This article from the Las Cruces Sun-News should be enough to make any New Mexican see red. A worker shows up drunk to work, injures himself, and applies for workman’s comp AND GETS IT (at taxpayer expense). That’s bad enough.

Worse, legislation introduced this session that would end this practice was killed by the Democrats on the House Labor Committee with their Chair, Rep. Miguel Garcia arguing that holding employees responsible for coming to work sober each day would be “punitive to the worker.” So, apparently in New Mexico, showing up to work sober is too much to ask…and these people wonder why we’re the poorest state in the nation?

Thankfully, the bill to eliminate worker’s comp for drunks has been revived in the Senate. There is hope, but the fact that this bill was killed even once is a sign that the liberals in Santa Fe are not serious about turning our economy around.

The process known as “Fracking” has opened untold reserves of natural gas throughout the United States transforming economies and shifting the global balance of power. Natural gas is stealing market share from coal and reducing carbon emissions, but remains unpopular among the hard-line far left.

In New Mexico, Rep. Brian Egolf has introduced legislation demanding disclosure of the ingredients in fracking fluids. Oil and gas companies don’t like this because they consider their fluid ingredients to be “trade secrets.” In Colorado, the Democratic Gov. Hickenlooper is apparently drinking fracking fluid.

No matter what happens in terms of disclosure, fracking is here to stay and New Mexico could benefit more than most from the long-term boom in natural gas usage. Hickenlooper’s stunt is just more evidence of the safety of fracking.

With our own Legislature embroiled in debate over whether or not to increase New Mexico’s minimum wage from $7.50 an hour to $8.50 an hour plus adjusting it annually for inflation, it is interesting to see President Obama jump into the fray over the minimum wage. Obama said, “If you work full time, you shouldn’t be in poverty.” His proposal is to increase the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour.

That got me to thinking. What is a “poverty wage?” And, where would the minimum wage have to be to keep Obama’s word? It’s not too hard to figure it out with the federal poverty guidelines. The guidelines below are for 2013 and include New Mexico. I have added in what a full time job: 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, would pay at various levels.

Poverty Level for one person: $11,490

$7.50 an hour (New Mexico’s current wage): $15,600
$9.00 an hour (Obama’s proposed wage): $18,720
$10.29 an hour (Santa Fe’s wage starting March 2013): $21,403

Obviously, it is worth noting that one person can live above poverty on just the minimum wage, so this is yet another silly/ridiculous statement from our President. But, you might say, what about children? The following chart from Pennsylvania illustrates the real income of a single parent. We are working to get a similar chart for New Mexico, but as you can see, with all of the government programs available, things aren’t so bad. In fact, the biggest problem is that due to the generosity of government benefits at relatively low incomes, there are few incentives for single moms (or dads) with kids to get more education and improve their work skills. They actually lose income once they make about $30,000 and don’t start earning more real income until they are making $70,000!

I’ll be on KRWG TV (airs in Las Cruces and much of the southern part of New Mexico) on Feb 14 and Feb. 21 at 7pm (Thursdays), Feb. 16
and 23 at 5pm (Saturdays), and Feb. 17 and 24 at 11am (Sundays). I taped two segments, so the first segment will be on starting tomorrow and through the weekend, the second segment will air next week. Eventually, both will be posted here.

Always enjoy sitting down with Fred Martino and we cover a wide array of issues.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, the author argues that “privatization” is hurting New Mexico’s education system. His only actual argument is that “for-profit enterprise reserves some part of each dollar for product development, marketing, promotion, and profit, that private companies are skimming off taxpayer dollars that should go to our children.”

The author is essentially making the argument that monopolies are the most efficient economic model because there is no duplication of resources. After all, education systems already contract with for-profit textbook manufacturers, bus companies, and software providers for a variety of services. If anything, these businesses, operating in more or less competitive markets (especially for software) are far superior in quality and cost to anything that could be developed by governments. These companies produce superior products and services, not in spite of, but actually as a result of the competitive pursuit of profits.

A second undercurrent of the opposition to certain virtual charters and private sector involvement has arisen due to the fact that many of these private-sector providers are from (horrors) outside New Mexico. The view that “all good things come from New Mexico” is powerful among many who use it as a political bludgeon against anyone they oppose. And, while there may be some truth to the fact that our green chiles are the best, it is hard to argue that New Mexico-built automobiles (there are none that I’m aware of) are superior to those from other states.

It makes no economic sense to limit ourselves to providers from any geographic area, especially in the realm of education software. Most of the costs of any school are tied to teachers, not software, and the idea that we should rely on “home grown” products because taxpayer dollars are at stake is just silly and a recipe for disaster. Imagine only “New Mexico made” computers in our classrooms with New Mexico made chalk boards, desks, and textbooks. It’s just DUMB! It is far more important to obtain the best goods and services for our children’s education than it is where the given tool was created.

Several semi-related items in this posting regarding education issues:

1) Education reformer Michelle Rhee came up through the educational ranks considering herself a Democrat. I don’t know what she calls herself these days and it really doesn’t matter, but in this article, Rhee details her reasons for breaking with her party on the issue of education vouchers;

2) This article from the American Enterprise Institute found that Washington, DC’s voucher program produced $2.62 in benefits for every dollar it spent. Further, the program increased the high school graduation rate of students by 12 percent if they were lucky enough to win the annual scholarship lottery, which allowed students to choose from more than 60 private schools in the District participating in the program. More than 3,700 students won the scholarships and an estimated 421 extra students received their diplomas as a result of this program;

3) New Mexico’s educational struggles have been well-documented. We are consistently among the bottom five in a variety of education measures. The chilling thing about this is that even if our state moved into the middle tier in education results, we are still part of a nation that is trailing far behind its international peers.

4) A Constitutional Amendment (SJR2) has been introduced during the current legislative session by Sen. Tim Keller (one of the most thoughtful folks in Santa Fe regardless of party affiliation) to limit class sizes. This is unfortunate legislation has an estimated price tag of $610 million over three years. the evidence is inconclusive when it comes to academic outcomes and the preponderance of evidence is that it is not worth the high cost.

Even more importantly, this legislation flies right in the face of educational innovations, like blended learning, that allow for educational improvements and increased efficiency in terms of teacher/student ratios.

Check out our ad below. Interestingly enough, the front page of the Albuquerque Journal included a story about how University of New Mexico is being forced to come up with as much as $780,000 in additional funding to pay for the increase.

Over the weekend in an opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal, Lucky Varela, after a few platitudes about Sen. Bill Sharer’s plan to completely revamp New Mexico’s broken tax system, attempted to “strangle” SB 368/HB369 in the proverbial crib. The point of SB 368 is to return New Mexico’s tax system which is based on a gross receipts tax, to something that has low rates (nothing above 3%), fair policies (all-encompassing), and simple. No more breaks for special interests or one, politically-powerful group with the money to send lobbyists to Santa Fe to get their break.

Varela attacks the plan for being “regressive.” Let’s be clear, a “regressive” tax is not imposed on low income people at a higher rate. It simply means that it takes a greater percent of one’s income at lower income levels. Regressive doesn’t automatically mean “unfair” and New Mexico’s tax code is already regressive. Varela never addresses the issue of whether Sharer’s plan would be better or less-regressive than it is currently. After all, there are a lot of tax incentives and deductions currently in the code that are targeted at higher-income taxpayers as a means of spurring economic growth and overcoming our business-unfriendly tax code.

First, let’s address the quality issue. There is a simple principle in taxation that you tax more of what you want and tax less of what you don’t want. Sharer’s bill would end the taxation of personal income as a separate tax and would fold that into the GRT at the same rate as everything else. Reducing taxes on income would increase productive activity. Also, under current law, New Mexico’s GRT creates a system of double-taxation. Contractors (lawyers, accountants, and more) are taxed by the GRT at rates of 7% or more and then that income is taxed again at up to 4.9%.

Interestingly, New Mexico’s GRT in its current form is applied at relatively high rates. We have the 16th-highest combined state and local burden on sales/GRT and yet our state (as noted in the report) taxes a lot of goods and services that are left untaxed in other states. This is the worst of both worlds.

Lastly, by increasing reliance on gross receipts taxes charged at low rates, New Mexico would actually be increasing the stability of its revenue stream. Income taxes are a volatile form of taxation. When times are good, revenues rise dramatically. When times are bad, they go way down. A low, flat, and fair GRT charged at low rates will generate a relatively reasonable stream of revenues.

New Mexico’s economy is quite poor because we do nothing particularly well when it comes to economic policies. Our taxes on wealth/property are low, but our taxes on business formation and entreprenurial activity are high (income/GRT). We have a poor education system, a poor legal climate, and too many restrictive regulations. SB 368 would make New Mexico’s tax code far more attractive to economic activity and business formation while generating the revenue needed to carry out the functions of government.

Ultimately, the poor in New Mexico will benefit from a stronger economy, more job creation, and higher wages under Sharer’s plan. They certainly haven’t been well-served by our current mess of a tax code.

There are two potential issues: One is that, as New Mexico’s economy generates far more tax revenue under Sharer’s proposal, how do we restrict the temptation to grow government programs even faster? The second issue is how do we keep rates low and avoid special interests getting their own carve-outs put back into the law and thus increasing rates again (after all, NM’s GRT used to be far closer to what Sharer is proposing).

The Rio Grande Foundation recently completed a report in which it analyzed dozens of state regulations that are holding back our economy and need to be eliminated or reformed. The need for deregulation has never been more apparent with our economy losing jobs and seeing an outflow of workers (according to a recent report from United Van Lines).

Unlike many issues in Santa Fe, deregulation has not historically been a partisan issue. At the federal level, President Jimmy Carter deregulated trucking, freight rail and airlines to positive effect in the 1970s. President Reagan continued those efforts in ways that led to significant economic growth throughout the 1980s.

To further illustrate the point that deregulation can and should be bipartisan, we are pleased to see that Think New Mexico has embraced the concept of deregulation, at least insofar as motor carriers here in New Mexico are concerned.

Think New Mexico has been working to pass House Bill 194, legislation sponsored on a bipartisan basis by Republican Rep. Tom Taylor and Democratic Rep. Carl Trujillo. The bill attempts to overcome many of the most absurd barriers to free competition in transportation services. These barriers harm both New Mexico’s economy and reduce options for consumers.

Today, entrepreneurs seeking to open new taxi, shuttle, or moving companies must gain the approval of the incumbent providers. Imagine Wendy’s having to gain the approval of McDonald’s before opening up a restaurant. One Albuquerque man who dreams of owning his own taxi business has been working for eight years to overcome this barrier.

According to (a staff response in a case before) the New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commission, which is charged with actually regulating motor carriers, “The Albuquerque Cabs appear to operate as a cartel: they are the only certificated taxicab companies in Albuquerque, they share the market evenly, they charge identical rates, and they have the same attorney. As a cartel, their interests may be best served by maintaining rates above the market rate and by discouraging competition, not by ensuring that the public is served by quality, affordable, and plentiful taxicab service.”

Cartels are creatures of government policy, not the product of a healthy free market.

Another barrier is pricing. In a free market, price competition is a primary determiner of market success. Under New Mexico’s arcane motor carrier laws, the state/government must approve all prices charged by these companies. Making matters worse, motor carriers have a special exemption from state antitrust laws that encourages them to form state-sponsored cartels and price fix. HB 194 would change all that.

With an active push for regulatory reform under way, the existing motor transport oligopoly is not going to give up without a fight. They have worked to introduce their own more industry-friendly legislation, SB 328, which muddies the waters and continues to allow existing providers to smother their potential competitors under a blizzard of legal filings using the current antiquated law.

Rio Grande Foundation does not always see eye to eye with the folks at Think New Mexico, but when it comes to regulating motor carriers, we agree that policymakers should stick to safety regulations, not micromanaging a potentially-competitive market for the benefit of a few well-connected special interests.

The aforementioned PRC staff brief concluded, “There has been a great deal of economic analysis of taxicab regulation in the past thirty years, with most experts agreeing that the public is best served by increased competition and limited barriers to entry.” We agree. It is time for the New Mexico Legislature to do what is in the best interests of consumers and entrepreneurs alike by truly deregulating New Mexico’s motor carriers by supporting HB 194.

The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization.

Rarely do I see articles that make me say “I couldn’t say that better myself.” One of those rare occasions came this week when I saw Joe Montes’ article on the need for educational choice in New Mexico and how it can help move our children and our state out of poverty.

To be fair, Montes obviously “gets it” because he runs the state wide chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a group that supports free markets and individual liberty. Nonetheless, we hope that legislators in Santa Fe will take some action this session to bring greater educational options to New Mexico’s children.

It is great to see someone speak truth to the face of power and that is exactly what Dr. Benjamin Carson did in his recent speech at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast with President Obama sitting right next to him. In a respectful and polite way, he deconstructed so much of the Obama agenda. It is 26 minutes long but worth every minute. My favorite moment comes about 20 minutes in when the doctor explains that most of America’s health care problems could be solved by empowered patients using health savings accounts. Obama is looking at his watch by this point. Another great moment is his discussion of taxation and fairness.

(Albuquerque) The Rio Grande Foundation has launched a new legislative tracking tool called “Freedom Index,” which provides a daily review of legislation impacting economic freedom in the state.

For the first time, lawmakers will be able to get an independent, free market view of legislation pending before the Legislature. Moreover, voters can see whether their legislators are voting for free markets or for bigger government.

Users will be able to see:

• The relative voting performance of legislators according to the Freedom Index;
• The relative voting performance of each party according to the Freedom Index;
• The analysis criteria behind the legislation ranking will be made publicly-available for download;
• Links to legislation detail;
• Links to legislator Information, including contact information;
• And selections of legislation by relevant categories.

The Freedom Index is available here

Our analysis will be available before final votes on those bills that are analyzed and can be used by both legislators, legislative staff and interested voters to debate the merits of a bill.

In short, the Index provides an excellent analysis of bills that will come before committees or a vote on the floor as well as tracking a legislator’s Freedom Index score. The public will find our Freedom Index to be a tool to hold elected officials accountable for their vote and to gain a better understanding of the legislation being proposed by the House or Senate members.

Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing said of his organization’s new legislative tracking web site, “We are thrilled to add the freedom perspective to the legislative process in Santa Fe. For too long, the special interests have run wild with the voice of taxpayers and those who pay the bills too often pushed to the side.”

If I ran the Albuquerque Journal, the following graphic would be a front-page, above-the-fold story, not relegated to the inside of the business pages. Of course, New Mexico’s economic crisis seems to be unnoticed in Santa Fe where new “economic development” proposals amount to increasing the minimum wage and increasing film subsidies.

In case the path towards economic growth were not already clear, this article explains that government layoffs are good, not bad, for economic growth. Additionally, as this article explains, workers in Right to Work states have higher incomes relative to those in forced unionism states once cost of living is adjusted for.

The discussion continues on the Mayor’s “ABQ The Plan.” And, while it is always good to discuss and plan for the future, I don’t think the Town Hall Survey is fair or reasonable in its presentation of the issues.

Right out of the chute, the first question is: “Should we invest in the future? Y/N” Then it takes users through the various projects and asks users to rank them based on importance. After taking the survey, the software even offers the result showing that 98.6 percent of users think we “should invest in our future!” Duh!

Of course we should invest in our future. How about a more legitimate question like: “Should the City of Albuquerque spend taxpayer dollars to build XYZ project or should we return that money to you, the taxpayer?” At least that question provides a reasonable choice between two options. All too often, government officials and politicians seem to believe that money only becomes “real” once it has been taxed and collected by the government. The reality is that, if left in the pockets of taxpayers, that money that might be used for a bike trail, improvements to the convention center, or to build a pedestrian mall on 4th street, might instead be used to help start a small business, pay for a child’s education, or for a down payment on a new home…all of which are investments in the future made by private citizens, not the government.

So, Mayor Berry, I urge you to be realistic and consider the tradeoffs that might be made. There may be a great deal of support for these initiatives, but please realize that WE ALL invest in the future, not just government.

If you haven’t already heard, recent media reports have found that 70% of New Mexico births are funded by Medicaid. Some, including former New Mexico Senator Dede Feldman don’t seem to think this is a problem.

Needless to say, there are indeed many issues with this high level of welfare dependency in New Mexico. My commentary for KUNM 89.9FM can be heard on the radio starting today and at this link.

So, it looks like the big “economic development” introduced by the majority party in Santa Fe is an increase in the minimum wage. “You can have both. You can have social justice and a strong economy,” said Rep. Brian Egolf D-Santa Fe.

Of course you can have justice or fairness and a strong economy. Free market capitalism is the fairest system available and it has done more than any other force to bring billions of people out of poverty. Not surprisingly, New Mexico, which is the least economically free state in the nation. Interestingly, New Mexico also has the most rampant income inequality among the 50 states according to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Of course it is Egolf and his buddies who have controlled New Mexico for generations, running its economy into the ground. I’m sure a minimum wage hike is just the economic boost we need!

Oh, and lest you fall for the line that raising the minimum wage has anything to do with “social justice,” check out this exchange between then Sen. John F. Kennedy and others:

In a 1957 Senate hearing, minimum-wage advocate Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who just four years later would be President of the United States, stated,

Of course, having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too – the wages of the white worker who has to compete. And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage – and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work – it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn’t it?

“The witness he was addressing, Mr. Clarence Mitchell, then director of the Washington Bureau of the NAACP replied,

I certainly think that is why the Southern picture is as it is today on the wage matters, that there is a constant threat that if the white people don’t accept the low wages that are being paid to them, some Negroes will come in [to] work for a lower wage. Of course, you feel it then up in Connecticut and Massachusetts, because various enterprising people decide to take their plants out of your states and take them down to the areas of cheap labor.

“Kennedy’s colleague Jacob Javits, then a U.S. Senator from New York, was similarly blunt. He said,

I point out to Senators from industrial states like my own that a minimum wage increase would also give industry in our states some measure of protection, as we have too long suffered from the unfair competition based on substandard wages and other labor conditions in effect in certain areas of the country – primarily in the South.

If anything, the minimum wage is just another left-wing plot to support their union allies by keeping the poor and minorities out of the work force.

(Albuquerque) In an effort to improve government transparency throughout New Mexico, the Rio Grande Foundation has requested and published payroll data for the 35 largest cities throughout New Mexico and all 33 counties in the state.

Some cities including Albuquerque and Rio Rancho post payroll information online. Bernalillo County also posts salary data on its website. However, few city website has a comprehensive listing of payroll data from New Mexico cities and counties. Find city data here and county data here. 

Said Rio Grande Foundation President Paul Gessing of his organization’s role in releasing the data, “Taxpayers are the ultimate ‘bosses’ of government workers and should have access to this data. Government is the only ‘business’ in which the boss often doesn’t have access to the company payroll.”

Under New Mexico law, employee salary data is already public information, available on request from the county or city government. Now, thanks to legislation passed during the 2011 legislative session, this and other data must be made available in a format preferred by the requestor.  

Unfortunately, being required to comply with a request and actual compliance are not the same thing. All counties complied with our requests, but several cities including Bernalillo, Las Vegas, and Roswell failed to comply.

Responding to the most likely critique of having this information online, Gessing said, “Having salary information online is not a privacy threat. The Rio Grande Foundation has had similar information posted for cities, counties, and institutions of higher education online for years and we have not heard any specific complaints.”

“We at the Rio Grande Foundation believe strongly that transparency and openness are keys to achieving a more limited, fiscally-responsible government. Information on who is hired to do what and how much they are being paid is information that must be available and accessible to the public” said Gessing.

The adoption of a Right to Work law late in 2012 (which Rio Grande Foundation supports¹) was widely reported and remarked upon. Less well known is the state’s ongoing effort to enact regulatory reform.²

From the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA): Governor Rick Snyder has announced that the Office of Regulatory Reinvention (ORR) has achieved the milestone of reducing the number of administrative rules in the state by 1,000. The ORR and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently rescinded the Solid Waste Alternative Program rules that led to reaching of this milestone. This rule set was eliminated at the recommendation of the DEQ and the Advisory Rules Committee (ARC) that reviewed environmental regulations. These rules were obsolete because they covered a grant program that is closed.

"We have made great strides in streamlining Michigan’s regulations, while ensuring health, safety and consumer protections remain," said Gov. Rick Snyder. "We are eliminating nearly 10 rules for every one rule added. The result is that Michigan’s regulatory environment has become more favorable for business growth and job creation, and more user friendly for all of our customers."

Gov. Rick Snyder created the Office of Regulatory Reinvention in April 2011 with the goal of creating a regulatory climate that is simple, fair, efficient, transparent and supportive of business growth and job creation. At the beginning of the ORR’s review, Michigan had 19,230 administrative rules. Today, Michigan has 18,214 administrative rules.

New Mexico should embark upon the same process by closely examining and getting rid of unnecessary and conflicting rules and regulations.

I spoke to Who Said You Said New Mexico on the importance of school choice immediately following the School Choice Week celebration in Albuquerque on Saturday, January 26th in Albuquerque. This is of course prior to Secretary Skandera’s approving the charter of New Mexico Connections Academy of which I am one member of the founding board (the school is NOT a project of the Rio Grande Foundation).

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7, verse 5.

Those who know me know that I don’t quote bible verses in this space very often, but I couldn’t help but think about it when I saw this story from the Washington Post and this shrill response from the New Mexico Democratic Party.

The Post blogger relying on a story from the left wing “In the Public Interest” attempts to paint a picture of Gov. Martinez and Sec. Designate Skandera “carrying water” for some big corporate players in education reform. The Democrats, of course, jumped all over this, but seem to have forgotten their own reliance on teachers unions for cash and political support.

In other words, when you have government officials exerting control over education policy, it is inevitable that you’ll have interest groups attempting to get a piece of the action. The point that needs to be made and the question that needs to be asked is: Unions and their friends in the Democratic Party have controlled education policy in New Mexico for decades and our performance is at the very bottom. If another group wants to try something new, isn’t it time we gave them a chance?

Sure, I’d like a genuine free market where we got government out of the business of owning and managing schools themselves returned education decisions to parents and their kids. That isn’t on the table right now. Is it really a shock that private businesses who think they can do better than the unions and their friends are putting up the funding to get a foot in the door?

This regulation was brought to our attention by
one of the readers of our regulatory E-mails.

Government should almost never intervene between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Unfortunately, under New Mexico law 57-1-18, it is unlawful for stores to place a limit on retail purchases. In other words, if a retailer is selling 2 liters of Coke for 10 cents apiece, that retailer must sell you as many 2 liters as you wish to purchase. This can obviously hinder retailers’ "loss-leader" strategy of offering a few items for a below-market cost in order to get people into their stores to buy other items.

This sounds innocuous enough when it comes to 2 liters of Coke, but what about more potentially-nefarious goods like ammunition? As a store owner, if a customer wants to buy my entire stock of shotgun shells or .22 caliber ammunition, I am legally prohibited from placing limits on the number they may buy.

Clearly, this is an unnecessary and problematic regulation that hinders business owners from running their businesses as they please.

The Legislature should repeal this section of law.

One added note. Check this story out about Wal Mart. The company has set limits on ammo sales. This law is currently null and void here in New Mexico.

Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing, a founding board member of the New Mexico Connections Academy virtual charter school and president of the Rio Grande Foundation, an organization dedicated to increased educational options for New Mexico students, expressed support for the decision saying:

Secretary-designate Skandera has taken an important step on behalf of New Mexico’s children by approving this charter school, the state’s 2nd virtual charter school. As both a founding board member of the New Mexico Connections Academy and a professional supporter of educational options, this is yet another step towards reforming education in New Mexico in a way that will improve student outcomes.

With Washington raising taxes and being completely irresponsible in terms of spending and regulations and gridlock looking to be the order of the day for New Mexico’s Legislature, the potential for economic growth here in the Land of Enchantment appears to be slim. One potential bright spot involves Liquified Natural Gas exports (LNG).

There is a looming battle over this issue and it is time for New Mexicans to get educated on the issue. To that end, the American Petroleum Institute, a pro-LNG export organization is sponsoring a tele-town hall on the issue.
What:    Liquified Natural Gas Exports

Who:     Erik Milito, American Petroleum Institute

RSVP today for the liquefied natural gas exports telephone town hall and we’ll call you a few moments before the call starts. You can’t afford to miss it!

As a starting point in the educational process, check out this powerpoint presentation.

7 in 10 live births in New Mexico are on Medicaid. Astonishing, troubling…arguably, the most painful statistic of all for New Mexicans wondering whether their state truly is in a “death spiral.”

Medicaid is a federal/state program designed in part to assist poor and relatively poor people. When it comes to births though, the fact is that it is only the young who have kids. No amount of wealthy retirees from more economically-free states can gloss over or bring up New Mexico’s 7 of 10 number. That is the scary thing. We talk about the next generation…this is the next generation of New Mexicans and they’re being born on welfare.

Check this out from John Goodman an analyst who deals with health care policy on a national basis as he decries the fact that nationally, four out of ten Americans are born on Medicaid. They’ve got nothing on us!

Gov. Martinez has agreed to increase the number of New Mexicans on Medicaid by accepting the ObamaCare bribe of more money. What will be the dependency ratio in New Mexico once that expansion is complete?

Is this situation devoid of hope? No. Economic freedom and free markets have proven track records of reducing poverty. Government programs like Medicaid only increase dependence and exacerbate the cycle of poverty. New Mexico needs political leaders to enact policies that increase economic freedom. Will New Mexicans demand prosperity or satisfy themselves with poverty?