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.

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.