I was asked to help shed some light on issues relating to the Sunport’s observation deck which was a controversial Mayor Marty project in the 1990s and is currently closed for repairs. Check out the article here and the video here.
As Rob Nikolewski of Capitol Report New Mexico pointed out recently, Medicaid is going to gobble up an ever-greater share of the State budget absent reforms. Of course, the left-wingers over at Voices for Children never met a budget cut they could get behind, so they have opposed efforts to rein in Medicaid spending at every turn.
We, at the Rio Grande Foundation, on the other hand, have repeatedly pointed policymakers to various ideas that could slow the growth in Medicaid without harming care quality. Long term care insurance is particularly ripe for reform. Ironically, it is relatively wealthy seniors who use planning techniques to stick taxpayers with the bill for long term care.
The following chart from our friends at the Washington Policy Center illustrates who receives Medicaid and where the costs are:
Medicaid Recipients by Category and their Per-Person Costs for FY 2005
Category % of Total Recipients Cost per Recipient/Year
Children 51% $1,667
Adults 24% $2,475
Aged 9% $13,675
Disabled 16% $13,846
Certainly, it would be nice to have an Administration in Washington that was serious about making Medicaid a sustainable program, but this one is too busy expanding the program and both parties have been ignoring the problem for years.
Maybe the economy IS turning around. In addition to the opportunity to lead the new Americans for Prosperity chapter in New Mexico, the transparency group Foundation for Open Government (FOG) now has a job opening for an executive director as well. The Rio Grande Foundation has frequently worked with FOG to pry government documents out of the bureaucracy and into the sunlight.
For more information on the job with FOG, go here.
The Rio Grande Foundation has been working to promote and illustrate the benefits of “virtual education.” But what does the term mean? Any time a school uses a computer could be viewed as “virtual education,” but to us it is far more revolutionary than simply placing a computer in the classroom. The power for virtual education is that it can change the way an education is delivered in terms of empowering students and allowing the classroom to be “flipped.” That means that the traditional teaching is largely done outside of class while the tutoring is done in the classroom.
One important virtual education model is called “blended learning.” The following short video explains how virtual learning can work in different classroom settings:
The Fundamentals of Blended Learning from Education Elements on Vimeo.
With all the talk of the 99% and income disparities in the United States, one might think that there would be some empirical evidence that less inequality would automatically be a good thing. The reality is that greater inequality may actually be a good thing for the so-called 99% (or at least the bottom 50%).
Check out this chart. The data are income data from the Tax Foundation (which took its data from the IRS). And, from the looks of things, income inequality in 2009 was about where it was back in 2001. During the intervening time period — an economic boom of strong income growth and low unemployment, by the way — inequality between the top 1% and the bottom 50% rose dramatically.
Why is this? The fact is that when the economy booms, the wealthy are in a better position to make more money. As the saying goes, “it takes money to make money.” When the wealthy buy boats, more middle and working class people are hired to build those boats, sell them, and maintain them etc. When the economic crisis hit, all Americans took a hit, but the very wealthy actually took a harder hit than the rest of us.
In the Journal of Nov. 28, economist Robert Samuelson claims that health care costs are “out of control.” Quite the opposite: They are totally in control – by the government.
That is a problem.
Health care refers to goods and services delivered by hospitals and providers to be consumed by patients. Costs to providers and institutions are driven more by government regulation and bureaucracy than by labor costs or MRI machines. Meanwhile, payments to providers and institutions – what Samuelson calls “costs” – are controlled by government.
Note that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) cut “Medicare costs” by 21 percent, they cut Medicare payments to providers. Therefore, they cut services to patients. As Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation testified before Congress, “you cannot get more of something by paying less for it.”
Meanwhile, the spending on – the costs of – the federal health care bureaucracy went up by six whole new agencies, hundreds (thousands?) of bureaucrats added to the payrolls, and multithousands of new rules and regulations.
So the government controls and increases spending to/on itself, while it controls and decreases spending on patients.
Want proof? Of all the money spent on “health care,” 40 percent – that is over $1 trillion in 2010 – disappears. It goes to health care but provides no care.
That statistic is before adoption of the health care act, which could raise the disappearing dollars to half of all health care spending!
Samuelson goes on to use the recent Office for Economic Cooperation and Development report to explain U.S. overspending: steep prices and abundant provision of expensive services. Hogwash! As Samuelson knows, “price,” also known as charge or bill, is meaningless in health care, meaningless in terms of what gets paid.
As a doctor, I can charge whatever I like for a cardiac catheterization in a baby. The actual bill can read $2,000, $4,000 or as is commonly true, over $5,000. Regardless of my “price,” I get paid $387. That is what the government pays. So the price may seem steep, but the payment is peanuts.
For Medicare, just like for my caths, payments are now lower than the cost-of-staying-in-business. So if you want to know why you can no longer see your Medicare doctor, it is because the more Medicare patients she or he sees, the quicker the doctor goes broke.
The prices may seem out of control or steep, but payments to providers are tiny and shrinking.
How much of the true cost of health care (goods and services) to hospitals and providers is for administration and for regulations? No one knows because no one measures that, either. The administration guesses its own cost, and government conveniently ignores the costs of regulations. To make matters worse, the public sees rules and regulations as no-cost items.
Samuelson very rightly asserts that, “the system needs a fundamental overhaul to deliver more value for money.” No one disagrees – except those in charge. In order to determine value, one must measure cost and compare it to benefit. Does the government measure the benefits of health care? The answer is a resounding No! So how can you-the-consumer, whom I call We the Patients, assess value? If you know only part of the numerator and none of the denominator of a cost/benefit ratio, you can’t.
Finally, Samuelson practices really bad medicine. He jumps directly from symptom identification (overspending) to treatment plans (vouchers or single payer) without going through the critical step of root cause analysis.
If you want to cure something, be it a sick person or a sick system, you must treat the cause of illness. Financing is only one part of the sickness in health care. If we try to fix it (overspending) without recognizing its root cause as well as others, we are certain to fail, just as Obamacare – with its expanded control – is certain to make health care, We the Patients and America sicker.
Dr. J. Deane Waldman is the author of “Uproot U.S. Healthcare” and an Adjunct Scholar with the Rio Grande Foundation
Today, D’val Westphal’s “Road Warrior” column in the Albuquerque Journal noted some comments from a bike rider on our recent report on the stimulus-funded bike bridge over the Rio Grande.
The comments included a critique of our methodology with valid points like:
bike commuters leave earlier than rush-hour traffic because it takes them longer to get where they’re going. Placing someone on the bridge for 50 minutes during rush-hour is simply too late. Second, bike commuters wouldn’t be dressed in work clothes, unless they work in bright/reflective clothing designed not to get caught in a bike chain. Bike commuters change into work clothes after they arrive.
Fair enough. This was not meant to be an exhaustive economic analysis of traffic on the bridge. After all, we don’t have the resources or man-power to station people on the bridge for hours at a time throughout the year. That is why, in our original release on the bridge, I stated “After a year, it would be great if a government agency provided some data on whether or not this bridge was worth the cost, but that is not the way government operates.”
In other words, it would be great if government did a final analysis over the merits of its spending projects, but it does not. It just spends the money and goes onto the next thing regardless of the success (or, more likely failure) of the spending. For more on this, see today’s Albuquerque Journal “Poor Predictions” on the failing, taxpayer-financed Santa Ana Star Center.
The Environmental Improvement Board is accepting comments now and holding a public comment period on the New Mexico-only carbon emissions cap. The hearing will be held on December 5. If you can make it up to the meeting, by all means, please do so. If not, at least take 5 minutes and send some written comments to the board. I have sent mine and pasted them below. Feel free to use parts of my comments in your own letter!
RE: REPEAL OF 20.2.100 NMAC
December 1, 2011
Ms. Carmella Casados
Board Administrator
Environmental Improvement Board
Harold Runnels Building
1190 St. Francis Drive, Room N-2153
Santa Fe, NM, 87505Dear Ms. Casados:
The following are my comments in support of repeal of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program 20.2.100 NMAC.
I write to strongly urge the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) to repeal the program above. While the science on global warming and the potential for humans to positively or negatively impact the climate through their actions remains unsettled, there is no doubt that this carbon cap will increase the cost of electricity for New Mexicans.
New Mexico is one of the poorest and most sparsely-populated states in the nation and cannot afford to further regulate its economy in ways that will make it less economically-competitive. And, while environmentalists tout the supposed economic benefits of carbon caps in spurring “renewables” like wind and solar, the reality is that these energy sources cost more and are less reliable than existing power sources.
While private citizens and businesses should feel free to adopt these power sources if they so choose, the EIB and, by extension New Mexico’s government, should not force such power sources on unwilling consumers, many of whom have low income levels and are unable to pay the higher costs associated with these power sources.
Simply put, if so-called “renewables” are the future of electric generation, this future will come in its own time and way which could be completely different from current expectations. It is not the role of government to pick winners and losers while sticking consumers with the bill. Please repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Gessing
President
It is something we’ve repeatedly pointed out in the past — more education spending has not improved educational results. But, Rob Nikolewski’s latest report on the state’s poor education results over the last several years only corroborates what we’ve been saying. Says Sen. John Arthur-Smith (D), Chair of the Finance Committee: “If you look at the overall trend, additional monies thrown for educational reform really didn’t support the improvements the taxpayers expected.”
We’re not surprised, but we are hopeful that virtual schools and education tax credits (among other possible components of the “Florida Model“) will be on the agenda for the 2012 legislative session.
About the event:
The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case against the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” which, if not overturned, will have dramatic implications for Americans’ health care.
Come and learn more about the pitfalls of government-run medicine and the possibilities ahead.
About the film:
Logan Darrow Clements shows what happens when “the government becomes your doctor” using licensed news footage from Canadian TV, interviews with doctors, patients, journalists, a health minister, a Member of Parliament, a doctor who went on a hunger strike as well the producer’s own Canadian relatives. Clements even rents a hospital to show the mismatch between supply and demand in a medical system run by politicians. Sick and Sicker puts “ObamaCare” on ice with cold hard facts from Canada.
About the speaker – Dr. Deane Waldman:
Deane is passionate about fixing our sick healthcare system. On both the professional and personal levels, Deane has been exposed to every aspect of health care: practicing medicine, administration, research, teaching, as well as being a critically ill patient himself. Combining this first-hand experience with his MBA knowledge and his research in management and business, Deane shares valuable insights into the root causes of why the healthcare system continues to fail patients, nurses, doctors, and our country, and most importantly, what you can do about it.
Deane has been a practicing pediatric cardiologist for over 35 years. He has authored more than 300 articles on both the practice of medicine and healthcare strategy and is an Adjunct Scholar for the Rio Grande Foundation. His first two published books were “Uproot U.S. Healthcare” and its translation into Spanish: “Cambio Radical al Sistema de Salud de los Estados Unidos.” His third book – “Not Right!” – explores the controversy over a right to health care. It will be available in June 2012.
Awhile back (before the project even got off the ground), I wrote about the Lead and Coal reconstruction project. This project which is costing $26 million is designed to decrease auto speeds on the roads in favor of bike paths.
Something I didn’t anticipate happening with this project is that it would kill area businesses, but according to the Albuquerque Journal, at least two businesses in the area have closed their doors and others are teetering on the edge resulting on this petition.
Worse, Councilor Rey Garduño is pushing for Zuni (which feeds into Lead and Coal) to be put on a similar, bike friendly “road diet.” Garduño is not known for his business-friendly policy stances, so it is no surprise that he doesn’t seem to be considering the ramifications such a major construction project might have on area businesses. Of course, the rest of us should be wondering if further shutting down one of the City’s best-moving East-West road corridors is a good idea and whether limited taxpayer money should be wasted on such projects.
I recently wrote about Grover Norquist and the blame he has taken in the media for the failure of the “SuperCommittee.” Interestingly-enough, 60 Minutes, which has done some really good stories recently, did a story on Grover and the “anti-tax” pledge:
Simply put, avoiding tax hikes is not a “silver bullet” for smaller government, but it is a starting point for holding politicians accountable. The battle for the next decade is to hold the line on taxes while getting spending under control and making “entitlement” programs financially-sustainable.
Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently wrote a column touting the “fact” that solar-generated electrical power is now cost-effective. Perhaps Krugman has not seen the chart below:
To further explain why Krugman is simply ignoring reality, check out this excellent post from Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center (our sister think tank in Washington State). Myers will be traveling to New Mexico to discuss his new book “Eco Fads” in February of 2012.
The Rio Grande Foundation has continued to push for increased transparency in government. They are YOUR taxpayer dollars, after all! Check out this recent article on our transparency efforts here.
It is difficult, given the lack of coherently-presented information, to understand how good or poor of a job various schools throughout New Mexico are doing. Performance comparison that takes into account students’ socio-economic backgrounds and historical improvement has not really been done. Well, thanks to the New Mexico Coalition of Charter Schools, it has now.
Check out the Coalition’s “School Dashboard.” It allows interested parents and the public to see how every public and charter school in the state is performing on the state’s Standards Based Assessment (the main standardized test administered by the state.
So far, data is only available for 2009 and 2011, but assuming that the data continues to be updated into the future, this report will give a good indicator of which schools are doing the job and which are not. Kudos to the New Mexico Coalition of Charter Schools for pushing both charter and traditional public schools further down the road to transparency and accountability!
The so-called “Supercommittee” is done. Failed, kaput. The gulf between Democrats and Republicans was simply too great. Let the finger-pointing ensue. But who is to blame?
The left would point to anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and his “no new taxes” pledge for preventing Republicans from going along with Democratic demands to raise taxes. I agree that Grover has been very effective in fighting tax hikes and for this he should be celebrated, not derided.
After all, the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that was supposed to be the target of the Supercommittee was less than this year’s deficit! And, as I’ve noted before, the size of the federal government has doubled (from $1.9 trillion to $3.7 trillion) since Clinton left office. Clearly, the “Supercommittee” needed to focus on spending cuts and, if Congress was allowed to further increase spending (absent Grover’s pledge) it would have done so.
So, thanks Grover for keeping tax hikes at bay. Now, we need to force Congress to allow the supposedly “automatic” cuts to happen.
The Tax Foundation is one of the most prominent and oldest think tanks dedicated to tax and budget policy issues in Washington. With Gov. Martinez having discussed some recent tax policy ideas for the 2012 legislative session, I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Rio Grande Foundation’s work on tax reform and our views on some of the reforms the Governor is considering. Listen to the 10 minute discussion here.
As I wrote earlier this week, we at the Rio Grande Foundation have collected and released payroll documents for all of New Mexico’s 33 counties. We have also been collecting payroll documents from some of the largest school districts in the state.
In that process, I believe we played a role in APS’s laudable decision to release payroll information on its website.
But, some school districts like the Clovis Municipal Schools decided to take transparency to heart. We were very pleased that, upon receiving our information request, not only did Clovis comply, but they took it upon themselves to post payroll, past audits, and additional documents on their website. This proactive effort is exactly what we (and others) are hoping to spur among various government agencies throughout the state. We encourage other districts, counties, city governments, and institutions to take similar action.
The following is an excellent story by the show 60 Minutes that details how Members of Congress use the information they are privy to as such to buy and sell stocks and other financial instruments:
Of course, if you read this blog, you’d know that New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman has become a very wealthy man based on his time in Congress. He’s by no means the only one in Congress to have done so.
Memo to the “Occupy” movement: “The real 1% reside in Washington (or at least the DC suburbs)!”
The Santa Fe New Mexican recently editorialized, albeit half-heartedly, in favor of keeping the Rail Runner chugging down the tracks. In doing so, they made the brilliant observation that “The key to making the Rail Runner a success is finding the money to operate it.” Duh, if money were no object, then the world would be a very different place and we’d all have flying cars and not need a train anyway.
The paper also stated the old nostrum that “mass transit never makes a profit, and it seldom breaks even.” Even that is simply not true. Check this link out. Some systems in Asia do more than break even and nearly all systems do better in terms of fare box recovery than the Rail Runner which has a ratio of 13%.
Of course, the line about road subsidies was then brought up, but, even if certain roads in rural areas are subsidized, what are we to do, not have them? The fact is that no community could survive without roads while most survive just fine without passenger rail playing a major role in the transportation mix. And, of course, as this chart shows (on the first actual page), transit and rail receive subsidies far in excess of those allocated to roads.
For more information on the Rail Runner’s disturbing finances and what to do about it, go here.
And, as a bit of an aside, I found the comments of one of the authors of the book “Freakonomics” on libertarian transportation analyst Randal O’Toole quite interesting.
Energy expert Robert Bradley recently spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Rio Grande Foundation,Energy Makes America Great, and the New Mexico Utility Shareholders Alliance. Although we did not get full video of this event, check out the interview that Rob Nikolewski of Capitol Report New Mexico did with Bradley below:
Bradley’s informative powerpoint presentation is available here.
I recently appeared on Morning in New Mexico with Stephen Dinkel on KIVA 1550AM for an hour. You can listen to the podcast here.
Join the national free market organization FreedomWorks, the Rio Grande Foundation, and local tea party groups for two exciting events in New Mexico. These two events will give you the opportunity to meet local activists, learn about the issues, and develop your grassroots organizing skills.
The first event, a strategy lunch with FreedomWorks staff, will take place on Tuesday, December 6th at the Vernon’s Hidden Valley Steakhouse (6855 4th St NW Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, NM 87107) from 1 to 4 PM. Treat yourself to a good meal while listening and learning some of the strategies and techniques of grassroots organizing. This lunch will also give you the opportunity to meet other tea party groups and leaders which will certainly be pivotal in helping you expand your group.
Our second event, a training session with FreedomWorks staff, will take place on Wednesday, December 7th at the Albuquerque Marriot (2101 Louisiana Blvd NE Albuquerque, NM 87110, USA) from 6-9PM. Join FreedomWorks campaign team and the Rio Grande Foundation as we discuss some of the following topics: Campaigns 101, building and maintaining your group, organizing for 2012, and new media and FreedomConnector 101. This event will be a great opportunity to meet other activists and learn some new techniques that will help as we approach the 2012 season.
With countless issues facing New Mexico and the 2012 elections just around the corner we look forward to seeing you at these two great events. Please RSVP to David Spielman by email at dspielman@freedomWorks.org or by phone at 202-942-7607.
Thanks and we look forward to seeing you at these two events!
For Freedom
David Spielman
Campaigns Coordinator, FreedomWorks
Event Details:
What: Lunch with FreedomWorks and local tea party groups
When: Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Where: Vernon’s Hidden Valley Steakhouse (6855 4th St NW Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, NM 87107)
Time: 1:00-4:00PM
What: Grassroots Training with FreedomWorks staff and the Rio Grande Foundation
When: Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Where: Albuquerque Marriot (2101 Louisiana Blvd NE Albuquerque, NM 87110, USA)
Time: 6:00-9:00PM