Tom Woods, like all of our luncheon speakers this year (John Stossel, Jonah Goldberg, and Mark Mix) is a strong advocate for liberty. Tom is a scholar at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Mises was a so-called “Austrian” economist and, according to this article from Forbes, “The Greatest Thinker You’ve Never Read.”

So, what does Tom Woods have to say? You can read his articles here:

Woods explains why the free market did not cause the economic crisis of 2008;

Why the Great Depression was so “great”;

and why Paul Krugman of the New York Times is wrong about the housing crisis (and so much more).

In other words, Tom Woods is an incredible speaker and freedom-fighter. You should hear what he has to say at an RGF luncheon in Albuquerque on October 12.

We have complained in this space in the past that Albuquerque’s City Council has too much control over too many small decisions. Take the approval of vendors at the Sunport. Someone who is more responsive and market-driven should be in charge of this. We don’t need elected officials holding committee hearings on the relative merits of Los Cuates or El Pinto (or any other vendor for that matter).

Now, we have the Council embroiled in controversy over whether or not to raise the price of admission at the Albuquerque Zoo/BioPark. Obviously, it is tough to raise prices on a popular family attraction in a down economy, but if it is necessary to maintain the place, it may be necessary. Something Councilors should at least know about and consider is the fact that government-owned-and-operated zoos are no longer the standard. According to Reason Foundation, “The vast majority of accredited zoos and aquariums across the United States now rely on private operators—this includes major cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Fresno, Houston and Seattle. Eight publicly owned zoos and aquariums have been transferred to private operators in the last ten years alone.”

Perhaps Albuquerque can maintain the zoo and keep costs low by using modern management techniques. We hope they at least consider the option. The zoo is truly an asset to the community. Getting the most bang for those scarce “bucks” must be a top priority. De-politicizing the whole issue should be another.

Albuquerque Mayor RJ Berry has some sound ideas when it comes to boosting economic development in NM’s largest city and the state as a whole. According to Winthrop Quigley over at the Albuquerque Journal, the Mayor recently spoke about changing New Mexico’s corporate income tax to include a “single-factor” and, our own favorite option “Right to Work.”

I don’t think Quigley gives Mayor Berry credit for his ideas which, if adopted, would certainly improve New Mexico’s business climate. Rather, Quigley prefers to focus on the political opposition and New Mexico’s often-backwards political culture that hinders such reform efforts. Interestingly, Quigley does point out that Gov. Martinez has not latched on in support of the Mayor’s “big ideas.” While I think she is waiting to see how the Legislature shapes up after the 2012 elections, it would be great to see her take the lead on some more big-picture, free market economic reforms that will actually turn New Mexico around and reduce our over-reliance on Washington. To that end, I had the following letter published in the Albuquerque Business Journal:

It is obviously concerning that, in the midst of a weak economic recovery nationwide, that the weakness of Albuquerque’s recovery is notably week. As the article notes, the single-largest factor is the reduction in federal largesse. Regardless of what happens in November, simple math dictates that the money flowing into our economy from the outside will continue to decline.

This sounds depressing from an economic development perspective, but it actually represents a great opportunity for the state to develop its own economy independent of Washington.

We can start by reforming regulations on labor and adopting a statewide “Right to Work” law, abandoning our “prevailing wage” law, and avoiding passage of a higher minimum wage locally. There are also 52 low and moderate-income occupations that require licensing in New Mexico, including everything from funeral attendants to animal trainers that make doing business more challenging than necessary.

Industries are also regulated in ways that hurt competition and hold back our economy. For example, in order for new companies to enter the New Mexico market as a “common carrier” to provide limousine or taxi service, they must file a “certificate of public convenience and necessity,” thus giving the incumbent a say in whether competitors can even set up shop.

New Mexico is consistently ranked nationally as being “economically-uncompetitive” for these and other reasons. Since won’t have our generous federal security blanket for much longer, it is time to change.

San Juan County has, until now, maintained a policy of unlimited payouts for unused vacation days of its employees. Needless to say, this could get expensive for the taxpayers. Thankfully, some in the County are looking to change the policy. We decided to lend our support with the following letter to the Farmington Daily-Times.

The proposal by San Juan County to abandon unlimited payouts for
unused vacation time is a “no-brainer.” Obviously, the budgetary
impact of such policies is the most significant issue, with employees
having accrued $1.2 million in unused vacation time. Payouts could
have significant, negative impacts on taxpayers.

Such payouts of unpaid vacation time are nearly unheard of in the
private sector, making them unfair to the workers who actually pay the
bills for government. Since the intent of employers providing
vacations for their employees was to help recharge and energize
workers, such unlimited payout policies defeat the purpose of vacation
leave in the first place. This makes unused vacation time yet another
generous benefit to government workers who already receive retirement
and health care benefits far superior to those in the private sector.

San Juan County’s leaders should be applauded for considering this
issue and should be encouraged to take action by ending this unwise
policy.

According to this story from KOB Channel 4, New Mexico’s lottery scholarship program is not generating enough revenues to continue into the future.

You can’t make people play the lottery and thus goose revenues, so what can be done? The simple solution is to increase academic standards for students receiving the scholarship. Currently, recipients can skate by with a mere 2.5 GPA. That is not exactly a high hurdle.

It would be interesting to see how many of those kids earning scholarships with GPA’s 3.0 and below are able to graduate in four years. Interestingly, the national average GPA for high schoolers is near 3.0, so raising the bar a bit should not be too high a standard considering what the lottery scholarship offers. Will raising the standards solve the problems, we’ll see if we can find the details on this, but it could certainly lead towards higher standards in higher ed.

Since publication of our paper, “Lack of Transparency for New Mexico’s

Not-For-Profit Hospitals Cost Taxpayers Dearly,” we have engaged in an extensive dialogue with various representatives of UNM Hospital. They have brought to our attention some concerns relating to the paper. This document is intended to offer a critique/correction of errors within the paper and clarify the issues presented within. It is also designed to offer an update on public meetings that have been planned to discuss the proposed expansion.

1)      UNMH is not a not-for-profit hospital; rather UNMH is a government-owned and-operated facility. This is true and, although UNMH does have a not-for-profit fundraising arm, it is technically a government-owned entity. This actually worsens some of the issues with UNMH potentially moving into new areas of care (taxpayer-funded institution competing with a for-profit, tax-paying institution) outlined in our paper.

UNMH is funded in part through a Mil Levy that is voted upon by the citizens of Bernalillo County every 8 years, with the last vote being in 2008

2)      In the RGF paper on UNMH, concerns were raised over the types of treatments to be offered at the new facility and why taxpayers should be asked to fund care targeted at non-indigent and non-native populations.

UNMH responded that it “distinguishes between emergent and elective care. Emergent is defined as immediate threat to life or limb if care is not provided quickly. Elective care, which might be better defined as scheduled, is defined as all other care. Cancer patients are treated as elective care patients because their care needs are urgent, but not emergent.”

While the distinction is welcome, RGF remains concerned that UNMH will be using taxpayer dollars to compete with existing, tax-paying, for-profit hospitals. More information on the specifics of this new project and how it will serve the Hospital’s existing mission (as opposed to expanding it) is needed. Some third-party analysis may be needed in this area.

3)      RGF expressed a great deal of concern about transparency and the new UNMH wing.

UNMH responds that UNM Hospital is a part of the University of New Mexico and is a governmental organization. It is subject to the New Mexico Opens Meeting Act and the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. It posts its financial information and its Board agendas and minutes on its Hospital web site. Combined with voter approval of bond measures and regular updates to Bernalillo County Commission, UNMH states that transparency has been adequate

RGF responds that while meetings have indeed been public and in keeping with New Mexico law, there is a need for additional public input from various stakeholders throughout the Albuquerque area and the state as a whole prior to making such a large investment.

This project may ultimately be deemed necessary or it may be modified somewhat in order to address the concerns of RGF and others in the community. Before we invest $146 million taxpayer dollars in the construction of a new hospital wing (not to mention annual operating expenses), we need to have a more thorough discussion.

According to this document from UNMH, the Hospital has agreed to hold a series of meetings at which the public will be provided additional information and given the opportunity to offer input. The schedule and locations of those meetings are as follows:

Oct. 2, 6–7:30 p.m. Indian Pueblo Cultural Center
2401 12th Street NW, Chaco I and II

Oct. 3, 6–7:30 p.m. Jewish Community Center
5520 Wyoming Blvd. NE, Auditorium A

Oct. 4, 6–7:30 p.m. – Alamosa Community Center
6900 Gonzales Rd SW, Room A

We are encouraged by UNMH’s willingness to hold these hearings. It is our hope that the community will turn out both to receive information on this project and to be allowed to ask questions and express their own concerns.

At the Rio Grande Foundation, we’ve focused on economic and education policies that we believe hold New Mexico back from prosperity. There is another issue out there that, unfortunately, holds New Mexico back. It is our legal system.

We’ve seen cases over the years that New Mexico’s Courts have handed down with negative impacts on individual freedom and property rights. George Will explained one such decision recently in his nationally-syndicated column. There was, of course, the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore glaring mistakes in putting a minimum wage ballot measure on the ballots in Albuquerque. And, there is the infamous baseball decision which could lead to a dramatically-curtailed experience at Isotopes Park.

What does this all mean? According to the Institute for Legal Reform, New Mexico has the 44th-best legal climate in the nation. Interestingly-enough, our ranking for “judicial competence” is an astonishing 47th.

New Mexico has a bunch of judges on the ballot in November. It is important that voters educate themselves on these candidates and elect judges that adhere to the rule of law, not emotions and a general urge to generate their preferred outcomes in their judicial decisions.

HT: Rep. Dennis Kintigh

Last week, I alerted you to a student-led protest against an over-weening federal government restriction on school lunches. The protest movement appears to be gaining strength and has even generated its own protest song and video that is sweeping cyberspace. Check it out below:

This is a great article about New Mexico’s taxpayer-financed Spaceport. It touches on several issues that we have brought up in the past that seem to have been completely ignored by Gov. Richardson and those who foisted the project on us, the taxpayer.

1) The liability issue as it currently stands, puts New Mexico’s Spaceport at a severe disadvantage. If the Legislature fails to act in this session, the unwillingness to protect businesses using the Spaceport could kill the project;

2) We are not alone or even the most advanced when it comes to the development of these projects around the country (and world).

3) Even if the Spaceport suddenly does a 180 and becomes a big success, how many rich people like Richard Branson and Ashton Kutcher are going to want to stay at the Holiday Inn Express in Truth or Consequences or will stay in New Mexico long enough to drive the kind of economic developed that Richardson and others promised?

Only time will tell, but there is no doubt that the Spaceport is very much at risk more than 7 years after the Legislature went along with Big Bill’s big idea.

If you don’t read the great reporting over at New Mexico Watchdog, you should. Recently, our watchdog, Scarantino, reported that a local member of the New Mexico House of Representatives, Miguel Garcia, has been reimbursed for some unusual “campaign expenditures” and dubious travel expenses to and from Santa Fe. KRQE Channel 13 picked up the story and did a great in-depth interview with Jim on last night’s 10pm broadcast.

Representative bills for massages, miles

The Rio Grande Foundation primarily focuses on economic and education issues, but government transparency and accountability are integral to our efforts as well. Yesterday, I was interviewed by Channel 4, KOB TV regarding efforts to preserve the integrity of elections and a study that claims mass-disenfranchisement will result from well-intended efforts to ensure the accuracy of voter rolls.

Check out the report below:

There has been a spate of “legislator gone bad” behavior among New Mexico’s political class. Sure, there were Pat Rogers’ ill-advised remarks about Gen. Custer in a private email and Gov. Martinez’s Chief of Staff Keith Gardner explained how he doesn’t use his government email address to avoid (ironically since the phone conversation was, unknown to Gardner, being taped) having to submit such email correspondence to public records’ requests. The statements by Rogers and Gardner were questionable to say the least and generated a firestorm in the media, but they are not illegal and no taxpayers were harmed.

That’s not the case with three other cases which involved at least serious ethical breaches and potentially-illegal activity.

1) Sen. Lisa Curtis’ campaign gave the La Cueva soccer team $500 to hand out campaign literature.

2) Rep. Ray Begaye was (at least seemingly) fraudulently reimbursed by taxpayers for a conference that he was already paid to attend.

3) Rep. Miguel Garcia seems to have had many problems similar to those of Rep. Begaye in keeping track of his mileage and expenses.

So, it seems that New Mexico’s legislators have either some serious ethical and legal problems or some big problems with preparing simple expense reports and keeping track of financial documents. In their own way, these issues highlight why New Mexico’s Legislature is the ultimate stumbling block to improving our state. Will anyone — Attorney General King or the voters — hold them accountable?

Election Day 2012 is just around the corner. While the current zeitgeist in American politics is that we vote for “the person we’d rather have a beer with” (if so, Romney is in trouble), we at the Rio Grande Foundation prefer that voters choose their preferred candidate based on who they actually agree with on various important policy issues.

To that end, I recommend this website. Whether you vote for the candidate you actually agree with is another story, but it is worth cutting through the media’s filters and actually figuring out with whom you agree. For example, my mother who typically votes Democrat was quite surprised to find that she agrees with Gary Johnson and, to a lesser extent, Mitt Romney far more than the other candidates in the race.

The map below presents an interesting analysis from an organization called BillTrack50 (more on BillTrack50 closer to the 2013 legislative session) of the bills passed during the most recent legislative session. The map illustrates which states have the most and least partisan in terms of legislation that passes. New Mexico’s Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, is not surprisingly a highly-partisan body. According to the report, the only more partisan Democrat legislatures in the nation were California and West Virginia. Several states had more partisan Republican legislatures.

We don’t have historical analysis in terms of this trend, but it would be interesting to see and compare/contrast with economic growth data.

The show “Seinfeld” was said to be “the show about nothing.” In terms of the federal election, this election cycle might be called the campaign about nothing. The issue being avoided on a bi-partisan basis by most of the candidates of both major parties is our nation’s precarious fiscal condition driven by out-of-control spending.

Look through the websites and public pronouncements of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates (Gary Johnson being the exception), New Mexico’s senate candidates, and even those running for the House of Representatives. You will find plenty of platitudes and talk of “cutting waste.” You will, among Democrats, at least, find plenty of willingness to raise taxes on “the wealthy.” Republicans, on the other hand, will talk about overturning “ObamaCare,” but you find few specific ideas for dramatically-reducing the $1.3 trillion annual federal deficit.

It is hard to argue that any issue can compare in importance to the deficit and the $16 trillion federal debt. Unfortunately, even Paul Ryan’s plan, which is better than Obama’s non-plan, hardly qualifies as “conservative.”

Obama’s budget would mean a 2021 budget that spends $2 trillion more than we do today, increase debt held by the public from 62 percent to 77 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and maintain massive annual deficits. This is a patently irresponsible proposal which is perhaps why few of either party in Congress have signed on to it.

Ryan’s plan comes in at more than a trillion dollars less, around $4.7 trillion. That sounds great, but aside from his much-criticized plan to reduce Medicare spending through the use of vouchers (probably the most specific and well-though-out-proposal in the document) his plan offers few details in terms of what to cut and what to keep in the federal budget.

Even that modest plan has not been embraced by the GOP’s candidate Romney.

Politicians have a problem with offering specific cuts because every program in the budget was put there to placate a powerful special interest. If you as a politician target specific programs for elimination, you likely alienate an entire special interest group that votes based on that single issue without necessarily picking up support from the average voter.

There are some tough discussions to be had about entitlement reform, but there are also some “easy” cuts that could save billions of dollars annually. All prospective members of Congress should support the end of the ethanol mandate that forces Americans to pay $40 billion a year in higher food prices and costs taxpayers $1.78 in subsidies for each gallon of gasoline that corn-based ethanol replaces.

Another boondoggle from the energy sector is the $24 billion that the Congressional Budget Office says is spent annually energy subsidies and special tax breaks. Liberals decry subsidies for “dirty fossil fuels” and conservatives oppose subsidies for so-called “renewables.” Why don’t we put them on a level playing field by cutting all energy subsidies and industry-specific tax breaks? If states want to subsidize or mandate “green” energy, they can do so, but get the federal government out of it.

Lastly, there is the issue of “corporate welfare.” This involves forcing average taxpayers to pay freight for big business. According to the Cato Institute, the cost of nine programs and with the sole purpose of distributing tax dollars to corporations include the recently renewed Export-Import Bank, International Trade Commission, the Small Business Administration, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Annual subsidies come to $20.4 billion.

Cutting $50 billion or so in obvious waste won’t solve our $1.3 trillion annual budget deficit. In fact, the relatively small number of obviously-wasteful programs illustrates the reality that most of the programs driving our budget problems – like entitlements and an overweening national security state – are perceived as “sacred cows” by wide swaths of the American populace.

The left’s talk about balancing the budget by taxing the wealthy is just silly and will drive businesses and the wealthy overseas or out of business. Tax reform that lowers rates and eliminates deductions and loopholes like those for home ownership and employer-purchased health insurance would raise some revenues and eliminate distortions in our economy, but, like so many spending programs, these ideas are politically-challenging to enact.

Our candidates and elected officials won’t campaign on cuts to even the most wasteful federal programs until they benefit politically from the decision to do so. It is up to us, the American people, to demand specific cuts and a return to balanced budgets. Anything else takes America takes another step down the road to ruin.

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.

We’re number 18! We’re number 18! Doesn’t exactly have a great ring to it, does it? Check out the newly-released report (full ranking is on page 10 of the downloaded document) from our friends at the Fraser Institute. Not surprisingly, while the Obama Administration’s policies has hastened our fall from number 3 back in 2000, President George W. Bush played a big role in the downfall of the US on this all-encompassing report on economic freedom.

A few countries that have surpassed us in terms of economic freedom followed by their ranking:

Hong Kong 1
Canada 5
Mauritius 8
Chile 10
Estonia 14
Qatar 17

If you are interested in finding out more about this index and the decline of the US economy, check out this podcast interview with one of the authors from Cato Institute.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently sat down with the folks at Channel 13 KRQE to discuss the massive expansion of Medicaid on the part of the states that is strongly encouraged under ObamaCare. The Secretary of course supports the expansion and we at the Rio Grande Foundation oppose it. View the story below:

N.M. asks clarity on Medicaid expansion

I love this story. It shows how students can and are standing up, indirectly at least, to absurd, one-size-fits-all federal policies that are supposed to make them healthier and thinner. First Lady Michelle Obama is one of the leading protagonists in this effort.

And, while it would be great if obesity was ended and we were all paragons of health, it seems hard to believe that a federal government that has grown obese and irresponsible can put forth a set of policies to make this happen. Speaking of such irresponsibility and management incompetence, can we really expect the federal government to manage our health care system?

HT: Rob Nikolewski

One of the Rio Grande Foundation’s supporters, The Daniels Fund, has a limited number of tickets to the premier of the new pro-school choice film “Won’t Back Down.” The film is showing in wide release in many communities throughout New Mexico. Click here to get tickets. Check out a trailer for the movie below:

Needless to say, the film has stirred up opposition from the unions. I have not see this movie; I’ll be seeing it on the 27th along with some of you, but it is great to see Hollywood taking up the issue of education reform and our failing schools.

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation was in Albuquerque on Wednesday, September 12 to discuss Right to Work Laws and how such a law might benefit New Mexico. Mark spent a great deal of time working on the issue in New Mexico and has some great anecdotes to tell throughout his speech. Lt. Gov. John Sanchez attended and spoke on the importance of Right to Work as well. Plus, see this report from Rob Nikolewski of Capitol Report New Mexico on the protesters.

Mark Mix Part 1 from Paul Gessing on Vimeo.

Mark Mix Part 2 from Paul Gessing on Vimeo.

Our local NPR station, KUNM, has asked the Rio Grande Foundation to reach out to people who can provide fresh voices for an upcoming series relating to the 2012 election and how it will impact you and your family. The main goal is to find people with good stories who are willing to share what matters to them the most in the 2012 election. People who are on the more conservative side would be great to make sure that perspective is well represented in the series.

Serious inquiries only. Please Feel call Sarah Gustavus at KUNM at: 505-750-8049 if you are interested in participating in this project.

One of the constant refrains heard among New Mexico’s political leaders and the environmental community is that we need to more fully utilize our state’s abundant sunshine. The reality is that solar power accounts for a minuscule portion of US energy production.

But, even efforts to expand on that tiny amount, presumably by picking the “low-hanging fruit” of solar production, has drawn opposition from the enviros. Most of the major groups including the Sierra Club are suing the federal government to stop large-scale solar developments on certain public lands that have been deemed “environmentally-sensitive.” I’m not sure what lands the environmentalists consider not environmentally-sensitive….

Even more intriguing is a fact sheet on large scale solar projects from the environmental group Western Lands Project. Among the points made in the letter is the following:

No scientific evidence has been presented to support the claim that these projects reduce
greenhouse emissions. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that the opposite may be true. Recent
work at the Center for Conservation Biology, University of California, Riverside, suggests that soil
disturbance from large-scale solar development may disrupt Pleistocene-era caliche deposits
that release carbon to the atmosphere when exposed to the elements, thus “negat[ing] the
solar development C gains.”

So, now you tell us? Big solar projects are bad for the environment too? I guess that means we should toss New Mexico’s Renewable Portfolio Standard out the window, right? The enviros will undoubtedly say that solar is the way to go, but that we all just need to live off the grid with panels on our roofs. Good luck with that on the three consecutive rainy days we’ve had here in Albuquerque (Believe it or not, it happens).

With the release of polling data in the Albuquerque Journal today which show Gov. Martinez with an approval rating of an astonishing 69%, it is worth noting that a principled, center/right agenda can be very popular, even in a relatively liberal state like New Mexico.

Prior to the conventions, I sat down with Sarah Gustavus at KUNM for a national interview for the program “Latino USA” centered on Gov. Martinez and her efforts here in New Mexico. Listen to the interview here. Sen. Majority Leader and Martinez opponent Sen. Majority Leader Michael Sanchez was also interviewed. Interview is about 6 minutes.

Some advocates of mandated increases in the minimum wage have argued that Santa Fe, the city with the highest minimum wage in the nation, provides a counter-argument to opponents of such laws who say that high minimum wage laws cost low-skilled workers their jobs. Yet, Santa Fe’s overall unemployment rate is relatively low and at 5.8 percent as of July 2012, far below the federal rate which exceeds 8 percent.

What does this mean? Could high minimum wages have little, no, or even a positive impact on unemployment? Not so fast. First and foremost, local labor markets are unique in their own way. Santa Fe has a population of only 70,000 and is unique within New Mexico as an international tourism destination, hub for the arts, and center of state government.

However, minimum wage laws DO impact young people disproportionately. So, what has the impact been in Santa Fe?

According to data obtained from the Employment Policies Institute, for 16-24 year-olds, as of July, the unemployment rate for this group was averaging 20.3 percent in Santa Fe, NM. Nationally, this figure was averaging 16.6 percent in July. So, it’s roughly four percentage points higher in Santa Fe, NM, than it is nationally.

In other words, Santa Fe has a low unemployment rate for middle and high-skilled workers, but if you are looking for a low-skilled, entry-level job, you should go elsewhere. That’s not surprising, but it is worth pointing out as the minimum wage issue works its way through the Courts.