The political terms “conservative,” “liberal,” and “progressive” are among the most confused words in current political discourse. However, it is clear that when it comes to education in New Mexico, Gov. Martinez and supporters of reforms like A-F school grading and a ban on social promotion (of both parties) are among the “progressives” in the State. By that, I mean the best possible definition of “progressive” which is: making progress toward better conditions; employing oradvocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods.

Those who want to kill these reforms, ie: some in the Legislature, the school districts who are demanding more money to simply do their jobs, and the teachers unions, are the “conservatives.” They are perfectly happy with the status quo in which New Mexico is perpetually among the bottom 5 — if not the bottom two — in educational outputs.

Of course, there are “progressive” reformers from all corners including the Albuquerque Journal which had an excellent editorial calling for an end to social promotion, the New Mexico Business Roundtable, which had an excellent opinion piece on the same topic, and many other organizations and individuals. But, until concerned parents either rally in the streets or vote out those who oppose reforms (or both), supporters of the status quo who are perfectly comfortable with failing half of New Mexico’s children will continue to hold our education system hostage and deny the blessings of a good education to large numbers of New Mexico children.

The debate over what to do about unemployment is (at least theoretically) on the agenda during the special session. Unfortunately, no matter what happens, there are major problems with the system in our state.

For starters, according to Capitol Report New Mexico (reporting on a report from the Department of Labor), the state overspent by $104.7 million, the third highest amount in the nation. In Oregon, a system called JOBS Plus provides incentives for work rather than continued unemployment. According to the Cascade Policy Institute, the sister think tank of the Rio Grande Foundation, this program “uses money that would otherwise pay a person not working to instead subsidize a new private sector job. The presence of these jobs eliminates the disincentive to job
search, because one has to accept such a job or lose benefits.”

Might New Mexico learn from this example to reform its own, failing unemployment system?

Jonathan Williams of the American Legislative Exchange Council discusses the findings of Rich States, Poor States at a presentation in Albuquerque.

9-14-11 Jonathan Williams presentation by gessing

Jonathan’s powerpoint presentation is available here. He wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the Albuquerque Journal as well. Lastly, our capitol reporter, Rob Nikolewski, interviewed Jonathan and did a write-up of the event here.

I love engaging in the battle of ideas. That’s why I got into the think tank/public policy business in the first place. Unfortunately, the ideological opponents of the Rio Grande Foundation don’t always bother with pesky things like facts and data. I understand, after all, when the facts and data aren’t on your side, it makes sense to just spew anger and ad hominem.

Case in point, this hilarious letter to the editor from today’s Albuquerque Journal:

THE QUESTION IS, why does the Journal give repeated ink to Paul Gessing, “Put Rail Runner Out of Its Misery Sooner, Not Later,” for his attack on all things that serve the public good? You could just as easily print a short letter from him with a byline: Here he goes again trying to fit his square peg of ideology into a round hole, because Gessing always comes to the same Libertarian conclusion whether it be education, roads, water, etc. Things that serve the public are run bad, too expensive, corrupt or out of control. His math and examples of financing and utility are always so distorted as to not make any sense except to his cult followers. …

In fact, the Rail Runner should be expanded quickly from El Paso to Denver and eventually from Mexico City to Canada. We could cut out some of the expensive war bases in New Mexico and fund it easily, but you won’t hear that from the Journal or from its favorite son, Paul Gessing.
BEN ACO
Albuquerque

Notice the absence of any specific reasoning or argument. Lots of jealousy and anger, though. Of course, the writer further displays his ignorance by ignoring the Rio Grande Foundation’s advocacy of spending on the Paseo/I-25 interchange, but that would involve actual research and facts.

Rather than wondering why the Journal runs the Rio Grande Foundation’s research and writing, I’m wondering why people who bring no facts or data to the table expect New Mexico’s most widely-read newspaper to publish their work.

Surprise, surprise! The only major lobbying push — one way or another — on the upcoming red light camera vote, is coming from the main special interest group that benefits financially from those very cameras. A full report is available from KOBTV below:

Recently, even the big-government epicenter of Los Angeles got rid of its red light cameras. It seems like the trend is in opposition to the cameras because they are simply not effective. I can see the “pro” arguments, but I find the self-serving arguments made by Redflex hard to stomach.

Kate Nash of the New Mexican had an article recently that quoted me on the Gov.’s efforts to pare back on Richardson’s bonanza of press officers. While I applaud the restoration of sanity to the Executive Branch in Santa Fe, it would have been hard for Martinez to outdo Richardson in terms of unnecessarily padding his offices or political patronage. Of course, Martinez is not where Johnson was in terms of reduced budgeting, but that may not be reasonable or realistic.

So, without knowing the specific workloads of the Gov.’s PIOs, we can summarize the situation by saying that Martinez is more fiscally-responsible than Richardson….but you knew that already.

According to a new, interactive report, New Mexico’s laws and policies favor big labor in a big way. Notably, no western state is as favorable to big labor (and unfavorable to taxpayers) as the Land of Enchantment. Even “Rust Belt” and traditionally-unionized states like Michigan and Ohio perform better on the index than does New Mexico.

See the map and read the full report here.

The rankings are based on the labor vs. taxpayer friendliness of each state in the following areas:

Collective Bargaining
Paycheck protection laws
Secret ballot protections and card check
Binding Arbitration
Open meetings laws
Government union density
Public employee pension underfunding
Project labor agreements
Strike policy for government employees

Rep. Tim Lewis makes a number of good points in arguing, as he did in today’s Albuquerque Journal, that the Legislature’s top infrastructure spending priority should be the Paseo/I-25 interchange.

Without having an encyclopedic understanding of all infrastructure needs in the state, I would be willing to put that project up against any other in terms of traffic volumes and need. What I’d like to see Lewis add is that New Mexico could save up to 15% on the project’s cost if we suspended Davis-Bacon rules for it. After all, with limited funds available for this large project, every dollar counts.

I recently sat down with Channel 13, KRQE, to discuss whether the practice of “comping” state legislators with passes to all of New Mexico’s state parks was a wise move or whether stopping the practices — as Gov. Martinez did — was a wise move. Interestingly enough, as seen on pages 10 and 11 of our 2011 Piglet Book, the parks are losing $5.8 million annually.

No more free park passes for officials: krqe.com

I am sick of the left lying about the supposed “subsidies” being offered to the oil and gas industry. See the screed by F. Mary Lee Ortega in today’s Albuquerque Journal. The author calls these tax breaks — which are available to other businesses — a subsidy — which is factually inaccurate under the definition of a subsidy: a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. Notice the active verb “paid to.” This is very different from not collecting taxes from a business or industry which is nothing more than a tax break or tax expenditure.

She also states that “We are paying the oil companies twice – once at the pump with high gas prices and then again on tax day.” Again, “we” are not “paying.” There is no transfer of money here and New Mexico families are not “under financial attack.”

We can/should have a debate about energy and tax policies — including fundamental tax reform and whether “green energy” should be subsidized — but no progress will be made until honest language is used. Ortega is either lying or attempting to create a smokescreen to cloak her real goals which is to simply attack an industry she doesn’t like. Regardless of her goals, it is important to understand that “subsidy” involves a direct payment.

There are some important issues on the docket for the ongoing special session. Aside from redistricting itself, the Gov. is pushing for an end to “social promotion” for 3rd graders, something the RGF strongly supports.

Additionally, there are several jobs and economic development issues on the agenda. Various business groups are promoting these initiatives. I have placed a brief explanation of the RGF’s position below the point:

Capital Outlay – Severance tax bonds allow the State to complete capital projects and improve infrastructure statewide.  Authorizing these projects now will keep more New Mexicans working.  If the capital bill passes in September, projects would receive funding around December.  If these projects are not considered until the 2012 session, monies would not become available until May, causing a six-month lag in work.

RGF’s take – Tentative support. The key here is not job creation. After all, we could send construction workers out with shovels to dig and fill in holes if our only goal is “job creation.” We must focus these efforts on building needed infrastructure for the state (the Paseo and I-25 interchange would be a great place to focus resources, but the state may not have the money to start that project at this point)

5% New Mexico business advantage when bidding on contracts with state and local governments – The current statute needs to tighten up residency requirements to ensure that only New Mexico businesses are receiving this advantage.  In the past, other entities—which are not true New Mexico businesses—have qualified and received this credit.

RGF’s take – Generally opposed. While it is understandable that New Mexico’s government contractors would want to have similar preferences as those enacted by surrounding states, policymakers are ultimately sticking taxpayers with the bill. New Mexico policymakers should attempt to move the needle in the opposite direction by encouraging open and fair cross-border competition.

High-Wage Tax Credit – By clarifying that the State’s high-wage job tax credit is to be calculated on the wages and benefits earned by the employee, businesses will continue to receive a predictable credit for hiring New Mexicans in “high-wage” jobs.

RGF’s take – Undecided. Generally, we favor moving away from specific tax credits and carve-outs. We’d like to see a dramatic shift towards less taxation of income and economic growth. This may not be on the table for some time, but we remain concerned about the effectiveness of such credits.

Unemployment Trust Fund – This bill addresses the solvency of the Unemployment Trust Fund without adding over $120 million in taxes on small businesses.  It keeps the current employer contribution rate stable for at least one more year, so the Governor, lawmakers and industry experts can determine the best approach to achieving a predictable and fair contribution schedule in the future.

RGF’s take – Supportive. The entire unemployment system needs to be revamped, but if policymakers can restore solvency without raising taxes, this is a good step.

(Albuquerque) The Rio Grande Foundation is again tracking all the legislation introduced in the 2011 legislative session through its recently launched NewMexicoVotes.org Web site. RGF launched the site with the opening of the 2008 special session in order to provide a more transparent window for New Mexicans to follow what happens in state government. The site www.newmexicovotes.org is free and open to the public and will be updated with votes from the 2011 special session.

With plain English bill information, the site also reveals the missed votes of every legislator; links that show everyone who has donated to each legislator and the amount of each donation; and a whole host of features that those who want to track what happens in Santa Fe will find useful. It even features House floor votes, which are not available online at the state legislative Web site.

Users of the site will be able to interact with each other, commenting on legislation as it moves during the session.

Paul Gessing, President of the Rio Grande Foundation, said of the new public service, “With more alleged corruption in New Mexico making national headlines, the need for more transparency in state government is becoming ever increasingly important. ‘Votes’ is part of our organization’s efforts to bring more transparency and accountability to New Mexico state government.

We want everyone to be able to find out, with a few clicks of a mouse, what his or her legislator is doing, to be able to sign on and read plain English descriptions of what each bill does in a way that the average person can understand, and know immediately what our tax money is being spent on, or whether the bill increases or decreases taxation, regulation, or government transparency.”

Gessing noted that among the most important features of the site is its “missed votes” report which allows users to determine how often their elected official is missing votes in Santa Fe. This report is available here: http://newmexicovotes.org/MissedVotes.aspx Said Gessing, “There are potentially-legitimate reasons for legislators to miss large numbers of votes (such, but not limited to, the family illness that caused Sen. Kernan to miss 180 votes in 2011), but it is something voters should be aware of and follow up with their legislators on.”

The Albuquerque Journal’s Washington correspondent Michael Coleman recently had an excellent article on the various trade bills now being held up by the Obama Administration. The Administration is now sitting on trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama because of something called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).

Basically, TAA is a payoff ($1.3 billion in 2011) from the rest of us taxpayers, to those workers who have supposedly been impacted negatively by free trade. Disregard the fact that free trade benefits everyone, as Adam Smith pointed out many years ago:

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.. . . If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

With Obama holding up job-creating trade agreements, it is no surprise that Democratic Sens. Udall and Bingaman as well as Lujan and Heinrich all want their payoff for going along with the agreement. Sadly, even Rep. Pearce (at least as quoted in the article) isn’t completely opposed to TAA.

These trade agreements would be a shot in the arm to the US economy. The fact that Obama is sitting on them is the amusing but obvious result of big-labor’s influence. Republicans and Pearce need to strongly support these agreements while opposing the wasteful spending inherent in TAA

From listening to the concerns of New Mexico legislators who are dedicated to preserving our state’s 49th ranking in K-12 education, one might think that Gov. Martinez’s plan to end social promotion was part of a harsh right-wing agenda to keep kids trapped in 3rd grade. Nothing could be further from the truth and it is not just conservative Republicans (and the Rio Grande Foundation) that support ending social promotion (the term is used to describe the promotion of students from grade to grade regardless of material mastery).

How about that noted right-winger, former President Clinton? In the introduction to this report, he said “I have fought for excellence, competition, and accountability in our nation’s public schools, with more parental involvement, greater choice, better teaching, and an end to social promotion.”

And then there is the American Federation of Teachers which said in a union-published report, Passing on Failure: District Promotion Policies and Practices:

The practice of social promotion contributes to the very problems that can make it seem necessary. Promotion, in the absence of satisfactory academic performance, perpetuates academic failure by teaching students that effort and achievement are not important and that objective standards can not and will not be enforced. It forces classroom teachers to deal with an impossibly wide range of student knowledge, background, and readiness. And it denies students both the classroom and remedial resources that could help them reverse the pattern of academic failure.

Eliminating social promotion would seem like a “no-brainer,” but lack of brains is one reason why we have performed so poorly as a state for so long. Failing our kids is unacceptable. The special legislation provides a great opportunity for the Legislature to move our state a step closer to educational success.

Discussed these topics with the guys at “Framers of the Future” on AM 1550 this weekend. Click here to listen. My interview starts in the second segment (about 10 minutes in).

A few weeks ago we started posting payroll data for New Mexico’s largest cities. We have received data from the largest New Mexico cities minus the troubled community of Sunland Park. Go to the web page and click on the city you are interested in finding salary data for.

It is good to have your arguments verified by reality. The latest of these is the argument that so-called “green” jobs created by government incentives are basically a costly myth. Check out previous postings here and here.

The recent confirmation that “green” jobs are a myth comes from none other than the New York Times. Veronique de Rugy expounds upon and explains the issues uncovered by the Times story over at National Review Online.

De Rugy nicely summarizes the issues with government job-creation efforts, saying:

This story shows once again that the government can’t pick winners and losers and successfully create green jobs — or any other kind of jobs. Government can’t create sustainable jobs, and when they do, or even when they try and fail, it is at the expense of taxpayers, who are left footing the bill. Unfortunately, administration after administration refuses to learn the lesson.

Of course, we in New Mexico knew this already. But when it comes to the Environmental Improvement Board’s carbon cap, we still need to get the green jobs myth taken care of.

We always hear about the horrors of fossil fuels (the Four Corners power plant being one prominent local example). Unfortunately, these same so-called environmentalists refuse to acknowledge the many ways in which coal, oil, and natural gas improve our lives every day.

My friend Marita Noon expounds upon this and explains how fossil fuels are more important than ever — saving large numbers of lives — in natural disasters like the recent hurricane that hit the East Coast. We fully appreciate the importance of reliable electricity when power is knocked out for several days and mobility is never more important than when we are fleeing destruction.

Ironically, considering his negative views on fossil fuels, President Obama’s recent bus tour greedily sucked up enough fossil fuels for thousands of Americans.

I’ll be on Bob Clark’s show on 770 KKOB on Friday morning from 9am to 10am to discuss the Rail Runner and our recent paper which outlines reasons to shut the train down.

There are surely going to be at least a few critics and one of their critiques will likely be the old saw that “no transit system makes money,” so why should we worry that fare box revenues cover only 13% of the system’s costs. Well, I found this interesting data online which shows the various revenue/expense ratios associated with various transit systems nationwide and worldwide. Surprisingly enough, some systems overseas do better than break even and no system is as costly as the Rail Runner.

Call in and share your thoughts about the Richardson Railroad!

It is amazing how consistent the Obama Administration has been in opposing free markets and increasing the size and scope of government. The latest move in this direction is its effort to stop the proposed merger of T-Mobile and AT&T.

Businesses are constantly searching for ways to provide their customers with more and better services (generally at a lower cost) in a competitive economy. And cell phone service providers are a competitive area of the economy as this list of the dozens of cell phone service providers nationwide illustrates.

I’m not even sure what the politics of this decision might be. The Communications Workers of America (supporters of Obama) supports the merger and argues it will create 5,000 jobs. We’ll have to see how this plays out, but there is no doubt that Obama is not changing his stripes (as did Clinton) to achieve electoral victory in 2012.

Given the recent fire season, I think it is totally appropriate to allow localities to ban fireworks within their borders. Legislation along these lines is going to be considered in the upcoming special legislative session.

Of course, we also know that our schools are failing, so it is hard to find fault with the Gov’s recent decision to place a ban on 3rd grade social promotion on the “call” for the upcoming session. This wouldn’t have been necessary if Majority Leader Michael Sanchez had allowed the bill to go to the floor during the 2011 regular session, but that is another story.

The success of our kids in the classroom is at least as important as a fireworks ban, right?

Advocates of the Rail Runner and other government-run rail systems like Amtrak love to argue that taxpayers should pay for their preferred mode of transportation because transit doesn’t make money and because it wouldn’t exist without subsidies. Well, in the case of the Santa Fe Rail depot, the Rail Runner’s bullying tactics could cost 25 people who work for a functioning, private-sector railroad, their jobs.

Sure, the Santa Fe Southern is using (maybe owns) the tracks and station and was there first, but who is a mere private company to stand in the way of the mighty State? I sincerely hope that Gov. Martinez acts to rein in the culprits before another business goes under due to government overreach.

Make this the 11th reason to shut down the Rail Runner.

If the answer is to increase inflation, you’re probably asking the wrong question. That is my opinion and it is also the opinion of syndicated economist Robert Samuelson. One of the curious points here, however, is that I believe that we are already having inflation because inflation simply means an increase in the money supply.

Samuelson implies in his article that he means the actual increase of prices that usually results from inflation. Of course, with our current weak economy, the prices of many goods is not increasing, thus leading some to believe that inflation is not happening.

The “fact” that prices are not increasing according to the government data has led some to argue that inflation would be a good thing. True, rising prices would be a sign that the economy is growing, but it would be a result of growth. Inflating the money supply has certainly not led to economic growth.

In other words, while I quibble with Samuelson about definitions, he is basically correct. Inflation is not going to help the economy.

I’ve been out of the action this week at the annual State Policy Network meeting. Think tank leaders from all 50 states are here and we’re talking policy ideas and exchanging successes and failures. Lots of people from DC are still reeling from the earthquake and now see a hurricane bearing down on their homes.

Thankfully, we in New Mexico are relatively free from natural disasters. And, despite Paul Krugaman’s view that what America needs is an alien attack, the fact is that the Broken Window fallacy still holds. Natural disasters (or unnatural ones for that matter) are bad. Read more on the topic and the recent dust-up on the issue over at Reason.