I’m suspicious of superstitions, like astrology or the belief that “green jobs will fix the environment and the economy.” I understand the appeal of such beliefs. People crave simple answers and want to believe that some higher power determines our fates.

The most socially destructive superstition of all is the intuitively appealing belief that problems are best solved by government.

Opinion polls suggest that Americans are dissatisfied with government. Yet whenever another crisis hits, the natural human instinct is to say, “Why doesn’t the government do something?”

And politicians appear to be problem-solvers. We believe them when they say, “Yes, we can!”

In 2008, when Barack Obama’s supporters shouted, “Yes, we can!” they expressed faith in the power of government to solve problems. Some acted as if Obama were a magical politician whose election would end poverty and inequality and bring us to “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

At least now people have come to understand that presidents — including this president — can’t perform miracles.

People vastly overestimate the ability of central planners to improve on the independent action of diverse individuals. What I’ve learned watching regulators is that they almost always make things worse. If regulators did nothing, the self-correcting mechanisms of the market would mitigate most problems with more finesse. And less cost.

But people don’t get that. People instinctively say, “There ought to be a law.”

If Americans keep voting for politicians who want to spend more money and pass more laws, the result will not be a country with fewer problems but a country that is governed by piecemeal socialism. We can debate the meaning of the word “socialism,” but there’s no doubt that we’d be less prosperous and less free.

Economists tend to focus on the “prosperous” part of that statement. But the “free” part, which sounds vague, is just as important. Individuals and their freedom matter. Objecting to restrictions on individual choice is not just an arbitrary cultural attitude, it’s a moral objection. If control over our own lives is diminished — if we cannot tell the mob, or even just our neighbors, to leave us alone — something changes in our character.

Every time we call for the government to fix some problem, we accelerate the growth of government. If we do not change the way we think, we will end up socialists by default, even if no one calls us that.

Pity us poor humans. Our brains really weren’t designed to do economic reasoning any more than they were designed to do particle physics. We evolved to hunt, seek mates, and keep track of our allies and enemies. Your ancestors must have been pretty good at those activities, or you would not be alive to read this.

Those evolved skills still govern human activities (modernized versions include game-playing, dating, gossiping). We’re hardwired to smash foes, turn on the charisma and form political coalitions. We’re not wired to reason out how impersonal market forces solve problems. But it’s mostly those impersonal forces — say, the pursuit of profit by some pharmaceutical company — that give us better lives.

Learning to think in economic terms — and to resist the pro-central-planning impulse — is our only hope of rescuing America from a diminished future.

No one can be trusted to manage the economy. I began by criticizing Obama, but Republicans may be little better. Both parties share the fatal conceit of believing that their grandiose plans will solve America’s problems. They won’t.

But cheer up: Saying that government is not the way to solve problems is not saying that humanity cannot solve its problems. What I’ve finally learned is this: Despite the obstacles created by governments, voluntary networks of private individuals — through voluntary exchange — solve all sorts of challenges.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. His most recent book is “No They Can’t: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com. Stossel will be speaking at a dinner event hosted by the Rio Grande Foundation on Wednesday, April, 25 at the Marriott Pyramid Hotel. More information is available at www.riograndefoundation.org or by phone at 505-264-6090.

This week saw the passage of some of the most sweeping education reforms in the United States. Louisiana, led by Gov. Bobby Jindal, pushed through reforms including:

Curtailing teacher tenure protection; tying instructors’ compensation and superintendents’ job security to student performance; shifting hiring and firing power from school boards to superintendents; creation of new paths to open independent public charter schools; and establishing a statewide program that uses the public-school financing formula to pay private-school tuition for certain low-income students.

Predictably, the unions stand in opposition and are hoping to recall Gov. Jindal. Whatever does eventually happen, I believe that Louisiana — a state that has struggled with educational performance like New Mexico — will see increased educational outcomes over the next 10 years. So, while New Mexico Democrats are playing defense against Florida’s reforms (Model 1.0) if you will, Louisiana is moving ahead with Model 2.0. If New Mexico’s education system were a computer, it would be DOS.

I recently wrote a brief defense of ALEC. A former colleague of mine over at the National Taxpayers Union has written a somewhat lengthier and more detailed defense of ALEC.

For example, did you know that ALEC’s main competition, the National Conference of State Legislators receives more than $10 million from taxpayers of the various states annually (this includes $137,000 from New Mexico taxpayers)? Worse, NCSL uses some of that money to front as an “objective, good-government organization” to lobby on behalf of bigger government.

A lot of economics is based on empirical data. High taxes on productive activity are bad, the rule of law is good. New Mexico usually doesn’t perform well on these measures of “business friendliness,” but I believe that such tools are only useful to an extent. Sometimes, the key to business friendliness is simply having a business-friendly attitude. Unfortunately, measuring this across state lines is next to impossible, but we can get snapshots of the problem.

Take the case of PNM and its effort to close costly and under-utilized pay centers. The situation arose a few months ago when PNM asked the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) for permission to close the center which cost them $500,000 annually. A compromise was reached to allow in-person payments at various Western Union centers. The situation recently made the news once again as hearings have been set before the PRC.

The fact is that myriad ways exist for people to pay their PNM bills. Mail, online, pre-paid, automatically… but that is apparently not enough for some, including PRC member Ben Hall. His statement on the issue was telling in terms of New Mexicans’ negative attitude toward business and encapsulates why businesses tend to steer clear of the “Land of Enchantment.” Said Commissioner Hall of the potential closings, “Those buildings have been around forever — all my life — people are so used to them.”

Well….so what? ATM’s weren’t around 50 years ago. How many companies have come and gone over the last 50 years? Why in the world should PNM have to waste money (ultimately causing the rates they charge customers to go upward) just for the sake of nostalgia? Times change and business needs to be allowed to change. In a free market, there are vastly more winners than losers in this process. It may be a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but for heaven’s sake, let PNM close these obsolete payment centers!

I gave the folks over at Voices for Children a hard time in a recent posting. But that doesn’t mean that left and right can’t agree on many economic policies.

For starters, take this report by the liberal “Good Jobs First.” It outlines the problem of taxpayer “subsidies” for businesses in various states. In New Mexico, they specifically criticize the “High Wage Jobs Tax Credit” which the group says reduced tax revenues by $4.6 million in 2010.

While conservative may quibble with the term “subsidy” as this credit represents revenues forgone as opposed to outright taxpayer financial support for a given industry (like the film incentive program), there is no doubt that it and other tax credits offered by the state are sub-optimal tax policy. To that end, they could and should be eliminated as part of any comprehensive or even significant tax reform in New Mexico.

If I were “Good Jobs First,” I’d focus first and foremost on the far more costly film incentive outlay ($50 million annually as opposed to $4.6 million) but conservatives can and should join principled liberals in their opposition to these targeted tax credits.

According to the latest version of the “Rich States, Poor States” report (put out by the ever-so-controversial ALEC), Gov. Martinez’s modest tax reforms enacted during the last legislative session, resulted in New Mexico rising 4 places in the “Economic Outlook” index. New Mexico went from 39 in last year’s to 35 in this edition.

The full report is definitely worth the read as it covers a wide array of economic policy issues that drive or restrain economic growth along with some real-world examples. Jonathan Williams, one of the co-authors of the report, was in Albuquerque last year discussing the report and what policies lead to economic prosperity.

By the way, according to the latest version, Utah has the best economic outlook and New York the worst.

Voices for Children had an opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal echoing Obama’s claims that the “rich” don’t pay enough taxes. He also repeats the canard that the federal government is somehow “integral” to the success of private sector businesses.

First, let’s tackle the tax burden issue which is really all about payroll taxes. The federal government stops collecting payroll taxes after the 106,800th dollar of earned income. That seems unfair, right? Why would Congress do such a thing to hurt low income Americans? Well, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[H]aving different bases for contributions and benefits would weaken the traditional link between the taxes workers pay into the system and the benefits they receive.” In other words, if it is supposed to be “social insurance,” Social Security can’t be welfare at the same time.

Of course, Social Security and Medicare ARE welfare and have been for some time, but that doesn’t mean raising the cap on payroll tax collections so the wealthy pay even more taxes is a good idea. Rather, it is time to “means test” the programs so the wealthy receive less. After all, is it really fair that Mr. Buffett’s secretary is being taxed to provide his Social Security and Medicare?

Then there are all the “essentials” that Bradley and liberals love to bring up whenever federal spending cuts are on the table: roads, research, air traffic control, the weather service, and courts. As the chart below points out, all of these services combined represent a tiny fraction (less than 5% at most) of the federal budget. Many of these “services” could be done more effectively by the free market if the feds got out of the way, but if we are going to have a serious discussion about the budget, people need to understand that it is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense that eat up a bulk of the federal budget (and, yes, the chart has a separate category for “welfare,” but that does not obviate the reality that an overwhelming majority of Social Security and Medicare are welfare by different names.

And here I thought Republicans were obsessed with Ronald Reagan! The reality is that President Obama is obsessed with America’s 40th President, because he thinks (misguidedly) that he can win points with voters who may have forgotten Reagan’s record on taxes. Check out both the video and the text of his recent comments.

Obama seems to think that he is either following in Reagan’s footsteps or that Reagan was on net a tax hiker. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate dramatically as the chart below illustrates (see 1981-1989 for those with short memories):

Reagan DID in fact attempt to close some loopholes with his 1986 reforms, but unlike Obama, he was a net tax-cutter, not tax hiker. That is not to say that there are not plenty of loopholes in the tax code. There are and some, like the mortgage deduction and the tax advantages for businesses that purchase health care for their employees.

The simple fact is that spending is the problem, not taxation.

Leftists/Occupiers/and socialists of all stripes are frustrating. Many of them claim to be frustrated by wealth redistribution to the wealthy, but when I asked a purported “Occupier” about this at a recent protest, she told me that she supported the bailouts!

And then there is nonsense like this piece in support of legislation that would forgive all student loans. Yes, student loan debt — which now amounts to $1 trillion in the US — is a real issue, but such “debt forgiveness” schemes would be terrible policy for many reasons.

For starters, forgiving college debt would redistribute wealth upwards. Only 25% of the population graduates from college. These are the highest earners in our society. Doctors and lawyers pile up even more debt for their extended schooling, do we really need janitors and taxi cab drivers subsidizing them?

And, as the author points out, one bailout is inevitably used to justify another. So, if I’m a student, I’m no longer going to factor in my ability to pay into my decision, I’m going to get the most costly, prestigious, education I can. After all, the taxpayers are footing the bill!

Lastly, it has been argued by the Rio Grande Foundation and others that current taxpayer subsidies for higher education have caused the price tag of a college education to skyrocket. Once the government starts forgiving college loans, there will be no pressure at all to keep tuition prices down.

The new tactic from some on the left is not to debate and discuss, but to label and shout-down. The Koch Brothers are one group that has been “defined” as evil by the left even though they gave the ACLU $20 million. Another group that has been targeted is ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. Here is ALEC’s statement on the smear campaign.

ALEC is merely one of literally thousands of organizations involved in the legislative process. Disagree with them if you want, but they have a right to promote a policy agenda. If you don’t agree with them, start your own policy organization to counter them. This shouldn’t even be an issue in a nation where free speech is protected by the First Amendment, but we live in strange times.

To say the least, we at the Rio Grande Foundation have had our differences with APS Superintendent Winston Brooks. However, I was heartened to see this story from KOB TV Channel 4 in which Brooks discusses the A-F school grading model that Gov. Martinez pushed through the Legislature and how it is pushing him to reform APS.

In the past, Brooks has seemingly denied that APS needs significant reforms. His recent statements, while not specific, would appear to be a major step in the right direction. If so, I’m encouraged that the A-F grading (the first part of the Florida-model to be implemented) is having a positive impact.

More is to be done, but it is good that Mr. Brooks is not professing to be “ecstatic” with “average” anymore.

We all know that monopolies are bad. But what about political monopolies? Is it bad for one party in government to have control for long periods of time? If so, New Mexico would be a good test case.

According to information from the NM Legislative Council Service going back to 1930 :

1. the last time the Republicans held a majority in the state house and senate at the same time was 1929 and 1930;

2. since 1930, the Republicans have held a majority in the state house on one occasion, 1953 and 1954;

3. since 1930, the Republicans have held a majority in the state senate in 1931, 1932, and 1986, and

4. the state senate was tied at 21 each in 1985, 1987 and 1988.

That is a pretty amazing run of dominance, but it may be coming to an end. Obviously, the New Mexico House is already very close and some think it could switch during the 2012 election cycle. The Senate is obviously in firm control of the Democratic Party, but high turnover rates in both houses have the potential to generate serious change. Also, as the Journal reported and I blogged about a few months back, the number of Democratic Party voter registrations in New Mexico is trending downward rather dramatically.

I was 11 years old the last time Republicans held even one of the two houses in the New Mexico Legislature. The Republicans held the House for the last time during Eisenhower’s first term.

Will the Republicans break through this year? I don’t know. Are they the answer to New Mexico’s policy woes? Maybe. Are political monopolies bad? Unequivocally, the answer is yes.

Note: RGF supporter Charles Sullivan provided much of the background research for this posting.

We all cross paths now and again with truly unique characters. In my 8+ in Washington, DC, most of which I worked for the National Taxpayers Union, I met senators, congressmen, and a cast of unique and ambitious people from all over the world. But, none of those people was quite as interesting as Sid Taylor who passed away recently at age 97. To get a glimpse of his character, read this excellent write up on Mr. Taylor’s work with NTU on limited government issue here.

It has been said that “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.” Nowhere does this statement hold truer than New Mexico which, according to most national measures, ranks highly on the things that it is bad to rank on (crime rates, tax burdens, poverty) and low on the things that we’d like to rank highly on (graduation rates, income levels). The good news is that New Mexico’s Legislature is only in session 30 or 60 days per year depending on the year (a 30 day session was completed this year).

There are many – of all races and political persuasions – who blame New Mexico’s unique cultural milieu for our problems. While well-intended, I believe that the preponderance of economic data and hundreds of years of experience has shown us that poverty and educational underperformance are self-inflicted problems, not the result of culture or a lack of natural resources, but of policies that either promote or hamper economic and social freedoms.

Unfortunately, while there have been and continue to be plenty of good, caring people in the Legislature over the years, the Legislature has adopted policies that have led us to where we are today. Why do I lay all of this at the feet of the Legislature? The single biggest indictment is that over the years they have enacted policies that restrict our economic freedom. This freedom allows individuals and entrepreneurs the freedom to generate wealth for themselves and those who use their products.

According to the Canada-base Fraser Institute (a Canadian free market think tank), New Mexico is ranked 49th of the 50 US states. It is no coincidence, then, that New Mexico is also among the poorest states in the country.

If you still believe that it is culture, not policy, that drives policy, I encourage you to check out this map of the Korean peninsula at night. While Communist North Korea is nearly dark, capitalist South Korea is bright. Clearly, economic activity is happening in the South. People are living lives in relative comfort while in the North a vast majority of people are literally “in the dark.”

Some would argue that all of this light and economic activity in South Korea is pollution. Certainly, it may be somewhat easier to see the stars at night in the North, but overall, the data have shown that the environment in wealthy, economically-developed areas is cleaner than it is in impoverished, under-developed areas.

The experience of North and South Korea is starker than most. But what it means for New Mexicans is that we cannot use culture as a crutch for our failures. We have to overcome them ourselves and, to the extent that anyone is holding us back, it is the elected officials that make the policy decisions that determine whether our economy and our educational systems are strong and competitive or whether they fall short.

Labor freedom means that one can choose for themselves who to work for and on what terms. Labor unions do not necessarily inhibit this, but workers should have the choice as to whether they want to join them, not be required to as a condition for employment. Also, mandated minimum wages should be kept low and should not be used to hinder volunteer work, internships, apprenticeships and efforts by young people to enter the work force.

In terms of taxation, the ideal tax burden is light, but focused on consumption and wealth, not economic activity. In other words, taxes on income should be low or non-existent with a vast majority of taxes collected on consumption and accumulated wealth or property. New Mexico no longer has an onerous personal income tax, but our corporate tax rate is high. Property taxes in most areas of the state are low. Our gross receipts tax is primarily on consumption, but has the negative impact of hindering business by taxing inputs and services.

The GRT has another negative feature in that it is not easily understood by the public and is thus violates another principle of sound taxation being transparency.

Lastly, it goes without saying that New Mexico’s education system is among the worst performing nationally. Despite consistently ranking 49th in the nation in graduation rates and performance on respected national tests, New Mexico’s Legislature has killed school choice proposals year after year and only grudgingly gone along with enhanced school and teacher accountability measures.

I blame the Legislature for a lot here in New Mexico, but ultimately, it is “we the people” who put these people into office. Without our support and acquiescence, they lose their power. If you want to make New Mexico a better, freer, and wealthier place, I encourage you to vote for the Legislature to change in 2012.

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 City of Las Vegas, NM has voted to ban the process of “fracking.” I’m not sure how much fracking could or would go on in the City, but it is big news and a big statement. Unfortunately, it is a statement of willful ignorance and dependency by one of the poorest communities in New Mexico.

For starters, fracking or hydraulic fracturing has been around since 1947. It isn’t new. What is new is that it has been used in new and innovative ways to squeeze oil and gas out of the ground. It is why President Obama can take credit for oil and gas production increasing even if he and his Administration opposes them.

Former Gov. Bill Richardson (who else?) decided to allow counties to regulate the oil and gas industry. This was, of course, a highly-political decision. But, with oil and gas generating $358 million annually for schools (not to mention all of the other tax revenues it generates), perhaps local governments that ban oil and gas from their communities should see a reduced allocation for their schools? After all, it is easy to generate opposition by scaring people about fracking if there are no costs (except potential new jobs in the community), but losing money for the schools would ensure that the NIMBY crowd understands that there are trade-offs.

It is conventional wisdom among many that Americans were extremely lucky that the Bush Administration did not succeed in its efforts to reform Social Security. As is so often the case with “conventional wisdom,” what you think is so is often not so. This is the case with Social Security reform.

As Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points out in a recently-released paper, regardless of the economic crisis of 2008 and the subsequent “Great Recession,” the returns associated with individual Social Security accounts (as laid out in a previous Cato plan) would be superior to those of the existing system. Of course, that doesn’t even note the very real issue of Social Security going bankrupt. If you don’t want to read the entire paper, check out the basics in this blog posting from Dan Mitchell, also of Cato.

I’ve previously volunteered to forego all of money I’ve put into the Social Security system in my career in exchange for the ability to hang on to the money the government will take in the future and invest that for my retirement.

Our former Gov. and still-candidate for the White House stopped by Comedy Central to talk to Stephen Colbert. Enjoy the video below:

A favorite theme on the left is that the Republican Party, the Tea Party, and conservatives in general are “far to the right” relative to their brethren of the past. See E.J. Dionne’s national perspective here and a local perspective here (March 15 post).

I’ve always had problems with the left-right paradigm as it doesn’t adequately differentiate between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Nor does it measure adherence to the US Constitution. This political quiz does a much better job.

Anyway, when it comes to fiscal issues (assuming that “right” means limited government), it seems hard to claim that many in Congress are on the “far right.” Back in 2000, the US federal government was indebted to the tune of $5.6 trillion and the federal budget was $1.8 trillion. Today, the federal debt is $13.5 trillion and the annual budget is $3.8 trillion (more than double what it was 10 years ago).

Aside from Ron Paul, I haven’t seen ANYONE in Congress of either party far enough to the “right” to propose immediately shrinking the sizes of the federal budget and the debt to anything like what it was at the end of the Clinton Administration. So, at least in fiscal terms, NO ONE in Washington (save Dr. Paul) is to the “right” of Bill Clinton who Dionne once called “progressive.”

Perhaps the “right” is more socially-conservative than it was in the past. I don’t know, but by any reasonable measure, the “right” today is not further right than it was in some halcyon (in Dionne’s view) past.

Twenty years ago Ross Perot claimed that the North America Free Trade Agreement would create a “giant sucking sound.” Unfortunately, there is a “giant sucking sound” these days and it is not coming from foreign nations, but from Washington, DC.

Joel Kotkin has an excellent blog posting detailing the statistical realities of this:

The DC area last year grew faster in population than any major region in the country, up a remarkable 2.7 percent;
Since 2007, notes Stephen Fuller at George Mason University, the D.C. region’s economy has expanded 14 percent compared to a mere 3 percent for the rest of the country;
Washington’s unemployment never scaled over 7 percent, well below the national average, and is now down to around 5.5 percent;
Over the past decade 50,000 bureaucratic jobs have been added in the area while local federal spending grew 166 percent;
Nine of the top 15 counties in terms of income are located in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs around the capital Yes, Los Alamos is one of these). These counties all enjoy median house incomes over $100,000, twice the national average.

Of course, a pro-government leftist, unfamiliar with economics, would likely say: “this is great, look at all the wealth Washington is creating!” When, in reality, Washington’s track record in destroying wealth is unparalleled in human history.

Of course, our own Los Alamos County has high incomes, also from massive federal spending, but I’d like to think that while Washington cuts back there, its overall size and scope can be reduced, thus helping our nation’s and state’s economies at the same time. A fella can dream, right?

Another liberal is on the pages of the Albuquerque Journal claiming that the new health care law known as “ObamaCare” (a term that has now been embraced by the Administration) will spur New Mexico’s economy on to new heights.

Our own Dr. Deane Waldman has previously outlined the myriad reasons why the new health care law is a bad idea, but the real issue is that this whole discussion highlights the fact that many on the left simply don’t understand how economies develop and grow.

Government spending of any kind is at best a “zero-sum game.” It represents the proverbial pie that is to be split up among various groups (redistributed). This can be done more or less efficiently (usually less), but there is no innovation inherent in government spending (when is the last time government created something like the IPod?). Innovation, the development of new products and efficiencies is what drives our economy and our living standards. It is derived from the human mind, builds on the ideas of previous innovators, and thus improves our living standards.

Government cannot do this. Therefore, leftist claims that we’ll develop our economy based on trillions of additional federal debt, wealth redistribution, and putting more people on welfare are simply hot air.

I found the article in today’s Albuquerque Journal regarding a federal report detailing disparities in various education measures between Hispanics and whites to be incredibly problematic and designed to misinform rather than inform.

For starters, the disparity in numbers of Hispanics in advanced classes and that are suspended has little to do with “discrimination” on the part of APS (here I am, defending APS). Rather, it is more likely that the Hispanic students APS is dealing with are less-prepared academically and prone to more discipline problems. I know it is not politically-correct to say so, but the truth hurts sometimes. That is not to say that APS and other school districts in New Mexico cannot do a better job of educating our kids, but to label this “discrimination” is simply unfounded and unwise.

Also of interest were the measured remarks of Ralph Arellanes of LULAC. Despite what amounts to accusations of “racism” at APS by the US Department of Education, he never attacks APS Superintendent Winston Brooks. Contrast that with the harsh rhetoric towards Secretary Skandera in a recent article on the “achievement gap.” Perhaps this is because Skandera is “rocking the boat” demanding tough reforms while Brooks is part of the establishment?

School reforms are needed. In New Mexico, with a majority-minority student population, making all our schools better will inherently help Hispanics and other minorities avoid some of the problems this study highlights. Levying charges of “discrimination” based on these data differences is not going to move the discussion in the right direction.

Nathan Ashby, author of the “Economic Freedom of North America” report spoke in Las Cruces recently. His full presentation is posted below:

Untitled from Paul Gessing on Vimeo.

While the Supreme Court wraps up its hearings on ObamaCare, the birth control debate rages on, especially on the letters pages of the Albuquerque Journal. I previously blogged about the issue here, but the controversial nature of the issue could be mitigated significantly if our health care system was not so poorly designed.

By accident, the US has a third party payment system that I have called the “original sin” of US health care. It resulted from wage and price controls during WW II and created a system under which patients are not in charge of purchasing their own health care and health insurance.

The fact that we don’t pay for our health care is the biggest single factor that has driven costs up over the last several decades. It has also led to the attitude that we should get things “for free” in health care (like birth control). However, I understand the frustration that proponents of birth control coverage have over the lack of control in choosing a health care plan that covers what they want. After all, the beneficiaries of “free” birth control are likely young people who hardly use other aspects of their health insurance plans…shouldn’t they get something?

Interestingly enough, the individual mandate in ObamaCare will only further pile the costs of health care on young, healthy people of both sexes. This will make the “benefit” of “free” birth control look trivial by comparison.

Check this article out from The Economist which discusses the relative debt-to-GDP ratios of various states in the US relative to what they would look like if they were independent states within the European Union (as Greece is).

As I wrote recently in the Albuquerque Business Journal, the transition from dependency to fiscal and economic independence will not be easy, but it is necessary and it can be a very good thing for our state’s economic health:

Winthrop Quigley recently discussed a study by New Mexico’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research which found, among other things, that our state could lose 20,000 jobs by 2014 due to the failure of the so-called “SuperCommittee” in Congress and the use of sequestration to “cut” spending.

While Quigley represented the study well, there are a few points that need to be made. First, the sequestration process contains no cuts. Rather, the process only slows the projected growth of the federal government slightly between now and 2021. If we as a nation are ever to get our fiscal house in order, far more dramatic cuts are essential.

The other point to be made is that BBER assumes that money not spent on federal projects in New Mexico will not be spent at all. For starters, policymakers could, responding to these cuts, make policy decisions that spur economic growth. Also, the folks working at Los Alamos and at other federal installations are among the brightest members of our society.

Surely, they could do equally-innovative work in the private sector, probably far more efficiently and targeted at the free market rather than government.

Yes, shifting New Mexico from a federally-dependent economic model to a market-dependent model will not be easy or pain-free, but short term pain will create long-term gain, especially if our legislators realize that federal reliance is no longer an option.