Too often, the debate in Washington centers on what certain political “leaders” are willing to do. Given the fact that our economy needs more in terms of a boost than either party seems capable of considering, the folks at Reason have asked several libertarian/free market leaders to give their thoughts on how they’d turn the economy around.

Ideas include everything from repeal of ObamaCare to repeal of Sarbanes/Oxley and eliminating the minimum wage for people younger than 25.

These are just some of the possibilities that will likely never get a hearing in Washington, but should be on the table if our government is serious about unleashing economic growth.

As the special session made clear, many of the Democratic leaders of the Legislature are not serious about tackling education reform. With New Mexico children consistently coming in 49th in the nation in a variety of education measures, one would think that there would be a groundswell of change.

Interestingly enough, as I point out in this new opinion piece, there ARE bi-partisan efforts being made to make needed reforms, but with the current “leadership” in Santa Fe, it would seem that that at least SOME are perfectly happy failing generations of New Mexico children.

Today, in the Albuquerque Journal’s Business Outlook section, I had an article discussing the changing economic and political climate and how the various changes facing the nation and New Mexico may impact the state.

The article can be found here.

I suppose I have been remiss in posting SOMETHING about the “Occupy Wall Street” crowds. Aside from agreeing with them that bank bailouts are/were bad, the crowds seem largely made up of socialists. Well, here is a great music video from ReasonTV that more or less sums up the situation:

Certainly, the last decade or so has not been the best in our nation’s history and our heavily-regulated, bailout-friendly version of capitalism is not perfect, but a little perspective is certainly in order.

We know several important things about President Obama now that he has been in office for nearly three years. Two important details are that he doesn’t care much for medical freedom and that he has no use for the concept of federalism.

So, it was only a matter of time before the Administration decided to crack down hard on medical marijuana. Of course, the political left is shocked that Obama would be as harsh or even more harsh than Bush was, but Obama hates freedom and that’s really all there is to say.

The thing that really kills me is the politics of this. Medical marijuana is an 80-20 issue with 80% of Americans supporting it. It boggles the mind that any politician facing a tough battle for re-election would give away an issue like that. I guess Obama is “The One.”

It is amazing to me what passes for “economic analysis” on the left. Take the recent column by Moises Venegas. Among other claims he makes in his piece is that “for the past 40 years, wages for the working population have been stagnant.” According to Merriam-Webster, “stagnant” simply means not advancing.

Well, even according to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, this is not true. Median incomes have increased since the 1970s as seen in the chart below:

Of course, this is only one aspect of the wrongness of his entire argument.

For starters, just because someone was poor back in the 1970s doesn’t mean they are still poor today. Since 1970, hundreds of thousands of people have immigrated to the US in search of a better life. While some immigrants have done very well for themselves, is it unreasonable to expect that they bring the median income number down somewhat?

Also, of course, there are the things that can be purchased with that money. As the Heritage Foundation points out, the number of Americans with air conditioning have increased from 36% to 83.9%, the percentage of households owning a computer is now 68%. Our society didn’t collapse when no one had a computer or air conditioning. Is Venegas saying that jealousy over inequality in distribution of these and other consumer items will?

Lastly, aside from the old saw “tax the rich,” Venegas makes no mention of how we can reduce inequality. Personally, I think that in a globalized world, there will be both more wealth and higher living standards for all, and greater inequality among Americans. There is not much that can be done (nor should there be) except to reform our education system so that more Americans can compete in the global, information economy.

The fiscally-conservative group Americans For Prosperity is currently touring the country to demand that Congress “Cut Spending Now.” The organization’s bus will be rolling into Albuquerque next Monday. Yours truly will be on the speaking docket.

Details on the Albuquerque tour stop are as follows:

9:00 – 10:00am
Monday, October 10th
Albuquerque Marriott
2101 Louisiana Ave NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have long argued on behalf of reduced federal spending which has grown out of control in recent years.

Come out to support fiscal restraint!

With all of the education data out there, mostly focused on the state level, it can be a bit of a challenge to make comparisons between the results achieved by students in your own school district and those of the nation as a whole and students in other developed nations worldwide.

Problem solved. Thanks to Josh McGee and Jay Greene who put together a Global Report Card for the George W. Bush Institute, this information is now available at your fingertips. Residents of Albuquerque can see how students at APS stack up against students elsewhere in New Mexico, elsewhere in the nation, and around the world. Residents of Farmington and Las Cruces can do the same thing.

According to the report, in 2007, APS students outperformed 15% of students in developed countries in math and 36% of students in reading.

How about the “smarty-pants” sons and daughters of wealthy scientists and engineers up in Los Alamos? Interestingly enough, they outperform just 34% of international students and 61% of them in reading. That performance looks even worse when compared against that of students in Canada. Los Alamos students outperform only 26% of Canadians in reading and 51% in math.

Again, check out the interactive website here.

Albuquerque voters have had their say on a variety of issues and ballot measures. And, while voters don’t always get the best information and make decisions out of ignorance, I can’t find too much to argue with in terms of the results.

Getting rid of the red light cameras as 53% of voters supported seems like the right move. Hopefully, City Council will heed the intent of the voters’ and get rid of the cameras. In terms of traffic safety, it would seem that voters prefer to have real, live, police officers enforce safety and violations rather than cameras. Kudos to Councilor Dan Lewis for his leadership on this issue.

In terms of “ABQ The Plan,” voters said “no” in a resounding 62-42% vote. I believe this was largely because the “Sportsplex” idea was not well-thought out and voters did not like being asked to “buy” the Sportsplex and the Paseo Interchange at the same time.

I firmly believe that the Paseo/I-25 interchange would have won in a landslide if it were on the ballot by itself and hope that the Mayor and City Council will set aside resources for that project rather than allocating money for higher salaries for public employees.

In terms of the other bond measures, they all won overwhelmingly. I’d like to see some of these fail every once in a while just to show that voters won’t blindly support them, but that’s a mere quibble.

In a relatively small and poor state like New Mexico, there are all too few organizations out there working on public policy ideas and reforms. One group with which we have worked in the past is called Think New Mexico.

I’d describe them as a “moderate” or “centrist” think tank while the Rio Grande Foundation is avowedly free market, but their recent proposal on New Mexico’s broken Public Regulation Commission (PRC) is excellent and would result in some much-needed reforms. Read a brief summary on the reform proposals from their website and a more detailed story on the report from Capitol Report New Mexico.

According to Think New Mexico, the proposal would improve the PRC by making the following changes to it:

-Creating a separate Department of Insurance;
-Transferring the State Fire Marshal to the Department of Homeland Security & Emergency Management;
-Consolidating corporate reporting in the Office of the Secretary of State
-Eliminating duplicative regulation of railroads by the PRC and DOT;
-Moving ambulance regulation to the Department of Health Deregulating market entry and rates of motor carriers and ending duplicative regulation of motor carrier safety and insurance by the PRC and DPS;

Second, we recommend increasing the qualifications of PRC commissioners by requiring candidates to have either a four-year college degree or five years of relevant professional experience.

(Albuquerque) For the third time, the Rio Grande Foundation (other papers were published in 2007 and 2009) has produced a report comparing the gross receipts and property tax burdens of New Mexico’s top 10 cities in population. And, while minor shifts abound within the report, the City of Rio Rancho has seen the most dramatic increase in tax burden and the most dramatic increase relative to other New Mexico cities.

The City of Vision was in the middle of the pack with the 5^th-heaviest tax burden as a percent of income back in 2009. Due to increases in both property and gross receipts tax rates in Rio Rancho, the City’s tax burden jumped from 9.19 percent of median personal income, to 10.74 percent. This gave Rio Rancho the dubious distinction of having the heaviest tax burden among major cities in New Mexico according to the new report.

The 2011 tax burden study is available here.

For the sake of comparison, the 2009 tax burden study is available here.

According to the new report, Farmington and Albuquerque saw the biggest improvements in their relative tax burdens. Farmington improved from 3^rd-heaviest to 5^th-heaviest overall burden as a percent of personal income while Albuquerque went from heaviest burden in the state to 3^rd-heaviest, largely due to property tax rate reductions in recent years.

Said Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing of the new report, “While actual tax burdens will vary based on actual expenditures, property tax assessments, and the length of home ownership (due to New Mexico’s statewide 3 percent cap), this report provides useful information on the evolution of various tax policies in cities statewide.”

“Particularly useful,” according to Gessing, is the “historical record of various tax rates that can be found since this is the third edition of the “Tax Friendliness” report.

What a great opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal by Thom Wright of Castle Builders. He explained in specific detail how different regulations within the Albuquerque Code either make no sense or simply raise costs without doing anything to make the Code more environmentally-friendly.

Codes like this are tough for free market advocates who don’t have expertise in the field. Philosophically, we can say that unwise and extreme regulations don’t make sense economically and are unfair because prospective property owners don’t demand them (so instead we have governments imposing them), but it is more difficult to show specific examples of ways in which micro-managing aspects of the Albuquerque “green” code demands the impossible (energy star cooking appliances) or requires the addition of light fixtures for no reason.

Thank you Mr. Wright. Hopefully City Council sees the light as well.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have long stood on opposite sides from the unions on the issue of education reform. For the first time, the head of the local Albuquerque Federation of Teachers has agreed to discuss the issues at a public forum. The event will be held on Wednesday, October 12 at the Jewish Community Center on Wyoming. More details are available here.

New Mexico has a reputation as a low property tax state:

But, according to the Tax Foundation, at least between the years of 2009-2010, that burden grew more rapidly in New Mexico than all but a few other states.

One year doesn’t make a trend and New Mexico is not currently in danger of losing its low property tax status, but if the trend continues, it could become a larger issue. However, if property taxes rose (they are a tax on wealth) and the personal income tax (a tax on productivity) were eliminated, might that be good for New Mexico’s economy?

I had a chance to attend last night’s meeting on the proposed West Side Wal Mart. A large and boisterous crowed turned out, largely in opposition to the project. Interestingly-enough, about half the opposition, including the most vocal opponents, came from the Bosque School which is located between the Rio Grande and the proposed Wal Mart.

I won’t go through all of the arguments presented against the store, but the evening boiled down to a bunch of people who have the financial resources to pay more than $18,000 annually to send their kids to school (in addition to what they pay to APS, but that’s a different story) who oppose the location of a store that primarily serves middle and lower class Albuquerqueans (including your humble non-profit President).

The facts are simple: the land is zoned commercial, so some kind of development was inevitable. This means traffic and all of the visual/environmental issues were bound to arise. Somehow I don’t think a Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s would generate the same opposition.

Also, while opponents note correctly that Wal Mart has three stores on the West Side, is it really up to them to decide how many stores are “enough?” If Wal Mart thinks it can turn a profit and their customers show up, then apparently there are NOT enough stores.

So, if the Bosque School simply can’t tolerate being next door to a Wal Mart, why don’t they do what the Academy has done over the years and buy all the surrounding land so that nothing is located next door? That would be one pro-freedom way to address this issue, but it seems like the leadership of Bosque would rather use their wealth and connections to manipulate the political process in their favor.

Recently, large numbers of Republicans in Congress have been criticizing the Obama Administration for its role in the Solyndra scandal. If you’ve been hiding under a rock, Solyndra was the Obama Administration’s prime example of its “green job agenda.” It received more than $500 million in federal loans and recently collapsed, going out of business.

It was a bad idea from the first place. Crony capitalism in which the government picks winners and losers is always a bad idea. The problem, as Dana Milbank of the Washington Post points out (at least for Republicans) is that many of them were four-square behind the loan program (which George W. Bush signed into law), before they were against it. While it is great that Republicans are now criticizing the “investment,” it doesn’t give me much confidence that they’ll take such a principled stand if they take Congress and/or the Presidency in 2012.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: the US federal government needs to stop picking winners and losers. See New Mexico’s experience with Eclipse Aviation as a cautionary tale.

President Obama and his “tax the rich” acolytes on the left would have us believe that the federal government will raise significant revenues if only Congress would raise taxes on the “rich.” Unfortunately for them, real-world economics doesn’t actually work that way. In fact, federal revenues over the span of decades have been approximately 19 percent of GDP.

At the state level, the tendency for the “rich” to avoid higher taxes has been even more dramatic. See California as an example where the top income tax rate is 10.3% and where tax revenues have plummeted in recent years.

See, the problem is (as Jonathan Williams of ALEC pointed out) that the way to grow revenues is to create new taxpayers, not gouge the ones you have. Rather than raising taxes and thus pushing people out of the labor market (either voluntarily or through job loss), Obama should be lowering marginal rates and reducing job-killing regulations to encourage economic growth that will in turn, generate more tax revenue.

The hard left in New Mexico rallied to kill the elimination of social promotion in the special session. They also don’t much like our state’s new A-F grading system. They seem hell-bent on preserving our state’s 49th out of 50 status in education results (perhaps they can coach the Lobos football team).

Anyway, I found it interesting that the Obama Administration made statements in support of education reforms that the Martinez Administration has been pushing (and against what the hard left is doing).

Here are the relevant statements as taken from an Albuquerque Journal article that ran over the weekend:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan on 3rd grade social promotion, said “If your students keep being allowed to leave third grade and fourth grade without being able to read, you’re not doing them any favors.”

As the Journal noted, Duncan was particularly critical of New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system, citing the fact that 99.9 percent of teachers are considered satisfactory under the current system.

“That’s a broken system,” Duncan said.

He went on to say that such a nonspecific view of teacher effectiveness is not helpful for teachers of any ability level. He said the efforts of excellent teachers are not currently recognized, while average or ineffective teachers are not getting the support they need to improve.

“If the system isn’t working for any of the adults, the teachers, I promise it’s not working for your kids,” Duncan said.

The article further noted that Duncan outlined specific criteria states must meet, including holding students to high standards, creating accountability systems for schools and evaluating teachers based “significantly” on student growth.

The Education Secretary could not be more clear in stating that New Mexico’s hard left is becoming increasingly isolated in opposing needed reforms. While we at the Rio Grande Foundation certainly don’t agree with Obama’s Administration on much, perhaps they can talk sense to the hard left here in the Land of Enchantment.

I was downtown on Friday for the Hispanic Leadership Network conference at the Hyatt when I saw perhaps the most unusual protest I’ve ever seen. As I’ve discussed in the past, there is an out-of-town carpenters’ union that has been protestingnumerous Albuquerque businesses. This protest of Amtrak appeared to be coming from the same source.

For the uninitiated, Amtrak is America’s federally-owned passenger rail system. It received $1.565 billion in taxpayer subsidies last year. What reason would a carpenters’ union have to protest the railroad? Honestly, I have no idea. And asking the paid, minimum wage protesters won’t get you any answers either, we’ve tried.

So, I say, shame on Amtrak for taking $1 billion+ in annual subsidies, but I don’t think that was the point of the debate.

I got the call about 7pm last night from the folks at the Hispanic Leadership Network: Paul, we need you to be on a panel about education reform tomorrow morning. Rep. Espinoza is going to be stuck in Santa Fe finishing up the legislative session.

So, I put together a few thoughts on the sorry state of education in New Mexico and added a conclusion that emphasizes the vast potential of virtual education to transform education for the better in New Mexico and nationwide.

Unfortunately, not all the education news today was good. As this opinion piece from today’s Albuquerque Journal points out, “the usual suspects have again killed any progress that will benefit this state in regard to the improvement of our schools.” In this case, the issue is 3rd grade social promotion which appears to be dead in the Special. As the opinion piece continues, “When 80 percent of your fourth-grade students cannot read at a proficient level, your school system is in crisis – yet no one in the traditional education camp is ringing any alarm bells.”

Ironically, Sec. Skandera had to send a replacement to the Conference today as well. She is in Washington meeting with President Obama who, while not where I’d want him to be on education reform, has a more reform-minded outlook than the “usual suspects” here in New Mexico.

Early voting is now going on here in Albuquerque for City Council, red light cameras, and a slew of bond measures. Find out where to vote here. Find more information on the election here (including sample ballots).

My old Councilor, Michael Cadigan, had a very interesting opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal in which he made a persuasive case against Tax Bond 12 which would allocate $25 million to a sportsplex and $25 million to the Paseo/I-25 interchange. I agree with Cadigan that Paseo and I-25 should be the number one priority for any current and future infrastructure spending and think it is a bad idea to place the Interchange and the sportsplex on the same question. I also found the history of the various sportsplexes to be interesting and concerning.

While I appreciate Mayor Berry’s attempts to create amenities for the City, we have long stressed that government should focus on the basics. It does not appear that a sportsplex would rise to the level of something that taxpayers should be forced to pay for (all taxation is force).

And, how about those other bond measures? Sure, they are all “mom and apple pie” things like community centers and libraries, but just know that each of them authorize the government to take on additional debt that is ultimately paid for by you, the taxpayer. Each bond that fails means more money in your pockets. 

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, a self-identified “Democratic investigative reporter” attacks Gov. Martinez’s education reforms based on a study for which the authors demand $28.80 to even read.  He claims that the Gov.’s agenda is a “one-size fits all, cookie cutter agenda.”

Perhaps Mr. Corwin should have investigated this and this a little more closely. The point is that elimination of social promotion MUST be part of a comprehensive education reform strategy. In Florida (click on the second “this”), that included: A-F grading of schools, eliminating social promotion, dramatic expansion of school choice, expanded virtual schools, resources for early learning, and alternative teacher certification.

Florida’s reforms, particularly those involving school choice and virtual schooling (which can be carried out in tandem or totally outside of the classroom, with a variety of software tailored to student needs and learning styles), are completely opposite of the “one-size-fits-all” mentality that Corwin accuses it of being.

If I had my druthers, the Legislature would pass these reforms all at once, but it didn’t happen in Florida and it won’t happen here, largely due to opposition from supporters of the abysmal status quo.

As this report from the US Department of Education concludes: “the vision of school improvement held by teachers, administrators, and political leaders must be comprehensive. Ending social promotion cannot be the only objective.”

We agree, keeping children in a poorly-performing, monopoly school district for an extra year is not a “game-changer.” Education reform must be comprehensive and designed with both choice and accountability in mind.

President Obama has been busy defending his latest tax hike plans. Notable among his statements on the issue is the pronouncement that “We can’t just cut our way out of this hole.” He uses this statement to justify tax increases, but it is factually inaccurate.

For starters, there have been no cuts made under President Obama, so the hypothesis that we can’t cut our way out of this hole has not been tested. With federal spending having more than doubled since Clinton left office, it would seem that federal spending could shrink back to approximately 2000 levels (adjusted for inflation and population growth) and life would be pretty decent. Honestly, I don’t think the Republicans or Democrats have the guts to make the cuts to do that, but it COULD be done.

The fact is, however, as the following chart shows, the federal government has a serious spending problem. Raising taxes is not the answer. Congressional candidate Eric Griego rightly stated, in response to Obama’s plan that “We can’t keep squeezing the middle class to balance our budget,” but what Griego won’t admit is that it is not spending cuts that are squeezing the middle class, it is out of control growth of the federal government that is harming the middle class.

My old friends at the National Taxpayers Union have proven that left and right CAN agree to cut large amounts of wasteful and unnecessary federal spending. The conservative taxpayers group and the liberal Nader-spinoff PIRG have co-authored this report called “Common Ground” which outlines more than $1 trillion in real spending cuts.

According to the two organizations, the study identifies 54 specific cuts in federal spending, including:

• $214.9 billion in savings from eliminating wasteful subsidies to agribusiness and other corporations.
• $428.8 billion in savings from ending low-priority or unnecessary military programs
• $232.3 billion in savings from improvements to program execution and government operations.
• $132.1 in savings from reforms to major entitlement programs

Kudos to NTU and PIRG for showing that there is plenty of wasteful and unnecessary spending being done by the federal government and that large amounts of that spending can and should be eliminated if left and right will only sit down and work together.