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.

Tomorrow (Wednesday the 28th) evening in Las Cruces, the Rio Grande Foundation is hosting a discussion of economic freedom issues in New Mexico. Specifically, the author of this outstanding international report will be presenting his thoughts on what economic freedom means, what causes New Mexico to score so poorly in the report, and how we can do better.

The author, Nathan Ashby, is an economist at UTEP and he wrote a column that appeared today at NMPolitics.net.

When I saw Winston Brooks’ recent column in the Albuquerque Journal on education reform, I knew right away that he was using weasel-words and was not telling the truth about the role of APS in the last legislative session as it relates to education reform. I noticed for example, that Brooks did not offer any specific reforms that they support. Rather, he and his highly-paid lobbyists (paid for by the taxpayers) in Santa Fe merely supported watered-down versions of real reforms.

He also, again, touted APS’s “average” results among some of the largest and poorest school districts in the nation.

Thankfully, a separate article written by Michael DeWitte And Larry Langley of the New Mexico Business Roundtable set the record straight. They explain how APS worked to kill or weaken each reform proposed by the Gov., but it is worth noting that APS has worked to block the way for a host of other reforms including school choice tax credits (sponsored by Democrats) and charter schools (to name just a few).

I discussed this topic in a letter that appeared this week in the Alibi:

I feel compelled to respond to the letter to the editor outlining the myriad, alleged justifications for population control and using government power to reduce populations. They are all based on the faulty assumption that we are running out of (insert natural resource here).

The reality is far different and was largely settled back in 1980 when free market economist Julian Simon made a wager with Paul Ehrlich who continues to make a living spreading fear about “overpopulation” and other supposed crises.

The two men bet on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. Simon had Ehrlich choose five commodity metals. Copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten were chosen and Simon bet that their prices would decrease, while Ehrlich bet they would increase. Ehrlich ultimately lost the bet, and all five commodities that were selected as the basis for the wager continued to trend downward during the wager period.

Prices of these and other commodities fluctuate in the short-term, but over the long-term, humans use the one unlimited resource that exists (human ingenuity) to find and put new resources to use for human benefit. The centuries-long trend is for more people to live more comfortably where their governments allow them to do so.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation love to be attacked by our opponents. It shows that we are making a difference in the policy debates and are threatening the status quo. The latest such attack can be found below. It is an ad that is supposedly running on several morning cable news shows.

The ad attacks the Rio Grande Foundation, Gov. Martinez, and a variety of education reformers in New Mexico and levies the accusation that each of these groups is attempting to “privatize” education because we support charter schools.

The ad doesn’t talk about what’s best for students but focuses on politics. Choices and meeting individual learning needs are good things for students. Does it matter where student success comes from? It should be about the kids – not politics.

Now, we DO support charter schools, but charter schools are public schools open to all children, they’re NOT private.

Rather than attacking those who are attempting to reform New Mexico’s schools, why not be honest and up front about a few facts:

Today, over 14,000 New Mexico students attend one of 82 charter schools across the state. Obviously, many parents feel that their children are not being served in traditional public schools;

This search for options is the result of New Mexico’s education system having struggled for decades.

According to the “Diplomas Count 2011” report from the Education Research Center, New Mexico’s real graduation rate is 57.1 percent. That is 49th in the nation.

On the 2009 reading version of the National Assessment of Education Progress, New Mexico 4th graders beat the reading scores of only one other state.

Clearly, charter schools are a popular option for many parents and students. We at the Rio Grande Foundation are trying to expand the number of options available while increasing accountability within traditional schools. Unfortunately, some special interests don’t like accountability and choice.

As the Supreme Court gets set to determine the immediate future of US health care, the Rio Grande Foundation is again making the case that the new health care law is not what we need to make health care better and more cost-efficient. Our own adjunct fellow, Dr. Deane Waldman had an excellent opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal which explains some of the flaws in the plan that is being touted as a solution for rising costs and lower quality of care.

Parts of the piece respond directly to Sen. Dede Feldman’s defense of the law which appeared in the paper here.

The fact is that donations are great, but nothing is more effective in allocating limited resources than the free market. Too often, we don’t see the power of the free market, but this great video from our friends at the free market Show Me Institute (our sister think tank in Missouri) shows how, when the chips are down after a horrible tornado, the free market makes sure that limited resources are used effectively for the betterment of the human condition.

(Albuquerque) Deane Waldman, MD, MBA, a practicing pediatric cardiologist, adjunct fellow with the Rio Grande Foundation, and author of a book and dozens of articles on health care and health care reform, offers a stinging indictment of the so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” also known as ObamaCare, in a new issue brief released today by the Rio Grande Foundation.

See the full paper here.

While focusing considerable attention on the flaws inherent in the new health care law, Waldman explains how several past “reforms” to health care – including HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and UMRA (Unfunded Mandate Reconciliation Act) were ineffective remedies for what ailed the health care system in the past.

Waldman further details the glaring flaws in PPACA which follow in the footsteps of those past, ill-fated reforms including: exchanges, the individual mandate, and IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board).

Lastly, Waldman outlines a path for real health care reform and some of the thought processes and policies needed to transform our current, corporatist system, into a patient-driven, market-based model.

Unlike many other health care “experts,” Waldman has decades of first-hand experience inside the system and a deep understanding of the multi-billion-dollar business that is US health care.

More information on Waldman’s book, “Uproot Health Care” is available here.

The latest dust-up around Albuquerque is over whether the City Council should be able to approve financing for the Paseo del Norte project or whether the issue should be held off and put before the voters in November. Mayor Berry says that Council needs to act now so costs don’t go up and the project is not unnecessarily delayed.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation tend to be big supporters of direct democracy and giving the public a say on major financial decisions, especially when it comes to tax hikes. This project, however, does not require a tax hike. Of course, one could have said the same thing about the Rail Runner, at least initially. Needless to say, I think the Paseo/I-25 project is far more valuable. Ultimately, there is some level of trust we must place in our political leaders.

Oh, and on the issue of giving voters the final say on major infrastructure projects, Benton and O’Malley were on the other side of this issue back when the streetcar was the topic of discussion. As reported in the Albuquerque Journal, they supported pushing the streetcar forward, at least initially without voter approval. Only after a grassroots effort showed that significant opposition existed to the streetcar did Benton, O’Malley, and Mayor Marty back off, not only a public vote, but the project in its entirety.

I tend to think that Paseo and I-25 is just the kind of basic public works project that government should undertake. If there were a serious outcry on the part of the citizenry, I might endorse a public vote, but there is none and Benton, O’Malley, and Garduño are just gumming up the works.

Our true mission here at the Rio Grande Foundation is the pursuit of economic freedom. A secondary, but equally-enjoyable mission is to drive left-wing liberals crazy. Check out this screed by ardent leftist (he told me once that FDR was “too conservative” for opposing public sector collective bargaining) Arthur Alpert.

Another leftist attacked me for having the audacity to be on the board of a startup charter school.

I’ll address these two in order. It almost seems that if lefties simply throw the names Koch, ALEC, and Cato, at you like a slur or an incantation, it should be enough to simply discredit one’s views. In his article he cites the role government played in laying the groundwork for innovations like the Internet, but fails to appreciate that it was the private sector that turned a defense industry initiative into a user-friendly, multi-billion (or trillion) dollar industry. If government was so great, why isn’t Communist Cuba an economic powerhouse?

Regarding Mr. Corso’s rant, he attacks charter schools, but doesn’t explain why, in New Mexico and across the country, parents of all socio-economic backgrounds continue to choose to send their children to charters. Charters are by no means “free market,” but they do represent a mild form of choice in an otherwise monopolistic, socialistic education universe.

Rather than leaving decisions up to the educrats like Corso who always seem know what is best for others’ children, I trust parents. If they don’t choose charters, then they will go away.

The Albuquerque Tea Party is hosting a rally this Friday against the health care law known as “ObamaCare.” In case you haven’t heard, the US Supreme Court will be holding hearings on the issue starting early next week.

Because health care freedom is so integral to Americans’ personal and financial freedoms, RGF president Paul Gessing will be rallying with the Tea Party. Look for him at the rally and ask him for a tee shirt!

Click here for details on the rally.

The Rio Grande Foundation’s raison d’etre is the study and promotion of economic freedom. The author of what we consider to be the definitive report on the topic is coming to New Mexico for a presentation in Las Cruces on March 28.

For more information on the event, check this out and share with your friends.

I read this article (just catching up with my Journal reading) with amusement and frustration. Some so-called “Hispanic leaders” are upset at Education Secretary Hanna Skandera over the achievement gap between Hispanics and whites and for other perceived slights.

I don’t know about the personal interaction Skandera has had with these people, but I can say unequivocally that it is not Hanna Skandera that is causing poor performance among Hispanics.

First and foremost, you have to look at the parents and students themselves. They must be the first point of emphasis in any discussion of educational performance.

Of course, it is easy to blame the parents. We can’t do much to change them, but we can change policies and reform the schools themselves. And, who is it that makes education policy in this State? Hint, it is not Skandera, it’s the Legislature which happens to be controlled by Hispanics. These very same people (like Ben Lujan who I ripped here) have been doing everything possible to stop Skandera’s (and Gov. Martinez’s) reforms.

Here’s my proposal to critics of the Martinez Administration’s education reforms: adopt them. If they fail, then by all means criticize. But, if you don’t like the way New Mexico’s education system is performing, meet with your legislators, complain about them in the media when they vote incorrectly (or fail to bring reform legislation to a vote). Hispanics are not some powerless minority in this state. They run the state and have done so for years. If Hispanic kids aren’t learning in school, they have no one to blame but themselves.

The Rio Grande Foundation focuses primarily on state and local issues with the exception of those big issues at the federal level that could have dramatic, negative impacts on New Mexicans. One under-reported provision of the Dodd-Frank financial services reforms will negatively impact small business loans. It was brought to my attention by a local, independent banker here in Albuquerque.

I wrote a piece that was published today in the Daily Caller. Check it out here.

The Rio Grande Foundation recently released payroll data for several New Mexico school districts here. Our transparency efforts have made waves previously in the Farmington area due to efforts by the Mayor and certain members of the City Council to increase transparency. Our recent efforts were no different.

Read an opinion piece I wrote in the Tri-City Tribune. Also, the Daily-Times covered the story. Along with Gwyneth Doland, the new Executive Director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, I was pleased to accept a proclamation on Sunshine Week from the Bernalillo County Commission last night.

Check this story out about the New York Assembly’s recent decision not to enact needed pension reforms proposed by liberal Gov. Cuomo.

According to the article:

The Assembly refused Cuomo’s suggestion to raise the retirement age from 62 to 65 even though the governor stressed that his plan would save hundreds of billions of dollars in costs toward a pension plan expected to consume 35 percent of the government’s budget by 2015. In 2001, it was 3 percent.

Here in New Mexico, some Democrats in the Legislature oppose even far more modest reforms than those being considered in New York. Of course, both states could learn a thing or two from Rhode Island where that state’s Democratically-controlled Legislature enacted needed reforms.

Mathematics is not a partisan issue!

HT: Rob Nikolewski

One of my favorite economics quotes is from the Frenchman Frederic Basiat who says, “There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

Nowhere is that more true than in a recent report that, according to reporting from Winthrop Quigley of the Journal, federal “cuts” could cost New Mexico 20,000 jobs by 2014. Leave aside the fact that sequestration will not actually “cut” anything in the federal budget (as seen in the chart below).

The fact is that reducing the growth of federal spending (or even cutting it) will free up resources for more productive uses. That is the “unseen” aspect of economics. Sure, anyone can see news reports of layoffs at the Labs and automatically assume that New Mexico’s economy is in deep trouble, but those resources (including human resources) will then be freed up for more economically-valuable uses in the private sector.

Now, it is true that New Mexico — especially if it remains so economically-unfree — may lose out to other states. That is the kernel of truth in the BBER report. But, who is to say that Gov. Martinez will not succeed in pushing a pro-growth economic agenda through the Legislature that makes New Mexico a more attractive place for business and leads our state to free market economic prosperity?

Why not mandate the government pay for cough drops? This short video asks the question in hilarious fashion:

This article raises additional questions about the need for the federal government to purchase birth control.