Higher Education in New Mexico: A College on Every Corner?

(Albuquerque) A new report from the Rio Grande Foundation sheds some needed light on the sheer scope and magnitude of New Mexico’s higher education system. According to, “Higher Education in New Mexico: A Chicken in Every Pot, a Car in Every Garage, a College on Every Corner,” New Mexico’s four-year institutes of higher education have an astounding 38 campuses combined while the state’s two-year campuses and junior colleges have 27.

There are a total of 12 campuses to choose from in the Albuquerque Metropolitan area alone. There are 9 campuses in or within a one hour drive of Las Cruces.

As this study points out, the proliferation of campuses is a symptom of larger problems within New Mexico’s overall education system. Measured against other states, New Mexico:

• Dedicates a far greater percentage of personal incomes to higher education ($17.39 per $1,000 in New Mexico while the national average was about $7.00;
• Graduates fewer of its students than other states (New Mexico ranks 46th in the nation);
• Retains first-year students (for continued schooling) at the worst rate in the nation;
• Demands taxpayers disproportionately foot the bill for higher education (2nd-highest nationally); and
• Asks less than all but one other state of students, the direct beneficiaries of higher education, when it comes to tuition and fees.

Rio Grande Foundation president and co-author of the study Paul Gessing noted, “These data point to a system in which resources have been allocated in a scattershot manner.” Gessing continued, saying, “Taxpayer dollars are being spread out over too many campuses that are trying to serve disparate interests and expensive. Future cuts targeted at higher education in New Mexico may be necessary, but this reduction can be turned into a positive for higher education if resources are re-allocated in ways that produce excellence rather than serving all-comers.”

Co-author William Patrick Leonard noted that, “Areas of excellence do exist in New Mexico’s higher education system, especially at New Mexico Tech and the New Mexico Military Institute. Policymakers need to study these success stories to better understand how the overall system might be improved.”

A left-wing group “OleNM” has an ad campaign going that attacks the industry for making $137 billion in profits and misleadingly claims that “we pay the oil companies twice – we pay ‘em at the pump AND we pick up their bill on Tax Day – when we cover their $4-billion-dollar tax break.”

To say the least, this last statement is simply inaccurate. No one pays for tax breaks because tax breaks are simply taxes that are not paid to the government. The oil industry is not taking money out of our pockets. Among other policies the ad campaign claims are “subsidies” are “the Exception to Passive Loss Limitations for Working Interests in Oil and Natural Gas Properties.” If you, dear reader, can even tell me what that means, let alone explain exactly why the federal government has a moral obligation to tax this activity (and not, for example, municipal bonds), then you deserve a massive gold star. The fact is that the federal tax code is too complicated, too political, and too micromanaging of economic activity to make any sense to anyone.

The reality is that more taxes on oil and gas will simply chase the industry out of this country, will raise prices on American consumers, and will do nothing to resolve our spending-induced national debt. If you want to get the real scoop on oil and gas prices and the industry itself, attend our upcoming policy forum on the topic on Wednesday, May 30.

I may take some heat for this in the comments section, but I believe the biggest election in the country this year is in Wisconsin on June 5. Scott Walker has adopted reforms that, while certainly not radical (FDR opposed government labor unions, after all), are direly needed to put the states on firm fiscal footing. Yes, eventually New Mexico will have to follow suit if it is going to ever succeed economically. Anyway, our friends at Reason have put together a short video on “3 Lies about the Wisconsin Recall” that is posted below. Some of the hate-filled songs about Walker make me wonder where that “civility” in political discourse went.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have been leading the charge on behalf of the so-called “Florida Model” for K-12 education. The reforms were made back in the 1990s and had a dramatic, positive impact in the state’s education performance. This attracted the attention of Gov. Martinez who has attempted to implement a few parts of the “Florida Model” here in New Mexico including: A-F grading of schools, the elimination of social promotion, and greater focus on early-childhood reading. Of course, these are just a few of the reforms Florida successfully enacted.

So, now it is being reported that Florida has had a “fiasco” with its statewide test, the FCAT. As the Herald notes, reforms made in Florida subsequent to those made under Jeb Bush were mishandled causing great embarrassment to the state. They were even the butt of a Jay Leno joke.

This resulted in at least one New Mexico legislator calling for Gov. Martinez to abandon the “Florida Model.” That is silly. As the previously-linked newspaper article noted: “Truth is, the tests have been showing results as thousands more Florida students, including minorities, score ever higher on prestigious exams like the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and more black and Hispanic students head to college. No one can deny that’s progress.”

The truth is that Florida students are performing far better than New Mexico students on national tests and saw that performance improve dramatically after Bush’s reforms. That is the importance of the “Florida Model” and it is why Gov. Martinez should stick to her guns (and hopefully expand her efforts to other aspects of the reforms Florida has implemented).

If you haven’t noticed, gas prices are on their way down in recent weeks. While the media has taken note, the reasons behind the decrease are not obvious. That is why the upcoming panel discussion being held on May 30 (which Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing will participate in) is so important (details and event invite here). You are encouraged to attend this free event!

At the Rio Grande Foundation, we have always stated clearly that gasoline prices are set largely by the marketplace with several additional factors impacting them. If there were a “vast conspiracy” on behalf of higher gas prices, they would be kept high all the time and would be far higher than they are. Enjoy lunch with us and find out more details not only on our perspective, but what one of the top national experts and several local ones have to say on the issue.

You can bet that gas prices will rise again some day and the conspiracy theorists will be there to blame “big oil” and point fingers (usually at the wrong parties).

I don’t know about you, but “press release journalism” drives me nuts. Take this story from KOB TV. With much fanfare and enthusiasm, the story details how the Albuquerque Sunport is going to be “saving” us all money by installing even more solar panels and getting rid of electrical power provided by “PNM,” which, for some untold reason keeps raising its rates.

Of course, the kicker is that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is picking up 85% of the cost, so the project will hardly cost us locals anything. There is so much wrong with this story.

1) PNM is raising rates in large part to pay for so-called “renewables” like solar in the first place.

2) The problem with federal programs like this one from the FAA is that it lulls people into thinking it is “free” money. Who could be against having the Sunport project paid for by taxpayers around the country? It’s not “our” money! If this project were funded locally, we’d at least have an accounting for the costs and benefits, but not when the FAA is picking up the tab.

3) Oh, and solar is the most expensive way to generate electricity. No one is “saving” money on this deal.

It is often said by teachers and advocates of the status quo that “all” or “nearly all” teachers are excellent and that any effort to create accountability or actually measure effectiveness is deemed to be “teacher bashing.”

And then there are articles by those who have seen behind the magic curtain like this one. Certainly, there are aspects of accountability measures like testing that can lead to incentives for teachers to “teach to the test,” cheat, or simply focus their efforts on those students most likely to help them generate positive results on these tests.

That’s why testing can only be one part of the education reform agenda (and it can be a useful tool in measuring student progress). True education reform must involve dramatically-enhanced educational choice on the part of parents and students (as was done in the 90s in Florida and more recently in Louisiana). Governor Martinez and Sec. Skandera are working to implement education reform 1.0 (Florida) here in New Mexico. Louisiana has moved on to 2.0. Will we be left behind on this second wave of reform as well?

HT: John Onstad

Recently, several stories appeared in the New Mexico media regarding the potential negative impact of federal spending cuts on our state. I was able to track down the full report from the LFC/LSC here.

Interesting notes relating to the story. While New Mexico is 6th in federal spending per capita, it is number one in terms of federal spending relative to federal taxes paid. And, of course, there is the issue of the so-called “cuts” in federal spending under the sequester due to the failure of the Congressional “Supercommittee” which, while slowing federal spending growth may impact New Mexico, will not really make a dent in the federal budget.

Lastly, it is worth noting that, according to the report, “Non-farm employment in the state stood at 805,300 in March, which was 5,000 jobs ahead of March 2011 but still 50,000 jobs below the May 2008 peak.” In other words, there are 6.2% fewer non-farm jobs in New Mexico than existed before the financial crisis. That goes right along with national data indicating that if the work force were the same size as it was at the end of the Bush Administration, the unemployment rate would be 11.1 percent.

Republicans in Washington are not doing much to differentiate themselves from the Obama Administration on the issue of reducing government spending and putting America on a sound fiscal footing. The most recent example, as detailed by Tim Carney in the Examiner, involves the Export-Import Bank, a prototypical example of corporate welfare.

Rather than consistently opposing Solyndra-like programs of taxpayer-funding of corporations, the GOP leadership decided to increase the program’s size by 40%. Sure, many of the rank and file conservatives opposed House Leadership and voted against the bill, but all New Mexico House members (including Pearce) went along with the added corporate welfare.

Sure, Obama is a bad President that has expanded the federal government to unprecedented levels, but why are Republicans helping him?

While far-afield from our usual efforts in New Mexico, the recent European elections have direct relevance to our current situation here in America. Why? The media have played up the “fact,” much like they did here, that spending was being “slashed” and that people are upset about it.

The reality, as Veronique de Rugy points out, is that spending in Europe has continued to grow. Does that sound familiar (remember the so-called “Supercommittee” and its alleged cuts).

In Europe, taxes were raised, but spending wasn’t cut. Thankfully, conservatives here like Grover Norquist aren’t going to fall for that one. Also, it just shows how pathetic politicians are when it comes to actually cutting spending. They just can’t bring themselves to do it.

The easiest way to get Europe and America back on a pro-growth trajectory is to massively deregulate our economies. Unfortunately, the political will to do that seems limited as well.

Our friends at the Institute for Justice have produced a new report on occupational licensing. This is something that Milton Friedman often criticized as an unfair effort by incumbents in a particular profession to raise their own pay by reducing competition.

According to this chart, New Mexico licenses approximately half (52) of what IJ calls “low-income occupations.” This is somewhat above average in terms of over-regulation. These are not doctors and lawyers, rather, many of the professions are as simple as being an interior designer, hairdresser, or some other profession that cannot harm anyone even if performed poorly.

Look for more from the Rio Grande Foundation on the issue of unnecessary government regulation in the near future. Also, there is a great video on the issue below:

The issue of children bullying other children has become a cause celebre in current political discourse. And, it is a real problem. But there is another group out there that is bullying students and preventing them from achieving success in their educational pursuits. Check out this brief TV ad now running in New Mexico for more:

Generally, the Rio Grande Foundation focuses on state and local policy issues. Nonetheless, given New Mexico’s status as one of, if not the, most reliant states on federal spending within its borders, the perilous condition of the federal budget must be of concern to all New Mexicans.

Particularly in this political season, the tendency is for the media and politicians to ignore what then- chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, called, “The biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt.” After all, no one running for office wants to be seen as taking government benefits away from people.

To make a dire, but complicated budget situation easier to understand, imagine a pie chart divided up into four approximately equal parts. They are: military, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and everything else. About 25 percent of that “everything else” is not spent on actual programs; rather it is spent on interest payments on the national debt.

Unfortunately, the amount of spending done on these programs far exceeds tax revenues collected. This year, we are overspending by $1.3 trillion or so or more than 36 percent of the federal budget each year. That $1.3 trillion must be borrowed, thus adding to the burden on future generations). Total federal spending has doubled since the end of the Clinton Administration (from $1.8 trillion back in 2000 to $3.7 trillion this year).

Tax rates can be raised and lowered, but they cannot solve the problem. For starters, if the federal government simply confiscated all of the wealth of anyone in the country who earns $250,000 or more annually, we’d have about enough to bridge the deficit for one year. But, taking that wealth is a one-time operation. What do you do beyond that?

The reality is that spending must be the focal point of any serious discussion about New Mexico’s fiscal future. And, while eliminating or dramatically scaling back the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing, and others is laudable, getting rid of them comes nowhere close to closing the gap between what the government takes in and what it spends on an annual basis.

If America is going to get back on track, we must go after the proverbial “big fish” in the federal budget: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the military.

The thing about New Mexico in this discussion is that it is in line to be disproportionately impacted. We have major federal installations under the Departments of Energy and Defense. We also have among the poorest populations in the nation which makes us heavily-reliant on Medicaid (New Mexico currently receives a 3-1 match from Washington for each dollar it spends on Medicaid).

Politically-speaking, Rep. Paul Ryan is among the only serious voices in Washington when it comes to reducing out-of-control entitlement spending. He does this by giving states more control over and responsibility for Medicaid spending (no longer can the program be expanded to take advantage of a generous match) and giving seniors greater control over decisions regarding their Medicare spending.

Ryan’s plan is not perfect, but it is the only serious one before Congress. Ryan makes what I believe are a few mistakes. He fails to make any reforms to a broken Social Security system that will continue to shortchange younger workers, he fails to address military spending (combined, that is 50 percent of the budget off the table), and he unnecessarily intermingles the tax reform issue with spending and entitlement reform issues, thus opening himself to attacks from the left.

But, as they say, “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” And, Washington, DC is certainly blind when it comes to tackling crucial budgetary issues. With entitlements alone set to consume all federal tax revenues by 2050, the time for serious action is now.

Despite our reliance on the federal government, New Mexicans would be wise to accept an ounce of prevention now because the “cure” for fiscal incontinence will not be pretty.

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.

The New York Times recently reported on tax avoidance schemes undertaken by Apple, the world’s most profitable company. The left (including the President) hates profits and wants people and businesses to pay higher taxes. Of course, Apple didn’t get to be so profitable by unnecessarily paying taxes that its competitors are smart enough to avoid.

The fact is that businesses, unlike some individuals, have the money and wisdom to hire tax planners to reduce their tax bills. Is this a bad thing? No, tax competition insures that governments cannot get too out of control in terms of their tax and regulatory policies. Should the rest of us be concerned? Well, I for one would rather have resources stay in the private sector than in the coffers of inefficient governments. Sure, it may not be “fair” that businesses and the wealthy can legally avoid heavy tax burdens. Next time the government asks for more taxes, it is worth realizing that some of the very people targeted for higher taxes will simply flee or find a loophole to avoid the tax. That is why they are wealthy and successful in the first place.

Jonah Goldberg Luncheon Event – “The Tyranny of Cliches“

Jonah Goldberg’s previous book “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning,” reached number 1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

He is coming to Albuquerque to discuss his new book, “The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas“.

You can join him for a lunch discussion of his book and what will surely be an erudite and informed discussion of the state of the American political situation.

We are hosting a luncheon at the Marriott Pyramid in Albuquerque on Wednesday, June 20. Lunch will last from noon to approximately 1:00PM. Individual tickets are available now for $40 per person.

Jonah Goldberg’s nationally-syndicated column appears regularly in scores of newspapers across the United States, including the Albuquerque Journal. He is also a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a member of the board of contributors to USA Today, a contributor to Fox News, a contributing editor to National Review, and the founding editor of National Review Online. He was named by the Atlantic magazine as one of the top 50 political commentators in America. In 2011 he was named the Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

He has written on politics, media, and culture for a wide variety of publications and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. Prior to joining National Review, he was a founding producer for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg on PBS and wrote and produced several other PBS documentaries.

Reserve your seat now by sending a check for $40 per attendee and the names of any attendees to:

Rio Grande Foundation
Attention: Jonah Goldberg Event
PO Box 40336
Albuquerque, NM  87196

Online payment will be available soon. Check back at www.riograndefoundation.org for details.

A lot has been happening on the issue of government employee pensions, mostly in so-called “blue” states that seem to have the worst pension problems (Rhode Island, New York, and now even Illinois seems to be getting on the reform bandwagon).

Simply put, New Mexico, at least historically, has been a deep blue state. While not as bad as these states, we have serious pension problems that need to be addressed.

HT: Rob Nikolewski

As the world celebrates Earth Day, it is time to separate real environmentalism from the fake variety. If there is one rule to follow in this regard, it’s this: if an idea is trendy, it probably isn’t good for the planet.

As environmentalism has become trendy, politicians and businesses have learned that appearing green can lead to profit and political gain. Increasingly, science takes a back seat to policies that make people feel good or appear environmentally friendly.

I write about the rise of trendy environmentalism in my book “Eco-Fads.” I outline the ways people often substitute feel-good approaches for the difficult work of following the science and economic to protection the environment.

In New Mexico, two examples stand out.

The push by school districts to require schools be built to “green” building standards is often more about image than results. Politicians push systems like Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) supposedly to make buildings more energy efficient. The results, however, often fall far short of the promises.

Santa Fe school officials built a LEED-certified school in an effort to save energy. To their credit, officials did something that few others do – they audited the actual energy performance of their building. As a result, district officials say they won’t build another “green” building. Why?

First, to meet the LEED standards, the district spent money on design features that do little to save energy. For example, the district created parking spots to charge electric cars even though there are few electrics on the road. It cost the district money but didn’t yield environmental benefit.

Second, many green schools use more energy than other schools. In Santa Fe, the LEED-certified school actually spends more on energy than average schools in the district. This is not unusual.
Many “green” buildings across the country end up using more energy than traditionally built schools in the same district.

One of the reasons “green” schools fare so poorly is building managers already know how to save energy and they have pursued these savings before it was politically popular. That is likely the case in Santa Fe. Like many school districts, Santa Fe’s schools were green before we knew it.

When Governor Richardson was in office, he signed an executive order requiring many state buildings to meet these same, failed standards. Given the fiscal challenges facing New Mexico, rescinding that order would be one way to cut state costs.

That’s not the only eco-fad in New Mexico.

Ten New Mexico cities joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005-6. City leaders pledged to reduce carbon emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. When officials signed on, they sent out press releases touting their commitment to reducing the risk of climate change.

The deadline is now approaching, so how are these cities doing? The answer is: not well. New Mexico’s emissions as a whole were nearly 10 percent above 1990 levels in 2009 and the state would have to reduce emissions by nearly 20 percent between 2010 and 2012 to meet the promised target.

The results in individual communities could be different, certainly, but will officials in any of the ten cities want to find out? Probably not.

This has been the case elsewhere in the country. Seattle, whose mayor started the Climate Protection Agreement in 2005, recently admitted that it would not meet the goal, dismissed the pledge as “political.” A recent study finds this is the rule. Looking at California cities with climate plans, the study found that “climate plans are largely rhetorical.”

How then can New Mexico, and other states, take meaningful steps to help the environment? The simple truth is technology created by the free market is the most powerful force for conservation – doing more with less – the concept at the center of environmental sustainability. The Toyota Prius, the symbol of environmental consciousness, was created by a business seeking a profit, not by politicians trying to burnish their environmental image. Politicians often jump on the bandwagon of new technologies like the hybrid, but they are followers, not leaders.

The Land of Enchantment rightly enjoys a reputation for natural beauty and resource riches.. By embracing the creative free market forces that encourage all of us to do more with less, we can put New Mexico back on the path to sound, science-based environmental policy.

Todd Myers is the author of the landmark book “Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism is Harming the Environment,” and an adjunct scholar with the Rio Grande Foundation.

With tax revenues on the wane, New Mexico’s second-largest city is hungry for revenue. Unfortunately, Las Cruces is in a tough spot. Without a Right to Work law, with an income tax, and without oil and gas to prop it up, why in the world would someone live and work in Las Cruces rather than El Paso (which has Right to Work and no income tax)?

Rather than doing whatever it can within the context of New Mexico’s government policies to make itself friendly to businesses and citizens alike, the folks running the City would rather enact draconian measures such as shutting off water and sewer service for photo ticket nonpayment. Critics have repeatedly argued that red light cameras are mere revenue generators and have nothing to do with safety.

In these difficult economic times, the City of Las Cruces, rather than having empathy for someone who may not have the money to pay for a red light ticket, is using its monopoly powers to exact revenge and turn up the pressure on alleged scofflaws.

This use of system-wide power is an excellent argument against red light cameras, but also why governments should not own and operate water and sewer systems themselves.

Journalist and author John Stossel recently spoke at a Rio Grande Foundation event in Albuquerque. Footage of his talk can be found below:

John Stossel’s presentation in Albuquerque: April 25, 2012 from Paul Gessing on Vimeo.

His slides are available here.

The Rio Grande Foundation is passing this information along to potentially-interested parties. The position is NOT with the Foundation:

Citizen Media is looking for a commentator/blogger about New Mexico
politics, policy and people.

The right person is a self-starter with sharp research, analytical and
writing skills who would work as an independent contractor, starting
May 2012. The Website will be provided. An ability to scout the
political landscape, track relevant news (particularly video-based)
and write with authority and credibility is essential. Compensation is
negotiable.

To see a current approach by Citizen Media in Colorado, visit
http://www.whosaidyousaid.com

Anyone interested, please send an inquiry and published writing
samples to whosaidyousaid@gmail.com.

A gaffe is often described as when a politician or bureaucrat lets his/her guard down and tells the truth. The video below is a fascinating example of that as this man who is ultimately hired at the expense of US taxpayers (New Mexico is in his region of authority), discusses the true philosophy of the Obama Administration when it comes to the oil and gas industries.

The Albuquerque Journal editorial board beat me to it with this excellent editorial on Intel’s struggles to hire from New Mexico’s all-too-shallow talent pool. This is not the first mention of the lack of necessary talent in our fair state. In fact, Jerry Pacheco of the Journal had another article recently in which manufacturers looking to do business in the state are unable to find enough skilled employees.

The Journal rightly notes in the editorial that education is a big problem, but if I have a quibble with the article it is that they don’t focus on ALL aspects of New Mexico’s education system. After all, before students go on to PhD’s and Masters’ in high-tech fields, they need a basic understanding of math and science (not to mention reading). With New Mexico failing nearly half its K-12 students and even the skill sets of graduates up for debate, it is no wonder that Intel and other businesses do not locate here. Why in the world would Intel expand here when they can’t find enough workers as it is?

Of course, as I wrote just yesterday, there are some who think platitudes and pledges to reform are enough and then there are real reformers which include but are by no means limited to Gov. Martinez and the Rio Grande Foundation.

A: When it is a Memorial!

One would think that this would be obvious, but apparently the folks at the Latino Education Task Force who complained in today’s Albuquerque Journal about the Governor’s reforms (which would all be actual laws) are going the wrong direction. So, what “reform” did the Coalition come up with? A House Memorial that will “gather input from school districts, the PED, and community leaders to develop a ‘comprehensive plan’ to eliminate the achievement gap.”

Well, if it was THAT easy, why didn’t we form such a commission years or even decades before? Of course, the unspoken truth is that the school districts in particular have been among the biggest obstacles to education reform. They have quite a bit at stake in the status quo, so they might not be real keen on reforms like those that succeeded in Florida or will likely succeed in Louisiana.

The rest of the column is mere happy-talk and pablum, designed to say the right words without actually meaning anything or taking a particular stand. Kind of like the “reforms” they are proposing.

One of the biggest issues I have with my friends on the left is that they seem to not understand the benefits of work. And I mean any and all work. In many instances, those on the left would rather people have no jobs at all and rely on the state rather than have a low-wage job that, while not paying much, offers them the opportunity to learn, be responsible, and better appreciate the value of money.

The rise of the welfare state is one manifestation of the left’s disdain for work, the arbitrary imposition of minimum wage laws is another, but so is their hatred of Wal Mart. So, I was interested in this article in which a young man who has obviously gone on to bigger and better things, got his start working at Wal Mart. And, what did he think about the job? He said, “Overall, I spent about two years at Walmart. It was a great experience that I wouldn’t trade for anything.”

Obviously, this attitude about work and his willingness to learn, helped him excel in life and led him to where he is today. And he’s not alone. I did not work at Wal Mart, but I did work at Kmart and I learned a lot. I was blessed to be given the opportunity to work in a wide variety of roles from shoes to the garden center to hardware and electronics, not to mention checkout and carts. It was a great experience.

Even better than that was my time as a golf caddie (to this day the job I’ve held for longer than any other in my life 11 years). Simply put, that job was one of the most important experiences of my life helped teach me that if you don’t work, you don’t get paid (and we got paid in cash, so I appreciated not having taxes taken out), customer service, communicating, and I got to learn the game of golf, get exercise, and be outside all summer long.

Unfortunately, rules and regulations thought up by some well-intentioned lawmakers and bureaucrats make it harder for young people to work and learn the value of a hard day’s work. It is, ironically, the young people who are missing out when politicians intervene to “protect” them.