I’ve written before about the Leadership Institute and how it provided me with useful training (and how it can provide budding activists and free market leaders the same).

Therefore, I was honored to be named the Leadership Institute’s “graduate of the week” this week.

So, thanks to LI for all the great training and, it is worth noting that the Institute is doing some youth training in Albuquerque soon on August 20th.

With everything going on these days, it has been tough to keep up with some important local issues. Some letters to the editor in today’s paper reminded me of the controversy over LEED certification for APS school buildings. APS Board member David Robbins has been fighting for sanity and cost-effectiveness against the movement to build school buildings to LEED standards and go through the certification process.

First and foremost, kudos to David Robbins. Even in times of increased concern about out-of-control spending, the person who sticks his/her neck out and demands efficiency or event cuts is often pilloried (Think Tea Party).

Secondly, it is important to clear up what LEED means. It is a marketing tool and it is just one of many supposedly “green” building methods. It is arguably not even more energy efficient than regular building methods.

What it does do is raise building costs. As this article notes:

Construction-related expenses for LEED-certified buildings can increase a project’s cost by about 10 to 30 percent. LEED certification alone can account for 5 to 15 percent of the total construction costs, not including funds required for other mandated expenses.

Architects and engineers usually demand higher fees for green designs. Green designers add value to the end product and provide extra services. A green-design professional typically charges 1 to 2 percent more for a LEED-certified building design.

These figures do not include the rates of a LEED Accredited Professional (which can increase design fees by 10 to 15 percent), LEED-certification application fees, or the costs associated with monitoring and reporting building performance.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation applaud Robbins’ stance and note that we pointed out the folly of LEED standards and certification back when APS was looking for more of your tax dollards.

In Sunday’s Albuquerque Journal, I saw an article that truly made me shake my head. A link to the article can be found here from the Charlotte Observer, but in the Journal, the headline was “Southeast Trails in Renewable Energy.

The article has some truly choice quotes. Basically, some environmental groups are complaining that states in the Southeast are not forcing their electricity users to buy so-called “renewable power” from sources like wind and solar. Utilities’ lobbying and conservative Republicans are to blame. But where it gets interesting is the statement that “residents in the Southeast benefit from some of the lowest electricity bills in the country, making politicians reluctant to tamper with anything that could hit their constituents in the wallet.”

Duh! A freer market in electricity with fewer government regulations makes for lower costs. Marita Noon of Energy Makes America Great made that very point recently in the Journal. Of course, barring a victory in the courts, environmentalists are succeeding in driving up electricity costs at a time of great economic hardship.

(Albuquerque) In August of 2010, the Gail Ryba bike bridge over the Rio Grande at I-40 was opened. The project, which was funded with federal stimulus money, cost approximately $5 million to construct. And, while the fight continues over the ultimate economic impact of the federal stimulus package, we at the Rio Grande Foundation wanted to better understand the impact of the new bike bridge on local commuting habits.

At the dedication ceremony last August, West Side Councilor Dan Lewis called the bridge “another bridge crossing over the Rio Grande” and, while the statement is certainly accurate on its face, we wanted to see how many people are using the bridge and how many of those people are actually commuting to work.

To do this, two Rio Grande Foundation employees stood on the bridge, counting people and filming the scene from the bridge during a recent morning rush hour (from 7:40am to 8:30am). Video of the rush hour (which we have sped up, set to music, and uploaded to Youtube) clearly shows traffic on the Interstate Highway passing by at a rapid rate with only occasional bike or walking traffic on the bridge.

In 36 minutes of continuous video (available above or via link at www.riograndefoundation.org), a total of 13 bicyclists and 7 pedestrians use the bridge, none of them seemed to be dressed for the office or seemed to be carrying work-related items. Regardless of their purpose in making the trip across the river, that is less than one person biking across the bridge every other minute.

Said Rio Grande Foundation Paul Gessing, “The Foundation expressed its concerns about the project at the time as not being economically-stimulative and not necessary for improving mobility in Albuquerque.” Gessing continued, “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.”

Gessing concluded, “With all of the fiscal pressures facing the federal government, it would seem that this money could have been saved and used to reduce the gaping budget deficit, but this ‘stimulus’-funded project has been built and instead provides little in the way of mobility increases for Albuquerque residents.”

While nearly everyone seems to be looking towards 2012 and the potential end of the Obama Administration as the cure-all for the US economy, I’m not so excited. I haven’t seen nearly what I’d like to in terms of specific spending cut proposals from Republicans.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post makes this point in a recent article. Like them or not, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul have put forth specific ideas for reducing and ultimately eliminating the deficit. I don’t really see the same specifics coming from Mitt Romney and the other candidates.

I think the Tea Party and anyone who cares about this country needs to demand that any politician running for any federal office have a specific plan for eliminating the federal deficit. I like John Stossel’s for one,but there are other paths.

The US EPA has made its decision; it will NOT be rational, nor will it follow its own guidelines. Instead, it is going to force costly new haze controls on the San Juan Generating Station.

Read the following article on the situation from William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to run roughshod over New Mexico officials and impose nearly $340 million in unjustified costs on PNM customers—in blatant disregard of its own rules. At issue is a provision of the Clean Air Act, known as “Regional Haze.” Unlike other parts of the Act, which are meant to protect public health, the Regional Haze provision is an aesthetic regulation, intended to improve the view at national parks.

Under New Mexico law, the state cannot impose Regional Haze emissions controls that are more stringent than what the federal government requires. In 2005, the EPA published Regional Haze guidelines that established recommended emissions controls to comply with the visibility regulation. These recommendations are known as “presumptive limits.” On June 2, the state Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) unanimously approved a Regional Haze plan that would meet the EPA’s “presumptive limits” by spending $34 million to retrofit the San Juan Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant located 15 miles west of Farmington.

Despite comporting with both federal guidelines and state law, these controls weren’t good enough for the EPA. Perhaps this has something to do with President Barack Obama’s campaign promise to “bankrupt” the American coal industry. Whatever its rationale, the EPA is proposing Regional Haze retrofits at San Juan that would cost New Mexico ratepayers $370 million—a nearly ten-fold increase over those approved by New Mexico officials.

And what does this huge sum buy? Not much. Based on peer-reviewed research, there is a 35 percent chance that the visibility “benefit” of the EPA’s preferred controls could be perceptible by the general population on the seventh worst visibility day of the year at Mesa Verde, the National Park closest to the San Juan Generating Station. In other words, most people won’t even notice the difference wrought by the EPA’s ultra-expensive controls.

But New Mexicans certainly will notice the difference in their utility bills! PNM estimates that the EIB-proposed controls would result in a rate increase of $12 a year, while the EPA-proposed controls would increase rates by $82 a year—almost seven times more. In these tough economic times, New Mexicans should not be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for imperceptible benefits.

If the EPA decides to reject the EIB’s plan, and impose its own, the administration of Governor Susana Martinez would have a strong case in court, thanks to the unique discretion afforded states in deciding how to protect visibility under the Clean Air Act. According to the EPA’s own Regional Haze guidelines, “Congress evinced a special concerning with insuring that States would be the decision-makers.” If the EPA chooses to ignore that fact, New Mexico should remind it in court.

Recently I was on Tea Party radio on 1550 AM. I was on for a total of two hours, the first hour as the only interviewee and the second hour with Economic Development Secretary Jon Barela. During the first hour we talk about the federal budget situation along with some specific recommendations for improving NM’s economy. The second hour continues the discussion on New Mexico.

Links to each hour can be found here.

Bernalillo County is still not posting employee names with their salary information online. Therefore, the Rio Grande Foundation has taken upon itself the task of collecting and posting the information online. Of course, as with any major enterprise, the payroll constantly changes, so we re-requested the information and have posted it here.

As you’ll see in looking at the data, the annual salary figure is not directly found in the document. To calculate that, multiply the number by 8*5*52 (8 hours per day, 5 days per week, and 52 weeks in the year). So, someone at a rate of 17.4337 is making $36, 262 annually.

Essential Air Service is one of the most wasteful federal programs that exists. And, while the jury is going to be out for some time as to whether the GOP and taxpayers won or lost on the debt ceiling debate, there can be no doubt that taking a stand to reduce Essential Air Service spending is good policy. Better still, since Republicans come from predominantly rural areas that benefit from the service, this is a sign of real, principled change.

Of course, the debt ceiling and FAA debates represent only the beginning of very tough campaign to make America solvent.

It is painful to have parts of the FAA shut down and some New Mexico communities will miss having the service (four of them currently receive it), but there is no right to air service and we simply can’t afford it. Not surprisingly, our own Sen. Jeff Bingaman not only supports Essential Air Service, he wants to expand it.

UPDATE as of Thursday, August 4: Never mind, we were sold out today, the so-called “Essential Air Service” lives. No program is wasteful enough for Congress to cut, sigh.

Recently, a writer with Politico, a political newspaper in the DC area called to ask how Gov. Martinez was doing. Along with a few other New Mexico political luminaries including Rep. Al Park and Heath Haussamen, I gave my $.02 in an article here. This short blog posting by the author contains most of my quotes.

Just because Martinez hasn’t engaged in the same manner as Scott Walker and John Kasich (of Wisconsin and Ohio respectively) doesn’t mean that she’s not on conservatives’ side. Rather, she is dealing with different political realities. If she does have a conservative majority in the Legislature at some point, she’ll have a once in 100 years opportunity to shift New Mexico towards economic freedom and prosperity. Making those changes will require some tough decisions that will be unpopular with the special interests.

Over the past several weeks, there has been some back and forth between Las Cruces-based writer Michael Hays and myself on the Constitution. Read my initial column and his response here.

My response in which I responded to his assertion that the Constitution is a “living” document was recently posted on the site. Certainly, with the debt ceiling debate finally behind us (for now), it is time for both parties to re-assess what the US federal government is actually capable of doing effectively. The Constitutional framework would seem to provide the best framework for moving the discussion forward, but it seems to me that neither side is serious about restoring the federal government to solvency.

It looks like we have a deal on the debt ceiling. While avoiding the possibility of a government default is a good thing, the actual spending cuts are not actual “cuts,” but only relative to estimates of the growth of federal spending over the next decade.

Needless to say, I’m not sold on the proposal, but it is probably the best that could be achieved given the political limitations (I like this plan much better). However, it is depressing to see the same Keynsian claptrap being spewed by those who the media cites as mainstream economists.

According to the article:

“Unemployment will be higher than it would otherwise have been,” Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of Pimco, the world’s largest bond investment firm, said yesterday on ABC News. “Growth will be lower than it would be otherwise. And inequality will be worse than it would be otherwise.”

The article goes on to say:

And the consensus is that job losses are likely to outweigh the positive impact of increased business confidence. “When you look at the history of these things, the finding is that we shouldn’t be kidding ourselves,” Paolo Mauro of the International Monetary Fund and an expert on the impact of spending cuts, told the New York Times. “When you do fiscal adjustment in the near term, it does have an adverse impact on economic growth.”

Weren’t these the same people who sold us the “stimulus” as a sure-fire way to turn the US economy around?

Me, I think that cutting back federal spending and providing some indication that Washington is serious about cutting spending are the keys to spurring economic growth.

The following videos are from Friday’s luncheon on virtual schools with Lance Izumi. The first video is of an introductory video celebrating what would have been Milton Friedman’s 99th birthday as well as the world premier of the movie “Short Circuited.”

This video is of my introduction of Education Secretary Hanna Skandera and Skandera’s introduction of Lance Izumi:

The study is available here, but an opinion piece appeared in the Albuquerque Journal today.

All of this brinkmanship over the debt ceiling has me a bit depressed. After all, Boehner’s plan is hardly a serious attempt to put America on a path to budgetary sustainability.

That’s why I loved John Stossel’s recent proposal to take a chainsaw to the federal budget. Stossel’s proposal, without even accounting for the rapid economic growth that would be unleashed by the reduction in the federal bureaucracy would result in a surplus in one year. Rather than punting our budgetary problems to future generations, we need our leaders to come up with real, specific cuts, RIGHT NOW.

Oh, and in a small glimmer of optimism, Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado has a proposal that would increase federal revenues by doing things like having a tax amnesty and legalizing internet gambling — without raising taxes.

I wish I could get excited about the ongoing debt ceiling debate. Unfortunately, while they talk a good game, the Republicans’ supposedly draconian plans (according to Harry Reid and Barack Obama) is weak tea indeed.

The reality is that Speaker Boehner’s newest plan only purports to cut $1 trillion over the next 10 years. None of that is specific or immediate. Considering that recent deficits have been over $1 trillion annually, even this plan, which is sure to be vetoed by Obama, is supposedly too radical. The reality is that it will continue the current deficit spending unabated and, since one Congress cannot force a future Congress to adhere to its will, there is no reason to believe that the $1 trillion will ever materialize.

The recent past hardly inspires confidence. Remember the deal that kept the federal government from being shut down? The good news is that Republicans have control over spending. All they need to do is refuse to pass any legislation that spends more than we have revenue to cover….

Imagine owning a business and not being able to advertise. This is the world Albuquerque City Councilor Isaac Benton wants to impose upon our city. He states that he wants to ban on electronic billboards (including those on sites owned by businesses) because “they’re a traffic nuisance and they don’t look good.” The issue will be heard at Monday’s City Council meeting (August 1).

Now, whether they are dangerous to traffic or not would seem to be a scientific question that can be studied, but it would seem that those in favor of a ban bear the burden of proving this point in advance of a ban, not the other way around. As to whether they look good or not, that is clearly subjective and it would seem that using the force of law to impose one person’s aesthetic preferences on the rest of us would be unfair and even immoral. Of course, as an architect, Benton is used to handling aesthetics and controlling how people live certain aspects of their lives. The difference is that builders can hire or not hire him to design a building. As City Councilor, he has the power to force the rest of us to bend to his will.

Now, if Benton were to get his way, there are First Amendment issues that might arise from such a ban. Our friends at the Institute for Justice have challenged a sign ban in Dallas. Perhaps similar legal challenges could be brought to bear in Albuquerque?

Sometimes you just have to scratch your head. Recently, I wrote about the New Mexico Spaceport within the context of America’s ongoing efforts in space. The article received this scatterbrained response from a liberal blogger.

They explain their position, such as it is, best in the following line: The Pink Flamingo does not like libertarians. I think they are lying fools who have no earthly idea about the realities of life. Neither do their dimwitted little tea party supporters.

That is hardly a thorough critique to say the least. Even more humorous is this anti-libertarian’s belief that we at the Rio Grande Foundation support the Spaceport. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I’m not sure what would happen in terms of space exploration were it not for the US federal government. It is a thought experiment that is truly impossible to fully comprehend. The fact is that — even if Obama or the next president changes directions — given the current budget situation, the private sector can and should play a greater role in space. Sorry Pink Flamingo, but name calling is not an argument.

Jon Barela and the Economic Development Department are currently hosting a “Job Creation Tour” statewide. More information on the schedule of events is available here. I’ll be speaking at around 9am at the Albuquerque meeting this Thursday. I’ll discuss our Roadmap for a more Economically-Competitive New Mexico.

So, if you are concerned about New Mexico’s economy and wish to participate in efforts to turn it around, I urge you to attend.

The Pew Foundation, a generally elite, left-of-center foundation, recently analyzed the national network of Watchdog sites like our own New Mexico Watchdog. And, while they predictably found that the sites “leaned conservative,” I’m proud to say that our own Watchdog site was “at the lower end of the ideology scale.” That’s pretty good, especially considering that up until this year, New Mexico’s political structure was almost totally controlled by Democrats.

So, while the only axes our reporters have to grind are in defense of taxpayers and honesty in government, we are pleased by Pew’s findings. Jason Stverak of the Franklin Center which coordinates and assists with the national network of Watchdog sites has his own take here.

Whether August 2nd is the day of reckoning or it is pushed off into the future, America’s financial situation is dire and unsustainable. Check out the sorry truth at “USA Incorporated.”

Despite pressure from many legislators in both parties (here are the House and Senate votes) and the various Chambers of Commerce, Gov. Martinez made the tough call of vetoing a $128 million tax hike that would have beefed up New Mexico’s unemployment insurance fund. Wisely, the Gov. did allow the benefit reductions in the bill to go into effect.

Martinez could have been excused for going ahead with the increase because if she didn’t, and revenues into the fund did not increase, the unemployment tax would have been forced even higher by the federal government.

Now Martinez’s decision appears to be vindicated (at least at this point) with new data saying that the fund is solvent at least through March of 2013.

Thanks to Gov. Martinez for making a tough decision that undoubtedly has helped to restore New Mexico’s economy to health.

The free market advocacy organization Club for Growth is rating all of the presidential candidates. They just published their white paper for Gary Johnson and it is quite favorable (as expected). Check it out here.

It certainly isn’t true that all teachers are left-wing liberals, but it certainly seems that the most vocal ones are. So, we are treated to the latest, thinly-veiled political diatribe by a teacher on the supposed need to raise taxes to spend more on education.

I have already written extensively on the topic of K-12 funding here. To see how much spending has increased over and above inflation on a per-pupil basis since the early 1990s, click here (the number is about 33%). Nationally (and I’m sure NM isn’t much different), the ratio of teacher to pupil is about half what the author cites:

Most importantly, I believe, while the writer cites the supposed need for reform, he gives absolutely no specifics. Nor does he give any justification for his view that vouchers have “failed.” The fact is that vouchers have not failed. They may not be a panacea, but they have had success when they have been tried (over the stern objections of teachers unions).

Another reform option is virtual schools. To learn more about that, I hope you’ll attend our upcoming luncheon on July 29.