This piece appeared as one half of a pro/con debate with Nick Estes, formerly of NM Voices for Children. His column can be found here.

President Obama is again touting the wonders of government spending and what positive impacts his “investments” in the economy would have if the Republicans would go along.

Unfortunately for Obama, government over-spending is a problem, not a solution when it comes to America’s economy. If Obama wants to get the economy moving, he needs to repeal the job-killing ObamaCare law, work with Paul Ryan to reform entitlements, reduce the burden regulations place on the economy, and embrace America’s newfound role as a major producer and exporter of energy.

Every penny of added government spending adds to America’s debt burden. More importantly, government spending typically redirects resources away from the more efficient private sector and into less efficient government.

Take the so-called “stimulus.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says it “created or saved” 2 million jobs. That may be true, but the stimulus spent $787 billion. That’s $393 thousand per job saved or created!

Set aside the fact that “saved or created” is deliberately opaque language that provides few actual details. Also, consider the sheer madness of taxing and borrowing $393 thousand from productive areas of the economy in order to create a single job.

Keynesians argue that increased government spending will spur the economy. They believe government spending has a “multiplier effect” as it circulates through the economy and that this leads to economic growth. History shows that they are very wrong.

If the Keynesian stimulus model worked so well, America would be booming right now. That’s because America has been following the Keynesian model for years. The federal budget has more than doubled since 2000. Back then, Washington consumed about 18 percent of the economy; today it consumes nearly 23 percent (an increase of more than 27%). The unemployment rate in 2000 hovered around 4.0 percent as compared to the current rate above 7 percent. Where’s the stimulus?

The aftermath of World War II provides another useful example. Federal spending which rose to more than 40 percent of GDP during the War, was reduced to just 12 percent by 1948. This, to the consternation of Keynesians who argued that reduced government spending would lead to double-digit unemployment rates. In reality, unemployment remained under 4.5 percent in the first three postwar years — well below the 20th century average.

Rather than increasing spending, America’s political leaders might consider addressing government regulations. According to Ten Thousand Commandments, a report published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans spent an astounding $1.806 trillion in 2012 complying with federal regulations. This lost money does not increase wealth or pay down America’s massive debts.

Address entitlements!

Social Security’s problems were inevitable. As a “pay as you go” system of generational transfer – lacking any investment mechanism – the system was doomed to have serious structural problems once fewer people paid in than were receiving benefits. The problems are real and go beyond deficit implications. Social Security will consume 30% more of the entire US economy in just a few decades.

Social Security’s biggest problem is the lousy rate of return which amounts to about a third the rate of AAA corporate bonds for most retirees. We can do better by reforming the system with private accounts that provide actual ownership and superior rates of return.

Medicare and Medicaid are in even deeper crisis, but the solution is actually simpler. We need to move beyond Washington’s “one-size-fits-all” mentality and allow the 50 states to experiment with innovative ways to improve care and reduce costs. To say that these government health care programs are mere purchasers of health care in a “free market” is laughable. Government now accounts for more than half of all health care spending.

More government spending will not help America’s economy. The Keynesian model has failed. It is time for our political leaders to make tough choices by deregulating the economy and reforming entitlements in ways that improve taxpayers’ return on our investments.

Paul Gessing is the President of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation.

(Albuquerque) Children throughout New Mexico are heading back to school. And, with the opening of the state’s second totally virtual school, New Mexico Connections Academy, the exact nature of that school is changing more rapidly than ever.

And, according to a new report from the Rio Grande Foundation, “New Mexico Policymakers Should Expand, Not Limit Online/For Profit Education,” this is an encouraging development. Furthermore, according to the report, policymakers, particularly the Legislature, encourage rather than discouraging the trend towards “virtual” learning with involvement of for-profit businesses.

According to Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing, “the report details the many benefits of virtual learning and the involvement of for-profits, including:”

• Increased efficiency and innovation;
• Ability to leverage capital markets and additional resources to benefit education;
• New educational models including “blended” and “virtual” models;
• Ability to leverage truly excellent teachers across geographical barriers and other classroom limitations.

In addition to outlining the benefits of digital learning and for-profits, the report contains a report card outlining how New Mexico’s policies inhibit or promote digital learning. Specific ideas are provided for improving the public policy environment with an eye towards implementing many aspects of Utah which has the best laws in the nation when it comes to digital learning. New Mexico is middle-of the-pack.

Concluded Gessing, “New Mexico has two virtual charter schools and Albuquerque Public Schools has begun to embrace digital learning with pledges to increase and improve upon digital options available to students in the district. Nonetheless, policymakers, especially in the Legislature, have spent their time attacking rather than encouraging innovation in education. For the sake of our children, it is time for that to change”

According to Reason, there was a recent spat between the folks at the far-left Nation magazine who until recently did not pay their interns at all and Wal Mart which the left often criticizes for not paying what they believe to be “fair” wages. Interestingly enough, Congress, which loves to hold itself up as a paragon of all that is good and holy, does not pay its interns.

Continuing with the theme of the minimum wage, Tom Woods has an excellent article on the recent protests in New York City by fast food workers. As Woods writes:

Since no one else seems willing to hire them at their current wage rate, it seems to me that the very last institutions they should be angry at are the fast-food restaurants themselves, the only institutions on earth doing anything to improve their standard of living. Why don’t they protest all the places that pay them $0, having refused to hire them at all?

Lastly, if these NYC fast food workers really want to make more money, perhaps they should move to North Dakota where such workers are being paid well (and where the cost of living is far less).

Travis Brown has been making waves with his excellent website How Money Walks which details how wealth moves from states with poor economic policies (especially taxes on income) and to those with good policies. Brown, in a recent column in Forbes, compares Texas and New Mexico. Not surprisingly, New Mexico under-performs relative to Texas, but has made strides in recent years including Richardson’s tax cuts and the corporate income taxes that were passed last year in New Mexico.

Notes Brown regarding the battle to create jobs and spur economic growth:

The competition among states for companies and jobs has never been fiercer. State leaders have started to recognize that having a more attractive tax code is the key to winning this race.

While the economic news can be depressing for New Mexicans, good tax policies make a difference. Richardson’s tax cuts took the top income tax rate from 8.2 to 4.9 and dramatically reduced taxes on capital gains, resulting in personal income growth for the 2000’s that exceeded any state in the region and the national average by a long shot. See the following chart which was taken from an RGF paper on the Richardson tax cuts:

Only Oklahoma compares with New Mexico in terms of personal income growth during the decade. Interestingly, Oklahoma happened to adopt Right to Work in 2001.

The fact is that New Mexico can change (it must if we are going to really get our economy on-track and reduce poverty levels).

Recently, Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing and Dr. Deane Waldman who is an Adjunct Fellow with RGF, a pediatric cardiologist, an author on health care issues, and sits on the board of New Mexico’s health exchange, recently appeared on a panel sponsored by the Sandoval County Republican Party to discuss the health care law known as ObamaCare.

Charlie Christmann, Chairman of the Party, video recorded the proceedings which are available below:

ObamaCare Panel Discussion Held by Sandoval County Republican Party on Saturday, July 27 from Paul Gessing on Vimeo.

Many in the teaching establishment, especially among the unions, mistakenly call Rio Grande Foundation and other education reformers “anti-teacher.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Rather, we view teachers as being not altogether different from the rest of us. We respond to incentives to perform well or work harder and our talents generally fall along a bell curve: some are awesome, most fall in the middle, and some really stink. We believe that a freer market in education (as opposed to the socialized model found in the US) would both encourage excellence and allow for greater earning opportunities by top-performing teachers.

I found this story about a teacher who earns $4 million in South Korea to be fascinating. He engages in a wide variety of entrepreneurial and innovative behaviors that allow him to do quite well financially. He also operates in at least a sector of the South Korean education sector that is open to such activities.

New Mexico in particular and the United States (to the extent that the federal government remains involved in education) should embrace reforms including digital learning and the profit motive that enable in-demand teachers to earn serious money like this gentleman in South Korea.

The Rio Grande Foundation has just launched an exciting new project designed to spur a more robust public policy debate in New Mexico. While we certainly appreciate the print media outlets as they exist, we felt there was something lacking. Specifically, that was an opinion website that allowed both sides of the various public policy issues to square off, making their best arguments and allowing average New Mexicans to engage and participate in discussions.

The website is NMPolicy Debate and the first debate topic “Addressing the federal deficits and debt” has been posted. The debate is between my previous sparring partner Nick Estes (formerly of Voices for Children) and myself.

This is a brand new project and a work in progress. We are looking for new participants to write on policy issues from both sides (the most important rule at the site is that each issue must have both sides represented). If you want to write a column, please send a message to info@riograndefoundation.org with a brief note on potential topics. We will work to match writers with their counterparts, but if you know of someone on the opposite side of the issue, that is great.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will.. . . The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe.” I hope you’ll read and participate in this exciting project.

The letters section of the Albuquerque Journal is often good for a laugh. One example was a letter on the Keystone XL pipeline (which is waiting approval from the Obama Administration) that ran in last Wednesday’s edition of the paper, John Spar (who happens to be on the Board of Wild Earth Guardians) made numerous claims in opposition, but cites no sources to back up his opinion.

Here are the facts. Though Spar seems to think that Canada’s development of its oil sands hinges on KeystoneXL, Canada has made it clear that it will proceed with or without America’s approval of KeystoneXL. China and other Asian countries want Canada’s oil.
One of America’s greatest competitors for Canada’s energy resources, China has already invested tens of billions of dollars in Canada’s oil sands resources, some of that just recently.

If the KeystoneXL pipeline is not approved, pipelines will be built to Canada’s coast, which brings us to Spar’s environmental claims.

Obama’s own State Department released a statement in August 2011 and earlier this year finding that Keystone wouldn’t have a significant impact on the environment. But if Obama rejects the pipeline, the reality is that it would likely increase greenhouse gas emissions. Transporting the oil by tanker to Asia would almost certainly create more emissions than moving it by pipeline to closer U.S. Markets. A single pipeline transporting 150,000 barrels per day moves a volume equivalent to 750 tanker trucks, or a train of seventy-five rail tank cars. Plus there are more opportunities for tankers to have a mishap as they move about than a single, well-controlled and monitored pipeline.

According to an article in the Washington Post, greenhouse gases from oil sands are exaggerated. Production technologies are also steadily reducing environmental side effects, including greenhouse gas emissions.

As for jobs, TransCanada puts the initial construction and manufacturing jobs at 20,000. A Canadian Energy Research Institute study from June 2011 estimates up to 80,000 jobs by 2019 and 179,000 by 2035. Other estimates run as high as 340,000.
In light of the recent Associated Press story noting that four out of five American adults now struggle with poverty and more than 55 straight months of over 7.5% unemployment, it seems contrary to the nation’s interests to hold up this beneficial project.

A special election is now under way in Rio Rancho. The vote will determine whether or not to reduce the gross receipts tax in the City by 1/8th of a cent. The tax will actually go down by 1/8th of a cent. Rio Rancho’s City Council plans to re-impose the 1/8th cent tax to pay for additional police and fire in the City.

Because it would on-net lower taxes, RGF is supportive of the ballot measure as written, but we’d like to have seen the tax repealed with no tax added for public safety. We strongly encourage Rio Rancho’s City Council NOT to impose this tax increase. We haven’t seen clear evidence that crime is out of control in Rio Rancho and if it were, this is THE core function of government and adequate police and fire should be handled first with other spending taken care of later. Here is some information comparing Rio Rancho to other localities on crime.

A few other points:

As we have pointed out in the past, New Mexico has too many branch campuses. In fact, CNM and Highlands already have campuses in Rio Rancho. It would seem that with New Mexico’s flagship university, UNM, a half hour drive from most Rio Rancho residents, that voting against continuation of the tax would not make one “anti-education.”

Also, even if voters vote down reducing the tax, it would seem that Councilors who have supported the ballot measure have won some concessions from UNM to be more aggressive in providing services to the City.

According to RGF research, Rio Rancho has seen its tax burden increase a good deal in recent years and now trails only Albuquerque in terms of overall burden as a percentage of income. Given that Rio Rancho is competing most closely with Albuquerque for businesses and residents, it would seem that Rio Rancho should focus on positives like lower crime, better schools, and lower taxes (already slightly lower, but could be better).

I just went shopping for some office supplies including copy paper. As I walked out the door, I realized that at least some of the purchases should be tax-free since this is the start of the New Mexico’s gross receipts tax holiday. In reality, none of the items I purchased including copy paper were tax free…and that is part of the problem.

A lack of transparency is one reason such tax holidays are bad tax policy and they should be eliminated. As the Tax Foundation points out in a recent policy brief on the issue:

Sales tax holidays do not promote economic growth or significantly increase consumer purchases; the evidence shows that they simply shift the timing of purchases. Some retailers raise prices during the holiday, reducing consumer savings.

Sales tax holidays create complexities for tax code compliance, efficient labor allocation, and inventory management. However, free advertising for what is effectively a paltry 4 to 7 percent sale leads many larger businesses to lobby for the holidays.

Most sales tax holidays involve politicians picking products and industries to favor with exemptions, arbitrarily discriminating between products and across time, and distorting consumer decisions.

While sales taxes are somewhat regressive, this is often exaggerated to sell the idea that sales tax holidays are an effective way of providing relief to the poor. To give a small amount of tax savings to low-income individuals, holidays give a large amount to others.

Political gimmicks like sales tax holidays distract policymakers and taxpayers from genuine, permanent tax relief. If a state must offer a “holiday” from its tax system, it is a sign that the state’s tax system is uncompetitive. If policymakers want to save money for consumers, then they should cut the sales tax rate year-round.

The Tax Foundation notes that such holidays are “politically-expedient,” but that is not good enough. New Mexico policymakers should do what they can to reduce rising GRT rates. One way to do this would be to eliminate the silly tax holiday.

The first major economic policy issue of the 2013 Albuquerque Mayoral election has been broached by candidate Pete Dinelli. According to media reports, Dinelli wants to spend $300 million to expand the Sunport. I’m almost thinking that, based on Dinelli’s own statements, he’s not really serious about the issue as he states in the same article “Construction wouldn’t begin until a major air-related company agreed to expand operations in Albuquerque.”

OK. Well, who are these air-related companies that are expanding? Is anybody seriously looking at building some kind of hub in Albuquerque? If they were, that could be a real boon for the area economy and expanding the airport might make sense, but UPS and FEDEX are struggling right now due to the poor economy. And, of course, Frontier Airlines has announced that it will be pulling out of the Sunport.

I think the Sunport is one of the best things any government in New Mexico does. It is beautiful (as airports go) and functional. I’d love to have more direct flights and more international flights in and out of the airport. You know how we do that? We grow not only the local, but the state economy as a whole. Unfortunately, local governments have limited capacity to change the bedrock economic and educational policies that the Legislature in Santa Fe deals with.

So, perhaps Dinelli is running for the wrong office? He should go to the Legislature and advocate for Right to Work, reduced regulations, tax reform, and an education system that works….then we’ll have a reason to expand the Sunport.

The Institute for Justice is one of America’s pre-eminent freedom organizations. Tim Keller visited New Mexico to help the Rio Grande Foundation celebrate Friedman’s legacy at a luncheon event in Albuquerque on July 31, 2013. Video of Friedman’s talk is below:

Several photos of the celebration and our radio discussion with Bob Clark of 770 KKOB AM can be found below:

Classic Milton Friedman defending capitalism on Phil Donahue’s show (trust me kids, he was almost as big as Oprah back in the day):

And, since he’s not here to defend himself, I have to defend Friedman against the idea that maximizing shareholder value as the proper role of business is “the dumbest idea in the world.”

For starters, the author bases his case around the idea that Friedman said that businesses should “only maximize shareholder value.” Based on my reading of Friedman on the issue, that is an inaccurate statement.

Friedman was merely saying that maximizing shareholder value is the primary social responsibility of any publicly-owned business. In other words, businesses already do a great deal of good by producing products and services desired by their customers. But that doesn’t mean that businesses can’t do other good in the community as well if that doesn’t negatively impact shareholders. Take Whole Foods for example. The head of the company, John Mackey, is a libertarian. His company engages in what could only be described as a great deal of “community improvement” and public service.

Is that wrong according to Friedman’s logic? He’s not here to say, but I don’t think so. Clearly, being a good corporate citizen is also good business in most instances. It would seem to me that this adds to rather than detracting from the company’s bottom line. So, far from being the “world’s dumbest idea,” Friedman was merely defending businesses as already helping their customers and being socially responsible. Doing additional work beyond the “bottom line” isn’t a bad thing as long as it is in line with shareholder interests.

I found John Fleck’s story on a San Acacia, NM, farmer in today’s Albuquerque Journal to be interesting and frustrating at the same time. The farmer does his job “against the odds” which is portrayed at least sympathetically. Of course, one need to look no further than last year’s Super Bowl to find evidence of the hero-farmer (a compelling commercial nonetheless).

But life is not supposed to be that tough. It is the market telling farmers (as it has for generations) on marginal land using less-than-optimal practices to do something else because the activity can be done better elsewhere. This is better for the environment, thus undercutting the whole “buy local” concept as well which actually hurts the environment.

A buggy whip salesman would be laughed at for stubbornly refusing to take up another career, but a farmer is encouraged to continue to struggle against the elements and economic reality. Oh, and then we throw massive subsidies at them (including $36 million sent to dead people) and other government policies make it exceedingly difficult for poor farmers in Africa and Central America to raise their living standards by exporting agricultural products to the USA.

Among the issues that we have been monitoring regularly in this space is reciprocity for lawyers. Good news has come in the form of the Association of Corporate Counsel which recently sent a letter to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The letter urged a relaxation of rules for out-of-state attorneys and stated in part, “Requiring experienced lawyers from other states to take the bar exam in order to practice in New Mexico privileges the parochial interests of local lawyers, rather than those of the clients they ostensibly serve,” ACC vice president and chief legal strategist Amar D. Sarwal said in a news release about the filing.

Simply put, this is a “free trade” issue. As the ACC letter states, “client . . . demand national, regional, and other transboundary access to legal services.” In other words, there is a need for attorneys from other states to practice in New Mexico that is not being filled. New Mexico’s Supreme Court, influenced by attorneys who enjoy protectionist policies, are keeping jobs and economic development out of our state for their own selfish purposes. In other words, “business as usual” for New Mexico’s political elites.

New Mexico state Sen. Griggs had a very good column in Sunday’s Albuquerque Journal on the stonewalling of federal Bureau of Land Management on mineral leasing in southern New Mexico. It is no surprise that BLM is not being a good steward of New Mexico’s lands. After all, what incentive do they have to excel?

I have written a fair amount recently about the all-important issue of restoring federal lands to state control. Griggs is absolutely correct that the BLM’s policies are costing New Mexico millions of dollars in annual revenues and job creation, not to mention the $26 million in royalties that the Obama Administration withheld from New Mexico this year.

Hopefully Griggs will actively work to persuade Gov. Martinez and his fellow legislators that New Mexico shouldn’t sit back and let the Feds mismanage our lands anymore and that legislation to that effect is needed.

The chart below says it all:

The Albuquerque Journal’s nationally-syndicated parenting columnist is in trouble. The problem, according to the paper, is that Kentucky’s Attorney General wants him to stop offering advice in his columns because he’s not licensed in Kentucky. They also say that the advice column amounts to provision of “mental health services.”

The guy has been writing columns since 1976, but apparently the ever-vigilant folks in Kentucky just decided that the column is a problem. This is just one specific illustration of the very serious problems associate with professional licensing laws and why RGF is hosting an event on Wednesday, July 31, discussing the issue of professional licensing in order to celebrate Milton Friedman Day.

The speaker comes to us from the public interest law firm, Institute for Justice, which sued North Carolina in a very similar situation to defend a blogger who was offering dietary advice without a state license.

I don’t know if “Dear Abby” or Ann Landers are/were under attack for their advice or whether the Car Talk guys are licensed mechanics, but that is the nice thing about advice: you can take it or leave it.

I read an article written by a New Mexico teacher recently in the Santa Fe Reporter. The author made some interesting comparisons about standardized testing, teacher evaluation, and sports — essentially making the argument that such efforts were misguided. I gave my own take on the issue in a letter to the editor that was published in this week’s edition:

Teacher Seth Biderman related an interesting story in which he compared teacher evaluations as a tool for achieving peak performance with his experience with different coaching styles as a soccer player [School Re-Formed, July 17: “In the Flow”]. I found the comparison apt and would like to discuss my own take.

For starters, sports in this country are highly competitive (in many respects replicating the best features of a free market). Especially at the professional level, numbers are crunched and data are available on every player and coach. Pay is based strictly on merit in a very competitive and relatively transparent system. If you don’t perform, trades and firings are “part of the business.”

Contrast that with education, where competition, transparency and pay for performance are truly lacking. Who are the best teachers in New Mexico? How should we measure performance in the classroom? What should the best teachers be paid? While Biderman is confident that “nearly all teachers want to be great,” the reality is that teaching is far less transparent than sports in separating top performers from mediocre and poor ones.

Also, while competition and accurate data are lacking in education, we do know that New Mexico’s education performance is lacking. We’re certainly not the New York Yankees or Real Madrid.

I’d like to see New Mexico adopt a few ideas from sports to improve education. Competition in the form of school choice is easily the most powerful tool, but evaluations based on student improvement and pay-for-performance must be considered as well.

Paul J Gessing
Rio Grande Foundation President

Check this story out from USA Today. While the competitive nature of sports and the large purses at stake make it unlikely that golfers will not give 100% in their professional efforts, athletes are not quite the same as businesses which may or may not decide to invest in certain areas based on heavy tax burdens.

New Mexico’s corporate taxes will go down from 7.2 to 5.9% in five years and our income tax rate has fallen from 8.2 to 4.9 in recent years, but the rates on both are still zero in Texas. This is one reason why Phil should probably re-consider his California residency and why many businesses have already done so.

In Sunday’s Albuquerque Journal, Winthrop Quigley wrote a reasonably positive piece about health savings accounts. As Quigley notes:

HSAs allow you to accumulate funds while avoiding or deferring some taxes. They are used in conjunction with high-deductible health-insurance policies, which come with lower premiums than other types of health insurance.

And, while I have an HSA and wouldn’t call them particularly complicated — they are indeed a bit more complex to set up, but are simpler in terms of allowing consumers to actually understand their health care expenses — health savings accounts are one of the very best things to happen to US health care in recent years. That’s because unlike traditional health policies and government programs, they put individuals in charge of their health care spending and give them very real financial incentives to control health care costs.

In fact, such plans are “bending the health care cost-curve,” which is supposedly the point of ObamaCare:

Companies with at least half of their workers enrolled in an account-based health plan report that their per-employee costs are over $1,000 lower than companies without an account-based health plan, according to Towers Watson and the National Business Group on Health.

Similarly, Aetna reported late last year that employers who switched to account-based health plans as their only plan option had saved $21.8 million per 10,000 members over the past five years. Earlier this year, Cigna published a study concluding that employers can save an average of $9,700 per employee over five years by switching to account-based health plans. This is hard evidence for “bending the cost curve” that is so elusive for the rest of our nation’s health care system.

This potential for reducing health care spending was recently confirmed when researchers at the RAND Corporation concluded that if enrollment in account-based health plans grows to represent half of all employer-sponsored insurance, U.S. health care spending could drop by $57 billion annually. If all of these people enroll in HSA plans, the annual savings would be as high as $73.6 billion.

Health savings accounts not only work for individuals who use them, but they work for the employers who provide them and for the nation as a whole which could see major costs savings in terms of health care if they are implemented in Medicaid and Medicare for example. The only problem is that as ObamaCare (inadvertently) pushes people to adopt consumer-driven plans, health care expenses will decline with Obama taking credit for the result due to ObamaCare which is the polar opposite of HSAs.

The Albquerque Journal at the behest of my favorite columnist Wintrop Quigley engaged in a bit of collectivist self-flagellation in today’s paper. Not surprisingly, given the question, the answers were all over the place. Some focused on educational attainment while others focused on the three cultures (Native, Hispano, and Anglo) that predominate. I just don’t see the point. How is it possible to gather 2 million people under any particular banner?

After all, if you are Black or Asian, are you not a New Mexican? New Mexico has among the highest dropout rates, but also the highest percentage of PHD’s. We have an inordinately large number of government workers as well. But do any of these things make one New Mexican or preclude one from being so? We do have great natural beauty in our state, but if you are not outdoorsy, are you not a New Mexican?

Anyway, coming up with any specific traits for 2 million people is pretty futile, but here’s what I’d like to see: “New Mexico is a state that uniquely embraces freedom, both economic and personal. Regardless of your ethnicity or background, whether you are a traditionalist or an innovator, New Mexico is a place where you can fulfill your personal vision as long as you don’t hinder others from achieving their goals at the same time. And, while New Mexicans care deeply for one another, they rely on the charitable impulse of their neighbors rather than the threat of force to care for each other.”

One can dream, right?

Lots of depressing news comes out about New Mexico’s economy and educational systems. We’ve certainly publicized the bad data ourselves. But we don’t do this to perform penance or because we love wallowing in despair, we do it because we want New Mexico to do better and we believe that policy reforms will create positive results. And, while we will wait for national data confirming the success of our A-F grading system’s positive results at the high school level, we do believe that properly-targeted reforms will work.

Unfortunately, according to a poll (albeit unscientific) conducted by Albuquerque Business First, 47 percent believe that “NM simply cannot make meaningful improvements to its economic standing.” Being 50th is bad, but this is downright depressing.

Needless to say, I’ve dedicated my life to proving that 47 percent wrong. I believe that the right combination of policies and incentives will inevitably work to improve New Mexico’s economic and education situations and I’ve dedicated my life’s work to that proposition. I just don’t think New Mexico’s adopted sound free market policies for much of its 100 years as a state and that gives the impression that reform can’t happen. All I can say is that I’m not going anywhere and I’m not going to stop working to prove the fatalists wrong.

Great, New Mexico taxpayers are now on the hook for another $21 million for the spaceport. The money is supposedly needed to build two visitor centers for the facility. This is on top of the $209 million the taxpayers put up to pay for the project in the first place.

RGF has been a long-time opponent of taxpayer support for the Spaceport, but we did support efforts to create liability protections for the Spaceport during the 2012 and then 2013 sessions (the protections were adopted in the 2013 session).

While we stand by both views on their merits and I still hope the taxpayers are able to see some benefit from this facility, I wonder: absent the liability protections, would Virgin Galactic just have picked up and left us alone? Would we have to fork over another $21 million (not to mention maintenance on the entire project and other potential projects like the extended runway).

In other words, should we have just helped the trial lawyers kill the project entirely when we had the chance? Comments welcome.

We have to admit that between Aragon’s comments in the article “There is no absolute assurance that taxpayers won’t at some future point be obligated to these facilities that are being financed” and the fact that the Spaceport Authority had to go to the Board of Finance, that we assumed that taxpayers could legitimately be on the hook for all or part of the $21 million. Then I received a call from Aaron Prescott with the Spaceport Authority which puts my mind at ease to a large extent:

This $20.8M loan is entirely privately sourced, with no burden on the taxpayer. It has been sought as a way to bring private money into the project for the first time, and to take advantage of historically low interest rates. We are answering Gov. Martinez’s call for private investment and public private partnership.

NMSA’s underlying statute, the Spaceport Development Act (NMSA 1978 §58-31-1 et seq.), permits NMSA to seek private loans on the condition that 1) it cannot pledge the full faith and credit of New Mexico or create a general obligation of the state, and 2) the financing package receives approval by the State Board of Finance. Our banks are fully aware of the lack of a taxpayer backstop (it will be in the loan documents), and the Board signaled its approval yesterday.

Today’s ABQ Journal coverage of the loan had an accurate quote from SBOF member Robert Aragon, but it was in the context that just because it is state law that the taxpayers won’t be obligated by our loan, doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.

His comments notwithstanding, NMSA fully intends to obey its own enabling legislation. The only collateral in this loan is the project being financed, i.e. buildings and land.