Paul Chesser writes about several energy issues at American Spectator. He notes that “based on government data…Ninety four percent of federal onshore lands are off-limits to oil and gas exploration, while 97 percent of offshore federal lands are off-limits.”

Also noteworthy is the fact, not mentioned by many, that North Dakota is booming. One reason for this is that their resources are not owned by the federal government. See this useful map of where federally-owned lands are located.

Last, but not least, while New Mexico unfortunately suffers from lots of federal land ownership, the folks at the State Land Office have seen an uptick in leases in recent months. This is some good news for the state economy.

I for one am tired of Sam Bregman’s silly columns in the Albuquerque Journal. For starters, partisan hackery on both sides is a bother, but Bregman’s ignorance of basic economics and political reality is what really sends me over the top.

He attacks Gov. Martinez for the silliest reasons.

Taping committee hearings: These should be broadcast on the internet and hosted online, on-demand, by the Legislature. Lack of transparency on the part of OUR public servants is inexcusable;

Jobs: First and foremost, Gov. Martinez took office three months ago. These things don’t happen overnight. More importantly, there are plenty of policies like “right to work,” eliminating renewable energy mandates, reducing regulations, and reducing taxes.

Bregman pushes for the film industry and “jobs programs” that he sees as a panacea, but if the previous Administration’s jobs programs like the costly Rail Runner, the Spaceport, and yes, the film industry, were so great, wouldn’t New Mexico’s economy be generating those jobs already? Sure, Susana could send construction crews out and pay them to dig holes in the ground, but that is an expensive way to “create jobs.” What we need is wealth-generation and that takes time and legislative willingness to cooperate which they have not.

Lastly, Bregman trots out the old canard that the education reforms she’s promoting are somehow flawed because they are from out of state. I don’t get it. People on all sides of the political debate acknowledge that we rank in the bottom 5 in education. Shouldn’t we be looking for good ideas wherever we can find them?

I realize Bregman is a political hack and wants to be Chair of the Democratic Party, but even he should try to come up with some better arguments if he’s going to put them in print.

Wal Mart has a reputation as being inexpensive. And, while some studies show that Target has lower prices, the fact is that Wal Mart generally provides goods people want at a low cost. It was interesting to me that UNM David Schmidly recently called the school the “Wal Mart” of flagship Universities.

I wish. The reality is, according to information from NCHEMS which collects data on higher ed around the nation, New Mexico has the third-lowest 6 year graduation rate, asks families to put up the 7th-lowest percentage of family income for tuition, and derives the 5th-greatest amount of funding from taxpayers.

So, the reality is that New Mexico state universities — of which UNM is the largest — are graduating fewer students who pay less for their schooling than those in other states. Taxpayers, on the other hand, pay quite a bit more. This is hardly the Wal Mart model (it actually resembles US health care with its third-party payment system, but that’s another topic).

The fact is that the best way to reform New Mexico’s universities is to have their customers (students and their parents) pay more and for them to demand efficiency. UNM can and should look for more efficiency in tough budget times, but until they lose “customers,” why should they?

Interesting article by Heath Haussamen on the possibility and peril of Gary Johnson’s run for the White House. Personally, I’d still like to see Gary run for the Senate, but assuming he does run for president, he will make a useful contribution to the debate as a limited government, socially-moderate candidate.

University of New Mexico is now looking at some fairly significant tuition increases (8.6 percent). This is a fascinating issue for fiscal conservatives because the die has been cast — the University faces cutbacks — but the makeup of those cutbacks is now being discussed. What we see at a government-run institution is instructive of how government works (or fails to).

Prior to the legislative session, we at RGF argued for higher tuition as a means of solving the budget situation. While we stand by that, it is interesting to note that our other recommendation — closing branch campuses — is not even being considered. Nor was a more symbolic step like abandoning plans to spend $2 million on a baseball stadium. And, of course, as the Albuquerque Journal recently editorialized, plans to raise 1.75 percent increase in pension contributions for state employees, including teachers, have received a chilly reception to say the least. UNM also has 17 highly-paid executive vice presidents. Surely, a few jobs in the Administration could be combined or eliminated in this tough economic time, right?

It would seem that UNM has two main functions: 1) serve its workers by paying them well and providing generous pensions; 2) athletics

It is worth noting that only a competitive, free market in higher education can lead to true efficiency (a la Wal Mart). Until then, resources will continue to be mis-allocated.

Too bad Governor Martinez can’t run for Mayor of Santa Fe while she performs the duties of Governor in Santa Fe. If she could, taxpayers in the “City Different” might not be in such a bind and someone would be telling City Council to cut spending rather than sticking property owners with an astounding 41 percent property tax increase as early as this Wednesday. (see previous link for full story and interviews)

According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, the proposed increase of 1.16 mills would add approximately $116 in additional taxes on $100,000 of taxable property — an increase of 41.4 percent. If the City Council approves the measure, the higher tax would first show up on bills issued in November and add about $4 million to city revenue.

Not surprisingly, the primary beneficiaries of the tax increase….unionized government workers! Again, according to the New Mexican:

Members of the three city-employee unions packed the council chambers at City Hall, mostly to express disdain for wage-cut ideas and kudos for tax proposals.

“I grew up believing the citizens of this country were willing to pay for their government,” said Adrian Dalton, a transit operator who is vice president of the largest city union, a local chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

It is another classic case of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. The unions want the Mayor and Council to do their dirty work and pass this without a public vote. And, unfortunately, they may do just that this Wednesday.

If you disagree and you live in Santa Fe, you can tell your elected officials what you think:

Mayor David Coss
mayor@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6590
Fx: 505 955 6695

District 1
Councilor Patti Bushee
pjbushee@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 2345
Fx: 505 955 6683

Councilor Chris Calvert
ccalvert@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6812
Fx: 505 955 6683

District 2
Councilor Rosemary Romero
R2romero@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6818
Ph: 505 690 3016
Fx: 505 955 6683

Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger
rebeccawurzburger@gmail.com
Ph: 505 955 6815
Fx: 505 984 9180

District 3
Councilor Miguel Chavez
miguelmchavez@msn.com
Ph: 505 955 6816
Fx: 505 955 6683

Councilor Carmichael Dominguez
cadominguez@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6814
Fx: 505 955 6683

District 4
Councilor Matthew E. Ortiz
mortizlaw@msn.com
Ph: 505 955 6817
Fx: 505 955 6683

Councilor Ronald S. Trujillo
rstrujillo@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6811
Fx: 505 955 6683

I recently posted on the topic of whether spending cuts necessarily harm the poor. I felt that the subject was sufficiently important to write about in a full-length article that recently ran in the Las Cruces Sun-News.

While government is always touted as a means for lifting the poor and disadvantaged out of poverty, the fact is that President Clinton’s last budget was $1.9 trillion back in 2001. President Obama’s 2011 budget was double that at $3.8 trillion. Is there anyone who thinks the poor in this country (or anyone else, for that matter) are better off today than they were when the budget was half as big?

And, while New Mexico’s budget hasn’t grown like Washington’s has, we are spending more than ever on education and Medicaid. But are we getting any more for our money? The things that have improved most over the last decade involve technology and were accomplished by the free market, not government diktats. Shrinking the government will help the poor.

Government Labor Unions! No surprise there. See the breakdown for yourself from Opensecrets.org here. I admit that we are dealing with different (national) data here than applies specifically to New Mexico (which I discussed here). Of course, Carter Bundy (AFSCME’s lobbyist) took me to task for my supposed disinformation.

The fact is that public sector unions were the single biggest “industry” with other unions following close on their heels. Not surprisingly, ZERO of those labor union dollars went to “conservatives” according to the report. Amazingly enough, both classes of labor union give more than those nasty Wall Street bankers who suckered Congress and the White House into bailing them out.

While New Mexico got at best half a loaf on education reform this year, states like Florida are racing ahead on education reform. In this article, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush explains some of the latest ideas being implemented in Florida and other states and reiterates that ALL children can and must learn and our education systems must be able to help students regardless of background and poverty.

The free ride for New Mexico’s movie industry is slowly coming to an end. As Rob Nikolewski of Capitol Report New Mexico writes:

The State Investment Council (SIC) on Tuesday (March 22) — with Gov. Susana Martinez taking part in the entire four-and-a-half hour meeting — unanimously voted to end the SIC’s practice of granting zero-percent interest loans to film companies who make their movies in New Mexico and also terminated the $260,000-a-year contract for the film consultant whose job was dependent on that practice.

This is an eminently sensible change. The SIC needs to focus on making the best return it possibly can for New Mexicans, not on providing money for preferred industries. Former New Mexico Watchdog Jim Scarantino did a ton of writing and research showing that such efforts by the SIC typically failed and resulted in nothing but ethical problems.

Our position has nothing to do with the film industry per se. Regardless of the industry, it makes no sense to provide zero-interest loans at taxpayer expense (in terms of foregone investment opportunities). Kudos to Gov. Martinez and the SIC.

The Rio Grande Foundation is proud of its conservative credentials and suffer the slings and arrows of those who sometimes call us a “front group” for Republicans. But, we are about good policy, not party politics. That is why we recently had some kind words for Rep. Mimi Stewart (a liberal Democrat) to the consternation of some prominent Republicans (read the comments at the previous link).

Well, last night after our Las Cruces Liberty on the Rocks, I went directly into the “belly of the beast” when I visited the “progressive voter alliance” in Las Cruces. I was there thanks to Sen. Steve Fischmann who, while we disagree on a variety of issues, agrees with and supports much of the “Florida Model” for K-12 reforms and Gov. Martinez’s educational efforts.

I had four minutes to present, and was given a fair hearing for my views. If anything, the main concern that the 50 or so folks at the meeting had was the need to address underlying poverty issues that go far deeper than any “education” reform can. And, while I know that we at RGF and the PVA folks probably disagree 90+ percent of the time, I think education is one big issue that there may be some common ground on. Hopefully build and then leverage that support to get more robust education reforms the next time the Legislature meets.

Don’t tell the left, but the Rio Grande Foundation and the Foundation for Open Government share a significant interest in open and transparent government. It provides accountability and enables citizens to understand how their money is being used.

To that end, we at RGF are pleased to encourage readers of this blog and all citizen activists to attend FOG’s Open Government Academy on Saturday.

New Mexico Foundation for Open Government presents

“Open Government Academy” Learn how to access your government!

Where: UNM School of Law, Room 2401

When: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 9:30 a.m.- 3 p.m.

For more information, go to: www.nmfog.org or call (888) 843-9121

You have a fundamental right to access public information and petition your government. But do you know how?

You’re invited to the Open Government Academy – this Saturday, March 26 at 9:30 AM in Albuquerque. This one-day workshop is geared toward community organizers, non-profit professionals and other citizens interested in accessing their government and influencing policy. We’ll discuss how to use public-records and open-meetings “sunshine” laws, how to tap into information resources used by journalists and lawyers, how to lobby state and local officials, and much more.

A limited number of scholarships are available to cover a $25 registration fee. For more information, call (888) 843-9121 or visit www.nmfog.org

Legislation has passed both houses of the Legislature that would set up so-called “insurance exchanges” that are a component of ObamaCare. Originally found in Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts state takeover of health care, the “exchange” is, according to Pete Sunderman of Reason: a highly regulated, government-run marketplace where individuals can shop for health insurance, by 2014. Each state is required to either show progress on building an exchange by 2013 or make way for the federal government to build and manage one directly.

Sunderman goes on to explain that “These exchanges are the chief method by which the federal government will exert control over the insurance marketplace… The Department of Health and Human Services will have the authority to determine minimum health insurance requirements for most medical services and providers as well as cost-sharing details for plans offered through the exchanges.”

As John Graham and I write today over at NMPolitics.net, New Mexico should not assist the Obama Administration in their hostile takeover of American healthcare.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a draconian plan for reducing emissions from the San Juan Generating Station in Northwest New Mexico. According to the Albuquerque Journal, the plan will cost $1 billion (or $90 a year for 20 years for the average residential customer and much more for larger users). This comes on top of $320 million in equipment that was recently installed by the plant’s owner Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and mercury. Now, the EPA wants another bite of the apple.

But, a recent proposal from the New Mexico Environment Department, could save rate-payers hundreds-of-millions of dollars. According to PNM, the state plan would be far less costly, in the range of $250 million, making the difference in impacts to ratepayers substantial. The question is whether the EPA will go along with the more reasonable deal.

The EPA’s comment period is open (sorry for the Sierra Club link, but the contact information is the same even if our comments will be different).

In judging the recently-concluded 2011 legislative session, many policies were considered. The Rio Grande Foundation played a major role in setting the agenda in terms of education reform, the budget debate, government employee pension reform, and in expanding government transparency.

Unfortunately, two of the three education reforms promoted by Gov. Martinez failed: only A-F grading of schools passed. Notably, Martinez was only promoting a portion of the whole Florida model — virtual schools and dramatically-expanded school choice were not part of her initial efforts this year.

In terms of the budget, it must be noted that NO TAXES WERE RAISED. This is very important. In terms of budget fixes, we had proposed capping the film subsidy at $30 million and it wound up at $50 million. Not too shabby. Rather than some of the deeper and more substantive cuts we’d outlined elsewhere in our budget cut proposal, more moderate efforts were undertaken. In a big disappointment, the Legislature chose to continue over-paying for public works projects by not returning to the previous manner of determining wages on public works projects.

Pensions were addressed somewhat, but far more needs to be done in this regard.

Transparency will move forward based on bills that passed this session. New Mexico schools will be added to the Sunshine Portal and governments will also be expected to release information they possess in electronic format in that format upon request. These are positive steps.

Overall, the biggest disappointments were the failure to really embrace the education reforms and return to a more rational system of wage rules for government projects, but several steps were taken towards liberty this year.

“The only way for someone to get richer is for someone else to get poorer. In an adversarial system the adversaries are workers and capitalists.”

Sounds like Karl Marx to me. It’s also a completely and factually inaccurate statement that can be proven so. After all, if the only way for one person to get rich is for someone to get “screwed,” then how has society progressed at all? Or, are we all living some kind of fantasy believing that our life spans have lengthened and we’re no longer going to the bathroom in outdoor pits? For answers to these and many more questions, you should talk to comrade Guy Watson who wrote this incredibly ignorant article in the Albuquerque Journal.

Perhaps the most absurd idea to take from Watson’s screed is that inventors from Thomas Edison to Bill Gates somehow take from the rest of us in order to earn their fortunes. In reality, it is the inventions of these and others who enable us to be productive so that an overwhelming number of us have homes with running water, color tv’s, and the internet. I’m not sure what Watson is smoking.

As an aside, it seems that there have been an awful lot of articles in the Journal from current and former professors at UNM. An overwhelming majority have been from a far left perspective. It would seem that UNM is offering a full-employment plan for left wing professors and that this is yet another reason to cut taxpayer funding and force it and other universities to compete in a free market.

To hear all the crocodile tears from Wisconsin and other states, government labor unions are the only thing standing between them and bread lines or homelessness. A recent story from Albuquerque illustrates a far different reality and illustrates the incredible privileges given to powerful government unions.

The case is specifically that of a bus driver that showed up for work drunk. In the “real” world where the rest of us live, we’d be fired for showing up drunk to most any job — even a desk job — let alone one where your job is to drive other people around town. If you’re a member of a powerful government labor union, however, you get to take a few classes and then get your job back. And, you get to go on almost 5 months of PAID leave in the meantime!!!!

I wonder what would have happened had no one noticed the guy was drunk and he went out and killed someone. Would the union have managed to get him a slap on the wrist and his job back for that too??? I love the statement by AFSCME boss Rocky Gutierrez “We believe in public safety number one.” Right.

The left is claiming that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is trying to “kill the American Dream” in Wisconsin. Last time I checked, showing up drunk for a job involved in public safety isn’t part of the “American Dream.”

There has been a lot of talk at both the state and national levels over cutting spending and whether those cuts harm poor people. I just don’t think it is so. One recent writer on the topic is Sen. Pete Campos. His piece which appeared in the Albuquerque Journal asserted that:

“Each dollar that we cut from education reduces a child’s chance of succeeding. Each dollar we cut from social services makes it more difficult for less-fortunate New Mexicans to get the mental and physical health care, food, or housing they need….”

The idea that spending cuts automatically harm the poor is not accurate for a few main reasons:

First and foremost, government is not usually the most efficient provider of said goods and services. For starters, government schools have spent more and more money per-pupil over the years with little to show for it in the way of results. Campos (and others) never question whether government is doing what it does — whether it is education or welfare — at optimal efficiency. In a more efficient system, services could be provided at a far lower cost, but in ways that improve living standards;

Secondly, much of what government does is used to benefit the wealthy, not the poor. The Rail Runner, Spaceport, and film subsidies are just a few of the big government programs enacted in recent years that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Also, in terms of welfare, middle class government bureaucrats consume 25% or more of welfare spending.

This discussion is primarily focused on the state level, but Canada and New Zealand are just two countries that have dramatically reduced spending and restructured government. These reforms have led to economic growth and improvements for the poor (and all sectors of society). New Mexico (and the US Congress) need to follow their examples.

There are some out there now saying that the devastation in Japan is going to be a good thing for the nation’s economy. To say the least, this is counterintuitive, but some smart people are making the point including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. The problem is that the idea is totally wrong.

Bastiat, one of the greatest economic writers of all time, made the point succinctly in his pamphlet “The Broken Window.” Matt Kibbe from Freedomworks also does a nice job applying Bastiat’s points directly to Japan. So does Peter Schiff in this video.

The ultimate point of all this is that over the next months and years, we’ll plainly be able to see the rebuilding efforts in Japan. What we won’t see is what individual Japanese would have done with their resources in terms of both investment and consumption that would have raised their own living standards (and ours) at the same time. Also worth noting is that Japan’s government is already in bad shape in terms of debt (worse than even the US). How will this debt burden hinder Japan’s rebuilding? Only time will tell.

I have not blogged here about the situation in Japan because, unlike Rahm Emmanuel, I don’t believe that a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste. But, I was struck in reading today’s Albuquerque Journal by the incredible difference between Jonah Goldberg and Eugene Robinson in their views on the tsunami and subsequent nuclear crisis in Japan.

Goldberg recognizes that the situation in Japan is serious and sympathizes with the victims of the tragedy. But, he understands that every form of energy — just as nearly every human action — has some negative consequences. But, wind and solar are simply not capable of producing enough power to replace nuclear. We could use coal and other fossil fuels, but if global warming is real, that could be an even bigger problem. Goldberg grasps that there are no easy answers.

Robinson, on the other hand, seems to demand easy answers but is unable to come up with them, so he just sows fear. While acknowledging the same facts as Goldberg, Robinson asks a lot of questions that remain unanswerable at this point. Ultimately, he seems to demand total security which, as we know in this uncertain world, is simply not possible.

The conservative/free market side again projects calmness and rationality in the face of a threat while the left spreads fear…unfortunately, this is far too common.

Astute readers of this blog will note that we at the Rio Grande Foundation are consistent advocates for limited government. Sometimes, this means agreeing with folks that we have deep philosophical differences with on a wide variety of policy issues. One of those people would be liberal Rep. Mimi Stewart. Well, as this report from Capitol Report’s Rob Nikolewski today is one of those days for strange bedfellows.

Stewart has sponsored HB 644 which, as Nikolewski noted:

Calls for members of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and the Educational Retirement Board (ERB) who have less than five years’ service to work longer terms before becoming eligible for retirement in order for the PERA and ERB pension plans to become actuarially solvent.

Uniformed public employees — such as police officers and firefighters — are exempt from the changes.

The bill also calls for adjustments in the PERA cost of living adjustments — ending the current system in which PERA retirees receive a 3 percent annual cost of living raise and instead would tie the cost of living adjustment to the Consumer Price Index.

A former public school teacher, Stewart said unless something is done to the current pension plans, taxpayers could be on the hook for $1.2 billion in order to keep the plans solvent.

While I’d like to see more, deeper changes to New Mexico’s pension system, the fact is that Stewart’s bill was an important start. Thus the hostile reaction from AFSCME lobbyist Carter Bundy as discussed in the article.

Both House votes have been posted online with the first vote and second vote. Notably, several Republicans changed their votes to achieve passage in the second vote.

With time running out in the session, it is hard to say what (if anything) will happen in the Senate.

“Buying local” is all the rage these days in New Mexico. From this opinion piece in the Las Cruces Sun-News to this legislation introduced by Sen. Tim Keller which would require state agencies and the public schools to increase the amount of food purchased from in-state producers.

Now, I’m not opposed at all to people (or businesses) that want to purchase food from local producers wherever possible. But, the fact is that it is interstate and international trade that leads to better quality products, a wider variety of products, and less costly goods at our stores. Those who would stand in the way of a Traders Joe’s or would mandate that government agencies purchase from local producers will ultimately harm the citizens of New Mexico as a whole.

For starters, how many tropical products just aren’t produced in New Mexico? Do you really want school children and their families to go without pineapples, coffee, and oranges (to name just a few of dozens of products that are not produced in significant quantities in New Mexico)?

Then there is water usage. In case you haven’t noticed, it has been really dry this year. New Mexico faces real water issues in the future if it does not conserve. But let’s be clear, the problem is NOT caused by the big cities. Agriculture uses an astonishing 90% of New Mexico’s water. Mandating that even more agricultural products are produced in New Mexico will only intensify agriculture’s water usage.

The answer, quite simply, is for both the federal and state governments to stop subsidizing agriculture and to allow a truly free market in food. If you want to purchase organic, free range, New Mexico-produced goods, that is your choice (and you’ll pay whatever premium there is), just don’t force the rest of us to adopt your “foodie” habits.

The talk in Santa Fe, Washington, and all over the nation is about jobs. How to get them, how to grow them, and how to keep one once you have one. As this interesting blog points out, one way to help the job situation would be to eliminate the minimum wage.

The point is to not have a bunch of heads-of-household supporting their families on less than $7.25 an hour, but with teenagers having an unemployment rate of 24%, it would be great to have more young people benefiting from learning the skills of work and obtaining some extra money rather than hanging around on the streets and hunting for a job.

This doesn’t even factor in what would be derived from taxes paid and the businesses that would gain from a new pool of workers.

I sat through a lengthy hearing of the House Business and Industry Committee on Thursday, March 10th. Floor session ran late, so the hearing did not get going until after 7pm. No problem.

I was there to testify on separate legislation, but during the hearing HB 99 sponsored by Rep. Nora Espinoza came up for discussion. The bill is very simple. It would have allowed “anesthesiologist assistants” to work at hospitals outside of UNM Hospital here in Albuquerque. Currently, anesthesiologist assistants (AA’s) are limited to working at one hospital while Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA’s) can work anywhere. Needless to say, the CRNA’s were out in force to testify against the bill — in order to protect their market monopoly — while the AA’s also were out in force to gain more employment opportunities. The testimony and questions were emotional on both sides.

The issue is about economic freedom plain and simple. Hospitals would not be forced to hire AA’s if they don’t want to. If you are concerned about rising health care costs, it only makes sense to expand the number of people who can work in a particular field.

But, in what I can only describe as a shocking but not entirely surprising vote, all six Republicans on the committee supported the effort while all six Democrats opposed it. Thus, the bill died. Simply put, the Republicans supported economic freedom while the Democrats seemed to believe that unless the AA’s could “prove” that their services were absolutely necessary, they should not have the right to work in the specific field. This is backwards thinking and is a major problem for New Mexico. Voters need to understand that this attitude keeps business and economic activity from coming here and causes New Mexicans to remain dependent on government….unfortunately, that may be the very reason these legislators oppose economic freedom.