexico’s government wants to stop taxpayers from fundraising for her opposition?

The legality of actually stopping dues payments is somewhat murky. It appears that Gov. Martinez could act unilaterally to stop collecting dues for the unions despite “evergreen” provisions put in place under Richardson. Any efforts to curtail the power of government unions will be seen as a “declaration of war,” but “war” on taxpayers and any effort to reduce dependency on government is exactly what the unions have been engaged in for years. Finally, that the battle has been joined.

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

I blogged recently about a Wichita car dealership that turned lemons into lemonade by using a carpenters’ union protest to its advantage. Well, today I was downtown and saw a sign a “shame on” sign that caught my interest. But what really made me sit up and take notice was the “business” being protested. As seen in the photo below, in this particular protest is being held in front of the offices of a personal injury law firm. In other words, “ambulance-chasers.”

We strongly encourage the unions in their efforts to bring “shame” upon all personal injury attorneys although I believe the profession may be immune to the emotion.

One guess! Some interesting data and discussion from Wallet Hub on the various ways in which wealth and dependency can be measured. Check out the interactive chart below:

The Cato Institute has an excellent report that tracks education spending and education results in each of the 50 states over the last 40 years. To say that more spending has been wasted would be an understatement. The problem is not teachers or parents or administrators per se, but a government owned and operated…dare I say “socialized” educational system if schools are the means of production and educated students are what is being “produced.”

When I read Jim Folkman’s recent article in the Albuquerque Journal on the need for “downtown revitalization,” I wasn’t sure whether to laugh or cry. The basis of his article is that Albuquerque should have an attractive downtown. I couldn’t agree more. The problem is the rest of the article.

If government spends a bunch of money on amenities downtown, will that bring people in or do we need a strong economy to attract people to live in our City with a certain percentage of them being downtown? Folkman seems to advise the former (mass transit) while I’d argue the latter. Cleveland does have mass transit, but with all due respect, if downtown Cleveland is the answer, you’re asking the wrong question. Another city that has “invested” in arenas and mass transit is Detroit. Not exactly the model we’re looking for. See the following chart (taken from this study) for details on the population declines in several of the cities Folkman cites as “models.” Is this really what Folkman wants for Albuquerque?

Quite simply, I’d argue that a bustling downtown is the result of broader economic growth not the generator of that growth. I’m not sure where Mr. Folkman got his “study” which claims that “nearly 73 percent of all graduating college will move to an urban area for its attributes as much as for a job,” but this nugget of information is not convincing. I lived in Washington, DC in the mid-1990s when noted crack smoker Marion Berry was Mayor and that city’s urban core left a lot to be desired despite second-to-none amenities and a massive investment in mass transit. As Washington’s economy has grown in recent years and governance has improved within the District itself, the City’s urban core has been completely revitalized.

All downtown areas have their problems. There are plenty of bums in Washington, DC, but with a flood of office workers and young professionals in the area due to the strong job market, you hardly notice them. Downtown Albuquerque’s issues are made all the more obvious because it is like a ghost-town at most hours. A new convention center and more mass transit are not and were not the answers to downtown’s woes (I question whether the “Innovation Corridor” will have the desired impact without serious policy reforms in Santa Fe).

Downtown Albuquerque needs the same thing the rest of this state needs: Economic prosperity driven by private sector growth, in other words JOBS.

I was quoted extensively for this story on the New Mexico Spaceport. I particularly enjoyed this picture which included one of my quotes:

While the Spaceport continues to await it’s full start-up phase, the mistakes made with the Spaceport can provide a blueprint for what NOT to do with Tesla. There are many parallels, most specifically in terms of the speculative nature of the technology at play and the fact that while both space travel and automobiles are proven technologies, the models being tried here are unproven. See, for example, the recent story about the dramatic range reduction experienced by electric vehicles in cold weather.

Specifically, a large infusion of taxpayer dollars would be the absolute worst thing to do in the case of Tesla. Bill Richardson saddled New Mexico taxpayers with a spaceport with a dubious future and of questionable viability. Hopefully Gov. Martinez takes this lesson to heart.

I love being attacked. It means we’re being effective in our work to study and promote the ideas of individual liberty and free markets. In today’s Albuquerque Journal business outlook section, reader Chuck McCoy, based on one 2006 donation from the Washington, DC-based Cato Institute, called the Rio Grande Foundation “the propaganda arm of David and Charles Koch.”

Anyone who knows the Cato Institute knows that the organization is indeed respected nationally by elected officials of both parties as is the Rio Grande Foundation here in New Mexico. The fact that McCoy doesn’t actually attack our research or ideas is telling, in fact. It is much easier to repeat the meme that the Koch Brothers are evil than to engage in an intellectual battle.

Notably, liberal Sen. Ron Wyden recently spoke to the Cato Institute. The Rio Grande Foundation’s top education policy (school choice tax credits for low-income as well as special needs kids) was last sponsored by four Democrats, most of whom would self-identify as “liberal.” This is just one instance for both organizations. Ultimately, both are respected even if philosophical disagreements exist.

And, of course, that is the heart of the matter. McCoy (and too many on the left) just doesn’t agree with us, but they are too intellectually-lazy to make a coherent argument based on economic principles and analysis. Those who make a big stink about the Koch Brothers don’t attack the ACLU for taking $20 million from the Koch’s. They also don’t seem to care that the major left-wing think tank in this state, Voices for Children, recently accepted a $900,000 grant from the out-of-state Kellogg Foundation. This would support the Rio Grande Foundation’s entire budget for a several years, by the way.

I don’t begrudge Voices for Children for leaning on wealthy out-of-state funding sources. My biggest issue is that it is the very left-wing policies that Kellogg and others have enacted in New Mexico that has chased businesses and wealth out of New Mexico, thus forcing our entire state to be reliant on financial support from other, more economically-free states.

If you DO support free markets and limited government in New Mexico, don’t hesitate to make a tax-deductible donation here.

What if I told you that a business was planning to make close to a billion dollar investment in New Mexico? What if I told you that this company is a leader of may be a potential revolution in automobile fueling and technology and that they could help our state make the transition to cleaner, more affordable fuel for automobiles?

No, I’m not talking about Tesla which has, aside from the recent exploits of local basketball teams, been the talk of the state. I’m talking about the proposed purchase of New Mexico Gas Co. (NMGC), currently owned by New York City-based Continental Energy by Tampa-based TECO Energy.

Bringing Tesla to New Mexico could be a home run for New Mexico’s economy, but having a natural gas company that is owned by a utility company with a 115 year track record of serving its customers – as opposed to a hedge fund – could be at least a double.

For those who are concerned about rates and prices, TECO has proposed that NMGC customer rates will be frozen until at least July 2017. NMGC will retain its name, and its headquarters will remain in Albuquerque. While New Mexico’s economy has struggled mightily in recent years, TECO’s management is “bullish” on New Mexico. The company’s CEO John Ramil recently was quoted as saying, “The Company is looking at New Mexico to be a growing state, and New Mexico Gas Co. to continue its growth.
Given the onslaught of negative economic news from our state in recent years, it is wonderful to have a business that sees our state’s growth potential looking to come here and invest.

A positive attitude is an important factor, but the real potential for New Mexico lies in TECO’s willingness to replicate its successful Florida model of investing in filling stations for vehicles that use clean natural gas produced right here in New Mexico. Due to broader market forces and newly-discovered supplies, natural gas prices remain at historically-low levels, spurring calls for increased investments in fueling stations.

In fact, whether the fuel in question is gasoline, electricity, or natural gas, a large national network of filling stations is an absolute necessity in order for alternative fuels to become widespread.

TECO has a proven track record and stated interest in investing in infrastructure and the communities it serves. NMGC which is currently owned by a hedge fund with a business model that involves purchasing and “flipping” under-valued assets is unlikely to make such investments.

One final point on the importance of the NMGC sale is the need for government bodies to respect free markets and a business’ desire to sell a company that does business in New Mexico to another business. It is one thing for regulatory bodies to stand in the way of such transactions for tangible, specific reasons. It is another thing to stand in front of these business transactions out of abstract fears.

My organization has worked assiduously to research and explain how New Mexico can improve its economy. While there are myriad issues to overcome before our state becomes truly business-friendly, there is no easier way to become a pariah among investors and businesses than to be seen as a place where once you have invested resources, you are unable to sell those investments.

Venezuela and Argentina are just two nations whose economies have suffered greatly from such capricious state actions. New Mexico should not fall into that trap.

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

According to this story, the only people who can actually afford to buy the average new car (based on a basic income and cost formula) among the 25-largest cities in America is Washington, DC. See the chart below:

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
PO Box 1269
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269
Case number: 13-00231-UT
prc.records@state.nm.us

Comments to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission on the purchase of New Mexico Gas by TECO Energy

On behalf of the Rio Grande Foundation, utility customers, and advocates of freedom throughout New Mexico, I urge you to approve of the proposed TECO purchase of New Mexico Gas Co.

For starters, New Mexico Gas is currently owned by an equity or hedge fund. This was always expected to be a temporary situation. It would be far better for New Mexico Gas to be owned by TECO, a utility company with a 115 year track record of serving its customers.

For those who are concerned about rates and prices, TECO has proposed that NMGC customer rates will be frozen until at least July 2017. NMGC will retain its name, and its headquarters will remain in Albuquerque. While New Mexico’s economy has struggled mightily in recent years, TECO’s management is “bullish” on New Mexico. The company’s CEO John Ramil recently was quoted as saying, “The Company is looking at New Mexico to be a growing state, and New Mexico Gas Co. to continue its growth.
Given the onslaught of negative economic news from our state in recent years, it is wonderful to have a business that sees our state’s growth potential looking to come here and invest.

A positive attitude is an important factor, but the real potential for New Mexico lies in TECO’s willingness to replicate its successful Florida model of investing in filling stations for vehicles that use clean natural gas produced right here in New Mexico. Due to broader market forces and newly-discovered supplies, natural gas prices remain at historically-low levels, spurring calls for increased investments in fueling stations.

In fact, whether the fuel in question is gasoline, electricity, or natural gas, a large national network of filling stations is an absolute necessity in order for alternative fuels to become widespread.

TECO has a proven track record and stated interest in investing in infrastructure and the communities it serves. NMGC which is currently owned by a hedge fund with a business model that involves purchasing and “flipping” under-valued assets is unlikely to make such investments.

One final point on the importance of the NMGC sale is the need for government bodies to respect free markets and a business’ desire to sell a company that does business in New Mexico to another business. It is one thing for regulatory bodies to stand in the way of such transactions for tangible, specific reasons. It is another thing to stand in front of these business transactions out of abstract fears.

My organization has worked assiduously to research and explain how New Mexico can improve its economy. While there are myriad issues to overcome before our state becomes truly business-friendly, there is no easier way to become a pariah among investors and businesses than to be seen as a place where once you have invested resources, you are unable to sell those investments.

Venezuela and Argentina are just two nations whose economies have suffered greatly from such capricious state actions. New Mexico should not fall into that trap.

I urge the PRC to allow the proposed sale to go through.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation
PO Box 40336
Albuquerque, NM 87196
505-264-6090

The following article originally appeared on the website “Does New Mexico Know Tom Udall?”

Tom Udall has been in Congress since 1999 when he won election to the 3rd (northern) Congressional District in New Mexico. Udall was elected in 2009 to the United States Senate, taking Pete Domenici’s seat upon the long-serving Senator’s retirement.

Since arriving in Washington, Udall has consistently voted with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. According to the fiscally-conservative National Taxpayers Union, Udall has been an unabashed supporter of increased spending and taxation in Washington. The organization ranks every vote in Congress based on its impact on the size and scope of the federal government and Udall has never scored anything but “F.” Worse still, Udall accumulated the worst track record on spending and taxes during 2012 (the second session of the 112th Congress).

During 2012, Udall voted only 6 percent of the time in the interests of the taxpayer. Also in 2012, National Journal named Udall the “Most Liberal Senator” of them all, tied with Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal.

For all the time he’s spent in Washington, Tom Udall has relatively few legislative accomplishments to his name. Having been in Congress since 1999 would usually result in some significant legislative items by a politician who clearly supports a large and growing federal government, but this has not been the case.

Udall has supported most of the left-wing domestic policies in Congress in recent years. He strongly supported and continues to support the ObamaCare health law as well as the Obama “stimulus” legislation known as American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which spent $831 billion in a failed effort to goose the American economy.

Despite New Mexico’s status as a top energy producing state, Udall has typically supported the cause of radical environmental interest groups above those of an industry that supplies 31 percent of New Mexico’s General Fund revenues.

The League of Conservation Voters, for example, gave Udall a 100% score during 2013 and Udall has a 97 percent lifetime score. Udall voted to oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline which even Bill Clinton has endorsed, opposes expansion of offshore oil and gas drilling, and opposes oil and gas drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

And, despite relatively depressed natural gas prices, the importance of natural gas to New Mexico’s economy, and the potential for exports of natural gas to generate thousands of jobs and millions of tax dollars for New Mexicans immediately, Udall voted against legislation that would have allowed export terminals to overcome efforts by Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) groups to site natural gas export terminals.

While his legislative track record is bad enough, Udall seems to believe that the federal government, not individuals, is the best steward of New Mexico’s lands. Udall strongly supported efforts to create the Río Grande del Norte National Conservation Area in Northern New Mexico which tightened federal control over 236,000 acres of land. The land was ultimately declared a national monument without Congressional approval by President Obama in early 2013.

Not satisfied with this massive expansion of federal control over lands in Northern New Mexico, Udall is actively supporting efforts to create the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument on 498,815 acres in Southern New Mexico. Udall has encouraged the Obama Administration to take unilateral action to designate the lands. Although the wilderness designation only deals with federal lands, private and state lands are interspersed throughout. These lands will be incredibly difficult for ranchers and others to use.

When it comes to economic policies impacting New Mexico, Tom Udall has clearly taken the side of those who wish to socialize control over our lands, reduce the capacity of private citizens to use our natural resources, and spend more of your hard-earned tax money. New Mexico needs better representation in Washington.

(Albuquerque) Hal Stratton, co-founder of the Rio Grande Foundation, has joined the organization’s board of directors of New Mexico’s only free market think tank bringing decades of leadership as a voice for accountable and constitutionally-restrained government.

In 1978, at the age of 27, Stratton ran for a seat in the New Mexico House of Representatives in Albuquerque’s District 29 and defeated the House Majority Whip. He was served a total of four terms in the New Mexico House.

In 1986, Stratton was elected to the office of New Mexico Attorney General. He is the only Republican to be elected to that office in New Mexico since 1928. Stratton was limited to one term as New Mexico Attorney General by the New Mexico Constitution and served from 1987 through 1990.

In 2000, along with George Mason University Economist Harry Messenheimer, PhD, Stratton co-founded the Rio Grande Foundation which was and remains New Mexico’s only free market think tank.

In March, 2002, Stratton was nominated by President Bush to be Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). He served in that position until resigning effective July 15, 2006.

During the course of his tenure at the CPSC the agency implemented the largest recall in U.S. history involving children’s vending machine jewelry and imposed the largest penalty on an industry stakeholder for failure to report the distribution of dangerous products. Nonetheless, the fiscally-conservative Stratton actually reduced the CPSC’s total budget during his time in office.

Said Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing, “When it comes to New Mexico’s economy and politics, Hal Stratton is one of the most knowledgeable people around. We are thrilled to have him on the board of the organization he co-founded more than a decade ago.”

Of his officially re-joining the Rio Grande Foundation, Stratton said, “Since returning to New Mexico after leaving the CPSC, I have been extremely impressed with Paul Gessing’s leadership of the Rio Grande Foundation and the impact the organization has had on public policy in New Mexico. I hope to further the organization’s mission on behalf of limited government and free markets in the Land of Enchantment.”

Gessing and Stratton are the only New Mexico signatories of the Statement of Principles of “Right on Crime.” Signatories to the letter which also include Ed Meese, III, Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Grover Norquist, support common-sense, conservative criminal justice reforms.

Gov. Susana Martinez, in an action that the unions are characterizing in the starkest of terms “This means war!” has endorsed the policy of no longer allowing government entities to collect dues on behalf of the unions.

For starters, I wonder if the unions will come under the same criticism for using the term “war” that Lobo Coach Craig Neal did recently. Unfortunately, when it comes to unions and their aggressive tactics (see Wisconsin), “war” may be an all-too-appropriate term.

Nonetheless, it is no secret that the unions have never been fans of the Governor or anyone who thinks that businesses should have the freedom to contract with whomever they wish at a fair market price and that parents should be able to send their children to the school of their choice.

However, when Martinez’s plan is painted as “radical” and “union busting” which it already has, remember that even that great ally of labor unions, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, opposed the very existence of government labor unions. To state the obvious, Martinez’s plan to stop using taxpayer funds to collect union dues is far more moderate than Roosevelt’s position on the issue.

That’s not to say that Gov. Martinez faces an easy task in implementing her “no dues collection” policy, but government labor unions have been at “war” with the taxpayers of New Mexico for decades, it is good to see that we have a powerful ally on our side.

I rarely laugh out loud at Albuquerque Journal headlines, but I did this morning. The headline was “Education Group Protests SF Contract.” What a euphemism! The National Education Association (NEA) is not concerned with “education.” It’s concerned with getting more money out of taxpayers. It does as all government employee unions do: by convincing politicians to hire more dues-paying teachers, limiting competition, increasing pay and benefits for its members, and supporting friendly politicians who will give them MORE.

The case from Santa Fe is a classic example. As the story notes, Santa Fe Public Schools have a new program designed to get dropouts back on track for a diploma. The rub is that they’ve hired a private company (heaven forbid) to run the program. Implied, but not stated in the story is that the teachers in the program are unlikely to be unionized.

The union cites a provision in New Mexico’s Constitution which states that “public schools, colleges, universities and other public educational institutions “shall forever remain under the exclusive control of the state,” and that no part of the funds “shall be used for the support of any sectarian, denominational or private school, college or university.” To say the least, this is a provision of New Mexico’s Constitution worthy of changing, but there will likely be a legal battle over whether it makes the school illegal or not.

The more important thing is that the NEA is attempting to deny students who are not being served by traditional schools a different option for their educational services because the program in question does not serve the selfish needs of the union.

Interestingly enough, an “important” provision of New Mexico’s Constitution is ignored on a daily basis in New Mexico schools. Sec. 8 states “The legislature shall provide for the training of teachers in the normal schools or otherwise so that they may become proficient in both the English and Spanish languages.” I don’t know how many of New Mexico’s teachers are fluent in Spanish, but I have met several teachers who taught in government schools and I don’t believe they spoke Spanish.

We’ve all seen the “shame on…” union protest posters in front of Albuquerque-area businesses. The New Mexico Watchdog did a story on the non-union protesters here. A lot of times the protesters perch themselves in front of hospitals and churches, but one Wichita car dealer (car dealers are master marketers) who managed to turn the tables on the protesters. Check out the photo below:

Check out the full article here. It just goes to show that sometimes the best way to stand up to a bully is through a little creativity and humor.

Our friends at the Institute for Truth in Accounting have put together, in honor of St. Patrick’s Day, a list of “gold-digger” states, those for whom federal revenues form the largest percent of their budget. Not surprisingly, New Mexico is on the list at number three. What is perplexing is just how great that reliance on Washington has grown in recent decades.

Stephen Moore was, until recently, an editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal and is now Chief Economist at Heritage Foundation. He spoke to a luncheon sponsored by the Rio Grande Foundation about what needs to be done to turn New Mexico’s economy around as well as what can be done to improve the United States economy.

Click here for Moore’s slides. Video of Moore’s presentation can be found below:

Stephen Moore discusses economic prescriptions for New Mexico and the United States on March 14, 2014 from Paul Gessing on Vimeo.

For even more information, check out the story Capitol Report New Mexico published on the event which included an interview with Moore.