As this article from the Albuquerque Journal notes, liberals hate the idea of block granting Medicaid. The governors’ letter cited in the column can be found here.  Of course, the myth is that Medicaid is a particularly effective federal program that does great things for low income and needy families. The reality is far different as the “low wage trap” chart on page 3 from Cato’s Michael Cannon illustrates. Contrary to improving the lives of the poor, the way the system is set up, it is very difficult for low income families to get ahead.

The reality is, as Cannon points out in this column, that Governors who like Medicaid like it because it is a source of “free” money. They don’t have to be responsible for managing limited resources effectively because the federal government is there to bail them out. New Mexico, under Gov. Richardson, took this attitude. And, Voices for Children which is run by far left-wing legislator Eric Griego, believes that New Mexico’s living at the expense of taxpayers in other states is a good thing! Thankfully, Gov. Martinez did not sign this letter and has not fallen for the left-wing claptrap on Medicaid.

Medicaid is just one unsustainable portion of both the federal and state budgets. Block granting worked in the 1990s under Clinton when welfare reformed. It can and must work again with Medicaid.

We’ve come a long way from Martin Luther King’s March on Washington and his “I have a Dream” speech. To a great extent, America has achieved his vision of a color blind society. Obviously, no society or state is perfect and if you look hard enough, there are plenty of places where racial and gender preferences can be found.But should the government be one of those places?

Whether the issue is a fiscal one or Gov. Martinez sharing Dr. King’s vision of a color-blind society, she certainly kicked up a controversy when she vetoed appropriations for the African-American Performing Arts Center and zeroed out funding for the Commission on the Status of Women for a total savings of about $800,000.

The amount is indeed relatively small within the context of a $5.4 billion budget, but Martinez’s move is a wise one and I hope she’ll continue to veto race and gender-based spending around the state. After all, we all pay taxes to the government. Therefore, government is supposed to benefit ALL of us. Using money that is taken from taxpayers to benefit one or another group is unnecessarily divisive. Of course, this does not preclude private funding for any of these initiatives. The African-American Performing Arts Center and Commission on the Status of Women could both be funded through private donations if there are enough people out there who support these projects.

And, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the blossoming scandal at the National Hispanic Cultural Center — another publicly-financed, race-based project — where, as the Albuquerque Journal reports, $380,000 in capital outlay money was used to pay salaries. The kicker, which the article doesn’t focus on, is that the woman in charge at the time when this money was used inappropriately was Clara Apodaca, the ex-wife of former Gov. Jerry Apodaca. Wouldn’t you think that a former first lady would have at least a cursory understanding of the difference between capital and operating funding?

Rarely does vindication come so quickly, but last week I noted the school district in Chicago that had banned kids from bringing their lunches to school. I stated that the issue was one of control, not nutrition. Well, it was with great interest that I saw this article in the paper today which noted a “statistically-significant” connection between kids who are on the federal school lunch program and obesity.

Of course, what would we expect from a federal government that directs billions of tax dollars in subsidies towards unhealthy foods? So, when can we expect noted nutrition advocate Michelle Obama to direct her husband to adopt a firm stance against fattening farm subsidies? Thing is that she’d actually be helping her husband in the budget fight at the same time!

then the economy would really be booming. Or, so implies Patricia Anders, an attorney at the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty about Medicaid in a front page story in today’s Albuquerque Journal. How else is one to interpret her statement that “Every dollar spent in SNAP (food stamp) benefits actually generates $1.79 in total economic activity.”

Obviously, that is a pretty sweet multiplier — even better than the $1.50 we’re supposedly getting back on film subsidies — so I guess it makes sense to add even more New Mexicans (and Americans) to the program. Of course, this is indeed being done as there has been a concerted effort by the Agriculture Department to expand the program. But, as I have pointed out repeatedly, multipliers are almost entirely bogus and are simply used to prop up bad policy.

Ultimately, while I’d prefer to rely on charity, I can go along with state-run and financed food programs. Unfortunately, advocates like Anders benefit greatly from the status quo and will fight any such fiscal restraint tooth and nail as it is a direct threat to their jobs.

The left’s reaction — if there is one — will be interesting to the latest controversy between the Albuquerque Police Department’s union and the Berry Administration. The issue came to a head after the latest APD shooting and the Berry Administration’s call for more officer training.

There are three salient points from which we can begin the discussion:

1) Officers at APD have been involved in a lot of shootings recently;

2) In the private sector/real world, if your boss tells you to get more training and is paying you for this activity, you salute and say “thank you very much.” This is not a controversy;

3) Broadly speaking, “the left” tends to have more concerns about police shootings than those on the right.

The police union is being completely unreasonable here. It appears that the union believes that even accepting training on dealing with volatile situations is some kind of admission of guilt. I just don’t get it. The union is being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational. Is there any question that relations between City Hall and APD would be better without union hostility? Would Albuquerque be safer without a unionized police force? Will the left defend the Berry Administration or just sit by and let him fight a fight they should be a part of?

Along with my wife Krista and daughter Grace, we’ll be there on Menaul with the Albuquerque Tea Party this afternoon from 4 until about 5:30 to join the Tax Day Tea Party Rally. In three short years, the Tea Party has had a tremendous impact on New Mexico’s political situation — with the election of a fiscally-conservative Albuquerque Mayor and a fiscally-conservative Governor — and has completely changed the federal debate. We’ve gone from no one talking about fiscal restraint to even Barack Obama attempting to step in front of the spending cut parade.

The Tea Party is having an impact, so join them (and the Rio Grande Foundation) on Menaul this afternoon. And, if you can get a ticket at this point, join us at the Atlas Shrugged movie at the Rio 24.

There has been a lot of talk about government pensions recently. Wisconsin policymakers are still battling over reforms, but New Mexico policymakers are also working on modest, but much-needed reforms. We at the Rio Grande Foundation have also outlined reform ideas.

But a specific government pension case recently came to our attention (outlined in our new policy paper) that really took us aback. As this example illustrates, the granddaughter of a retired firefighter is entitled to a lifetime pension courtesy of New Mexico taxpayers. If she lives to 80, she could collect an astounding $14.5 million and would collect an astonishing $500,000 annually by her 80th birthday.

Simply put, this particular case should be prohibited via reform. But, more is to be done. Defined benefit pensions must be done away with and replaced by defined contribution pensions.

I may be the only one who made the connection between the two, but I thought this environmentalist had an eminently sensible take on nuclear power in a post-Fukashima world. To summarize, “don’t throw the nuclear “baby” out with the bathwater. Nuclear power is and will be an important source of power. This is a good message as no source of energy comes without costs.

And of course there is local gadfly Don Schraeder who was written up by my buddy Leslie Linthicum. Part of being pro-freedom means allowing people to choose the path that is right for them, so I have no ill will towards the man. He is a harsh critic of automobiles, though, and the article is largely about him not having driven for the last 10 years.

Thankfully, Schraeder has not — as far as I know — run for office and attempted to secure the levers of power to enforce his lifestyle, but it is hard to see how a car-free existence (he doesn’t ride buses or planes either) would be fulfilling or possible for people living more traditional lifestyles. Like having kids. Or wanting to travel outside of downtown Albuquerque. Imagine having family or friends in another city and never seeing them. Imagine never seeing New York City, Washington, DC, or visiting a body of water bigger than the Rio Grande.

For all I know, Schraeder may live to 100, but I don’t feel guilty for driving a car and I’ll continue to enjoy the conveniences and possibilities offered by modern technology and living standards.

If you work for the North Central Transit District, the answer is clearly “no” as this story illustrates. Of course, if you saw the recent stories in the Albuquerque Journal, (and here) you’d found out that the very same NCRTD which tells their PIO’s not to talk to the media

• Poured 78 cents into its administration  (for every dollar it spends).
• The executive director has received pay raises worth 33 percent over five years (she now makes almost $96K a year), while per passenger trips carry a price tag of $34.55.
• The district blames the high cost of running the program on being new and growing pains. That’s more than a little disingenuous considering it has been in gear since 2005. It’s even more so considering its twin to the south, the Rio Metro Regional Transit District, spends $21.20 per passenger trip by comparison.

Of course, this is all made possible due to the 1/8th cent gross receipts tax hike passed to fund the RailRunner and its feeder system. A private bus system could do this better and more cheaply if the market demands it and government gets out of the way.

People often ask me about various government policies and why they persist even though they have been shown to have failed. The dirty little secret seems to be that those in power want to control the actions of the rest of us, regardless of whether those policies are “effective” in achieving the proscribed goal.

One recent story that came to my attention is from a school district in Chicago that is FORCING children into the school lunch program.  No lunch from home. In the area of school “nutrition” programs, it started years ago with the federal school lunch program for low-income children although the public schools have been effective in promoting obedience for years. First Lady Michelle Obama more recently took up the nutrition control cause as have legislators in New Mexico. The state knows what is best for your children, of course!

And, while I could go on, check out this Congressman’s (justified) rant on the CFL light bulbs which will effectively become mandatory soon. Mind you, this law was supported by many Republicans (including Sen. Domenici) and signed by George W. Bush. The idea that the federal government should tell Americans what type of light bulb to use is just silly and of course found nowhere in the Constitution. But, it again controls our behavior and extracts obedience.

What’s the point? There is an ever-growing number of people who derive their wealth from the labor of the rest of us. They NEED us to think that we need them to tell us what to do. We don’t. Waking up to that fact is the clearest path to freedom.

I don’t normally spend time talking about the national blog scene or the left-wingers at the Huffington Post, but this story caught my attention.  The left-wing website is being sued by its unpaid bloggers. Let that sink in for a moment. A group of BLOGGERS is suing the now-AOL owned company. They even claim to have union representation through New York Chapter of the National Writers’ Union (UAW 1981).

This is already funny. How full of yourself as a blogger do you have to be to believe that your unsolicited postings on a website ENTITLE you to income?

Of course, this couldn’t happen to a more appropriate website — one that has done yeoman’s work to foster the sense of entitlement shared by its bloggers. So, the site that at once claims that the minimum wage is “a disgrace and a scandal” and that the minimum wage “increases and promotes jobs,” won’t pay the people who provide much of its content a dime. According to their “logic,” paying a minimum wage to the site’s bloggers would increase revenue and profits, right?

Funny stuff indeed. I won’t waste more typing on this silly site, but I eagerly await an outcome.

Back in 2008, I wrote about some Medicaid reforms that had taken place in Rhode Island and urged the Richardson Administration to take note and consider similar reforms. Unfortunately, nothing was done and, Medicaid continues to grow rapidly (far more rapidly than the average state) in New Mexico, crowding out other spending and lower taxes.

But, Rhode Island moved ahead and, according to data from the Pacific Research Institute, is seeing excellent results. According to the report:

Rhode Island’s waiver is not quite a block grant. It preserves the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages or FMAP, but caps aggregate federal and state spending through 2013 at $12.075 billion. Nevertheless, it appears to have had the results one would expect from a block grant. Spending has plummeted from what was anticipated. Remarkably, through the first six quarters of the waiver (January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) actual spending was only $2.7 billion versus $3.8 billion budgeted.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget would block grant Medicaid. While Rhode Island’s experience was not a true block grant, it only makes sense that states are going to be more innovative and flexible than the federal government. New Mexico’s leaders (both state and federal) need to start pushing for this reform regardless of the success or failure of Ryan’s budget lest Medicaid continue to consume ever more of the state and federal budgets.

We are now being treated to the latest rounds of outrage from New Mexico’s education establishment about the “dramatic cuts” being made to the schools. Yes, it is true, some cuts are being made, but the idea that spending on K-12 education has cratered or should cause some kind of crisis is ridiculous. We’ve already discussed per-pupil spending on K-12 here and shown how dramatically spending has risen over the past few decades.

But what about more recent spending cuts. We’ve SLASHED the budget, right? Not really. As this chart which was based on reports like this one from the LFC, which shows “Total Public School Support,” there have been some slight cuts in recent years after several years of massive spending growth. In fact, since FY 2004, spending growth has averaged 6%, factoring in the cuts made for FY 2012 during the last session.

New Mexico schools should not be in a crisis and, while I empathize with them on the demands placed upon them, particularly by Washington, DC, it is time to quit complaining and solve the problems facing the schools.

According to President Obama, the recent deal that kept the federal government open included “the largest annual spending cut in our history.” In nominal terms, he’s right (barely). According to page 21 of the federal Historical Tables of federal spending, between 1945 and 1946, federal spending dropped by $37.48 billion in one year from 92.712 billion to 55.223 billion. Sure enough, Obama has got Truman beat in numerical terms.

Of course, anyone who is indeed as smart as a 5th grader knows that nominal terms are next to useless when the topic is the Federal Budget. Some quick math shows us that in one year, Harry Truman and Congress cut spending by more than 40%. Clueless Obama and the spineless Republicans who went along with the charade cut spending by just $38.5 billion. And how much of a spending cut is that? The FY 2011 budget is $3,883.861 (nearly 3.9 trillion). The cuts made to this budget amount to just 1 percent of the total.

(update here): it appears that the “cuts” were nowhere near what was originally reported in the media. The Congressional Budget Office has found the “cuts” to be only $352 million and that fails to account for emergency spending.

By not putting serious cuts on the table, Republicans are losing the debate and letting Obama portray himself as a common-sense fiscal-conservative who can make “tough decisions.” Paul Ryan’s plan is a start, but it is not serious because it fails to curtail defense spending. Rand Paul, on the other hand, would shut down some government agencies and make government more efficient. Republicans need to get serious before Obama makes them chumps again (of course it would be great if the Democrats made serious spending cut proposals, but I’m not holding my breath on that one).

Those who follow this space are undoubtedly aware that Ayn Rand’s individualist anthem Atlas Shrugged has been made into a movie. It looks like the only theater in New Mexico that is planning to show it on opening night is the Century Rio 24 in Albuquerque.

Opening night is April 15 (appropriately enough), so get out and protest with your local tea party group and then enjoy an evening at the movies. More information on tickets and showtimes can be found here, but I will be attending the 7:45pm showing.

Thanks to all of you who “demanded” the movie. And, it is good to see that at least one theater has responded. The only way to make sure that Atlas Shrugged is shown widely around the nation and eventually the world is to get out there and see it. So, get your tickets and we’ll see you at the movies!

(Albuquerque) The Rio Grande Foundation is pleased to announce that it has hired former Santa Fe New Mexican report David Collins to head up its investigative projects at New Mexico Watchdog.

David Collins proved his mettle as a professional reporter covering civil unrest in Wisconsin in 1989. Since his first professional assignments as a talk-radio host and news producer at a rural, tribally owned radio station, he has reported for several print publications as both a freelancer and a staff writer. He has held positions as a cops-and-courts reporter, a business writer, an investigative journalist and a general-assignment news hound.

In addition to work as a freelance reporter and a Web developer, he has held desks at WOJB-FM in northern Wisconsin, the Centralia Fireside Guard in Missouri, the Junction City Daily Union in Kansas, Rio Grande Sun in Española and most recently the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Building on early mass-communication experience as a fleet-footed remote-broadcast specialist at a community public radio station, he developed skills for the digital millennium as a Web programmer and a data analyst. An aggressive advocate for open governance at a time when complex technologies threaten to put much government information beyond the reach of the lay public, he often prefers to query official data than to take a quote from a public official.

Ideologically, he’s embraced neither the left, the right nor the center, but supports informed understanding among diverse interests. When pressed to testify about his own ideals, he calls himself a pragmatist with a steady inclination toward personal freedom.

Paul Gessing, President of the Rio Grande Foundation, in announcing the hiring, said “Jim Scarantino blazed the trail for web-based investigative reporting in New Mexico. I am confident that David Collins will continue to break new stories and make the political classes uncomfortable as he asks probing questions and digs deep to uncover the truth.”

Collins’ first story, “Controversy Looms Over Sunshine Portal Hand-Off” is available at: http://newmexico.watchdog.org/.

The federal government is on the verge of “shutting down” due to a disagreement over minuscule budget cuts. Of course, the shutdown will hardly effect much of what government does: Social Security checks will be paid, the military will still be deployed and fighting, and good luck trying to get out of paying taxes to the feds.

And, as this article points out, a federal shutdown actually costs taxpayers more. Talk about a “Catch-22.” The federal government sticks it to taxpayers every day while it is operating and hammers us even more when it “shuts down.”

What needs to happen is for taxpayers to demand that Washington simply abandon much of what it does. Block granting Medicaid to the states, for example, would save an impressive $114 billion over 10 years and would likely result in tremendous improvement in a system that, as it currently works, has a nasty “low-wage trap.”

So, I won’t be cheering the current “shutdown,” rather I’m looking for more leaders who will return the federal government to its proper bounds.

Bernalillo County Commissioner Wayne Johnson has introduced a resolution that would dramatically expand transparency in the County. The bill will be heard before the Commission on Tuesday, April 12th. If you can, please attend and show your support for transparency. If you can’t attend, send the Commissioners an email.

The resolution would do the following:

1. Create an Internet transparency portal to be completed by August 1st, 2011 where the public will have searchable access to public records created by or in the possession of Bernalillo County hereinafter referred to as a “Sunshine Portal.”

2. The County’s Sunshine Portal will provide access to information and/or documents including but not limited to:

a) A complete County employee listing including employee name, job title, department, supervisor, annual compensation, annual total compensation including benefits, and year-to-date compensation. Listing to include all full and part-time employees and elected officials. The County shall also post all job descriptions.
b) A complete listing of contracts between the County and any contractor or service provider that includes a brief description of the scope of work, contractor name, contractor principle name, amount of contract, term of contract with start and end dates, amendments to contract including changes in scope, term, and amount of contract. Contract listing will also include a link to the signed and executed contract as well as any amendments to the contract. This listing will include all active and completed contracts that are currently in electronic form. Records not currently in electronic form will be added to this listing as soon as practicable.
c) A complete listing of all County real estate holdings including name of the County department using the facility or name of the tenant leasing or subleasing a facility, property, a building or part of a building from the County, percentage occupied, property address, and estimated property value. Listing shall include links to executed tenant leases.
d) A County check register or “checkbook” to include payee name, contract reference if any, description of purchase, date, and amount of payment.
e) All department budgets and budgets of County elected officials including year-to-date expenditures, percentage above/below appropriated budget, and department purchases.
f) County budget as proposed including any administrative changes made during the budget year.
g) Agendas, meeting dates, and minutes for County boards, committees and commissions formed and appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.
h) A searchable frequently requested documents listing where documents that have been requested under the Inspection of Public Records Act will be made available for quick access.
i) An “As Built” agenda section for the Board of County Commission that makes proposed agenda items immediately available to the public as meeting agendas are being built. Listing should clearly indicate whether or not it has been finalized for the indicated meeting. Said finalization will occur no later than specified by the Board of County Commissioners’ Open Meetings Resolution adopted annually by the Board of County Commissioners.

3. All agenda items included for consideration or action by the Board of County Commissioners will include name of the commissioner or manager proposing the item.
4. Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) requests will be handled in a manner that is in compliance with New Mexico law keeping in mind the Board of County Commissioners’ intent with respect to the disclosure of public information. Those individuals processing IPRA requests shall not assert a claim for exemption that is not supported by law.
5. Redactions to public records will be accompanied by an explanation of the basis for such redaction from the requested document along with the provision of state or federal law that allows for or requires redaction. It is the policy of the County that items will only be redacted where such authority is provided for or required by state or federal law, in cases of pending litigation, in cases where dissemination of information could result identity theft, or where there is a countervailing public policy.

If you listen to the radio, you may have heard our ads urging Gov. Martinez to veto SB 208. The ads are posted below:

It seems like UNM has more economically-ignorant people affiliated with it than most universities. Take Nick Estes and his recent column in the Albuquerque Journal, please. The level of economic ignorance from this former UNM lawyer and current staffer at the far left-wing Voices for Children is truly appalling.

He starts with a truthful statement about World War II and the US government running up massive deficits. It’s true. Fighting the combined forces of Hitler and the Empire of Japan cost a lot of money. The thing is that after the War, our leaders enacted massive spending cuts and the economy grew faster than ever before. Estes and his ilk would have a fit if spending dropped by 2/3rds as it did after WWII, but it did.

Then Estes goes into the farcical “we owe it to ourselves” routine. Debt is debt whether it is owed to a family member or to someone in a far-off foreign country. If that debt burden becomes too much a default is possible and those are still painful. If your cousin doesn’t pay you for the care he “bought” from you and then he crashes it and can’t pay you, you are still out the money. This is just a dumb argument from Estes.

Then Estes claims that trade imbalances, not government deficits are the real problem. REALLY. On what planet does this guy live? Nations that have major “current account balance deficits” include the USA, Canada, Australia, and England. Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya, and Iran all have major surpluses. I’ll leave it up to Estes to pick the countries he’d rather live in. Of course, these “deficits” partially represent foreign investment in firms located in those nations.

In other words, governments going into debt is bad, but so-called “trade deficits” are irrelevant as economist Walter Williams rightly points out.

The good news is that Nick Estes’ title indicates he was a lawyer and not involved in teaching economics. The bad news is that there is a clear pattern of economic ignorance from current and former faculty at UNM.

The following is an original article by Grace-Marie Turner. Turner, a native of Albuquerque, is president of the Galen Institute, a non-profit health policy research organization in Alexandria, VA. She is a co-author of Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America, which was published last month.
*************
Gov. Susana Martinez should oppose efforts by the state legislature to establish a health insurance exchange because it will turn the state into little more than a contractor to the federal government in implementing the new health overhaul law.

Further, the state should return the $1 million in federal funds it has taken to study creation of an exchange. New Mexico must retain its independence so it can do what is right for the citizens of the Land of Enchantment.

Yes, there are problems with cost and access to health care in New Mexico, and small businesses are especially desperate for relief. But the new health law will only add to their burdens. Under federal law, any business with more than 50 full-time employees will be required to provide health insurance which is likely to be more comprehensive, and expensive, than most can afford today.

Those purchasing insurance in the individual market are going to be hit especially hard. The Congressional Budget Office has said that costs for a family of four in this market are likely to be $2,100 a year higher than they would have been had the law not passed.

And under the new federal health law, all citizens will be required to purchase government-mandated insurance or pay a fine.

The exchanges are the vehicle that the federal government hopes the states will establish so it can close the loop on federal regulation of health insurance. By taking the exchange money from Washington, states give up their autonomy and authority to do what is right for their own citizens. They must follow Washington’s rules.

Small businesses and individuals would be better off if the state were to instead set up a web portal that would allow people to buy coverage on a pre-tax basis and that would allow health insurance resources to be pooled together. If a husband and wife are both working for different companies, both employers could contribute money toward their purchase of a single family policy. Utah accomplished this and hired just two people to get it done. But that is where the authority should end.

The president adopted the name of the Utah Health Exchange but none of its flexibility. To be clear New Mexico isn’t turning itself into a subject of Washington, it could call its purchasing portal a “Health Freedom Gateway.” It should have no regulatory authority, and people should be able to purchase less-expensive, mandate-light policies, if they choose.

The key is individual ownership of health. This will go a long way toward reducing the problem of pre-existing conditions. If people have policies that they can own and take with them as they move from job to job or city to city, they will have continuity of insurance so the insurance will be there when they need it.

New Mexico should do what is right for its own citizens. Don’t create a Washington-designed exchange and don’t accept federal exchange funds.

If enough states resist – as many are – the federal government will be compelled to find a better way to provide financial assistance to the uninsured to help them in purchasing coverage without the heavy, expensive, and inflexible weight of federal control over New Mexico’s health insurance market.

The practice of government giving incentives to specific industries and businesses is popular among politicians. For starters, it plays into the classic concentrated benefits and dispersed costs paradigm — in this case the business or industry receives great benefit, but the public is ignorant of the costs. Also, incentives seemingly allow politicians to avoid tough and politically-unpopular decisions while attracting business to their jurisdiction.

The problem is, as I write in today’s Albuquerque Journal, what is needed is for the Legislature to make tough decisions that spur economic development statewide and for the benefit of ALL businesses and industries in the state.

Unfortunately, local government has little say in some of the biggest policy decisions that are holding New Mexico back. But, rather than pushing incentives in a never-ending cycle of failure, our local leaders can and should work to use the bully-pulpit and work with local representatives in Santa Fe to spur economic growth. Oh, and go to the following links for more information on the economics of personal income taxes and “Right to Work” legislation.

Generally-speaking, Mayor Berry has done a good job in challenging economic times for Albuquerque. That said, fiscal-conservatives and advocates for limited government are sure to have some concerns about the City’s new budget.

First and foremost, why give government employees a raise of 1 percent at a cost of $3.3 million? This is not merely a rhetorical question. Is the City losing good workers to other cities and the private sector? By all accounts, the job market out there is still incredibly soft and with a 9% unemployment rate, I can’t imagine the City is losing too many quality workers…but I’m open to data showing otherwise.

What I’m even more concerned with is that taxpayers really aren’t getting anything for these raises. If the raises were purchasing more flexibility in union contracts — like the one that makes it impossible to fire a bus driver that shows up for work drunk — I’d be a great deal more sympathetic. It would also be nice if fire fighters could be fired for blatantly unethical electoral activity on the job.

I realize that not all government workers are unionized, but it would be great if the Mayor could have leveraged increased pay for increased flexibility. Unfortunately, with this budget as the starting place, the liberals on City Council are only going to argue for smaller cuts and higher raises.

Legislation is now sitting on Gov. Martinez’s desk that would, at least in theory, bring greater transparency to health insurance pricingas explained by this article in the Albuquerque Journal. The long and short of the bill is to set up new requirements if a company wishes to raise rates.

It is designed to achieve “mom and apple pie” status. Who could oppose transparency that makes it more difficult to raise rates? As we’ve discussed in this space before, however, transparency is nice, but what we need are pro-market health care reforms, not more meddling in how rates are adjusted.

We have a competitive market that “regulates” the price of car insurance and life insurance — not to mention the prices of computers, food, and nearly every other object we purchase in our daily lives (without an elaborate and costly review process). Unfortunately, the Legislature did nothing this session to peel back New Mexico’s 57 mandates or actually make the provision of health care any cheaper. Until we have policies in place that encourage a competitive market, no amount of reviews or transparency will make health insurance — or health care — more affordable.