With the left-wing chattering classes still abuzz over the fire department that let a man’s house burn in Tennessee, I felt that it was important to debunk that this was anything like a “free-market” situation.

While my perspective is laid out in the posting above, I saw an interesting article from John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute over at National Review Online. Berlau adds “fuel to the fire,” so to speak by showing how unionized fire departments have, in the past, allowed fires to burn in order to maximize salary and other concessions. The money quote from Berlau that sums up the issue nicely is as follows:

The answer is federalism. States and local communities should decide what is best for themselves in protecting residents from fire. This could include contracting out to private fire services, allowing insurance companies to create fire brigades for their home-insurance policy holders (my Competitive Enterprise Institute colleague Iain Murray has written on how this worked in the 19th century), or letting homeowner associations contract for fire protection in the same way they often do for services such as garbage collection.

But as with health care, liberals want to take away federalism in fire protection and force all American communities into a one-size-fits-all unionized model. The biggest congressional priority of the IAFF over the past few years has been the so-called Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which would force unionization and collective bargaining on every one of the nation’s local fire departments.

The Rio Grande Foundation and Citizens in Charge Foundation, a national voter rights group focused on the ballot initiative and referendum process, have released a new poll of New Mexico voters on the issue of giving voters in the state greater ability to directly vote on issues in state elections.

Read the full story here.

To say the least, we at the Rio Grande Foundation are not big fans of government permits. Often, these permits come in the form of business permits or licensing in order to perform a particular job (like cutting hair). Usually, it is our friends on the right, conservatives and business owners that oppose onerous and unnecessary permitting. We agree with them.

But now, the City of Albuquerque is claiming that a man who has been feeding the homeless needs a permit to do so. In fact, they plan on re-file charges against him. This may be an instance where our friends on the left jump on the anti-permit bandwagon.

After all, it would seem that someone is sacrificing enough to go to the trouble to feed the homeless. Are they going to also go to the trouble and expense of obtaining a permit? What if I give a sandwich to a homeless guy downtown, am I violating this law?

The fact is that receiving a piece of paper from the government and paying certain government fees (actually taxes) does not make the food served, haircuts given, or other services rendered any safer or better. Usually, as Milton Friedman pointed out, licensing and government permits simply serve to reduce the supply of a particular service and increase its cost. It would seem that particularly in today’s economy, the City would try to encourage people to engage in economic or charitable activities, not discourage them.

Surprise, surprise, as the Albuquerque Journal reports, Rail Runner ridership is down yet again. According to the article, the decrease was 11.2 percent decrease compared with the same period in 2009. That is a pretty major drop and it continues a trend.

Ridership had been dropping as reported by Kate Nash back in May in the Santa Fe New Mexican.

With the state as much as $400 million in the red heading into the next legislative session, it would seem that the conversation over whether taxpayers can or should continue to pay close to $20 million annually for the train. Some like-minded people are circulating a petition along these lines. The tracks have been laid and the trains are running, but the system is not sustainable. Regardless of who the next governor is, saving $20 million annually by stopping the train must be a consideration.

Timothy Sandefur, one of the leading pro-freedom lawyers in the nation, recently spoke at a Rio Grande Foundation event in Albuquerque. The subject of Sandefur's talk was his new book "The Right to Earn a Living" which studies the myriad legal cases throughout American history that impact Americans abilities to work, unmolested by government bureaucrats. Apologies in advance for the video quality, but the sound quality is excellent.

Today on New Mexico Politics, I wrote further about the success of Gov. Richardson’s tax cuts and compared their economic impact — as best I could — with those of President Bush.

While I believe that Bush’s cuts had a positive impact, the measurable impact of Richardson’s cuts is greater, largely because we can actually compare their impact on New Mexico with policies enacted in other state. That is just one of many arguments for federalism — that is, the Founders view as embodied in the Constitution that a vast majority of policies should be driven at the state and local level, not in Washington.

Recently, I blogged about what I believe to be a politically-motivated, taxpayer-financed letter I received from Congressman Martin Heinrich. The issue was ObamaCare, an issue that I had repeatedly contacted the “Representative” about (albeit to no avail).

I just got another “franked” letter from Heinrich’s office, this one on the topic of Social Security COLA’s, an intensely-political issue in the weeks before an election (one that is a liability for Democrats in the upcoming election). I never contacted Rep. Heinrich about this issue as I am nowhere near eligible for Social Security.

Why would Heinrich want to reach out to contact me to explain that he has sponsored legislation, HR 5987, which would provide a $250 payment to seniors if there is no COLA in 2011? Simply put, he needs every vote he can get in a tight race with Republican Jon Barela. The legislation Heinrich has co-sponsored is a thinly-disguised ploy to buy the votes of seniors and the letter — again, mailed at taxpayer expense — is an even more thinly-disguised effort to make sure seniors are aware of it before Election Day.

I wonder what other taxpayer-funded campaign mailings I’ll be receiving in the next few weeks?

Things have been quite busy here at RGF. This includes several recent radio appearances.

I was on Bob Clark’s show for an hour discussing tax cuts and a variety of other subjects relating to listener calls;

Also, KUNM had a series of interviews with myself and other politicos and policy watchers relating to Governor Richardson’s legacy. I discussed Richardson’s lack of action on education reform here;

His scandals here;

and, his record on tax cuts and spending here;

According to a multi-pronged study of electoral competitiveness of all 6,125 districts, as a rule in 2010, the fierce competition that marks the country’s federal and gubernatorial elections has not manifested at the level of 2010’s state legislative elections. New Mexico is one of the states with the fewest competitive races.

Does it matter if races are uncompetitive? The map provides little guidance. New Hampshire is certainly an economically-successful state, but Michigan (another state with relatively competitive races) is not. Could this competitiveness be a reaction to the economic climate?

Of course Texas and Delaware are both relatively uncompetitive electorally, but they perform well (check out page 2) on indices of economic freedom. Of course, New Mexico does not perform quite so well.

Do you care about electoral competitiveness? If so, the simple answer is redistricting reform that promotes competitive races. A few years ago, California and Ohio voters rejected reform proposals, but they might still be a good starting place.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation remain decidedly “above the fray” when it comes to the upcoming election. We’ll work hard to promote liberty and limited government no matter who is elected to office, just as we’ve done for the last 5 years.

That said, sometimes things get so silly that a response is in order. One outright lie by the Democratic Party of New Mexico which has sent a series of mailers out against Tim Lewis who is running for the Legislature. The postcards which can be found here, here, here, and here make the absurd claim that because Lewis is supportive of many of the Tea Party’s goals and that because some in the Tea Party support a federal tax reform plan known as the FairTax, that Lewis supports a 30% sales tax rate.

The mailer is downright silly (and completely inaccurate) on several counts:

1) Lewis is running for the Legislature, not Congress. The FairTax applies only to federal taxes so this plan doesn’t even apply to him (or anyone else running for state or local office);
2) Far from simply being a tax hike, the FairTax, if adopted, would replace ALL federal taxes including payroll taxes. This is hardly a tax hike;
3) The Tea Party has no single position in support of or against the FairTax so arguing that any candidate’s support for the Tea Party indicates support for the FairTax is ridiculous;

While I think the FairTax has merit, many on the right do not. Regardless of one’s stance on the issue, it is clear that some people are willing to say whatever it takes to get elected.

I had a place at the table for last week’s “In Focus” program on Channel 5 KNME. Topics included Obama’s visit to Albuquerque, the race for governor, the closing of the GE plant in the South Valley, and more.

Check it out:

Watch the full episode. See more New Mexico In Focus.

Recently, in Tennessee, a man’s house caught fire. The man lives in a rural area of the county where, if you want your house protected against fire, you pay a $75 fee annually. The guy didn’t pay the fee and the firemen let the house burn. The full story can be found here.

Sounds awful, right? It certainly is and we at the Rio Grande Foundation have never come out opposed to publicly-financed fire departments as our friends on the left seem to imply. Local governments can and should experiment with policy solutions and if the local folks want to pay for the fire department using an “insurance” model, that is their right. As an aside, I believe the fire department in Tennessee that watched this house burn was still a government fire department!

What should have happened or would have happened in a privatized world? I would think that in order to win a new customer, gain positive publicity for their company (remember, they’re competing in a free market), and do something good for someone in need, that a private fire department would have put the fire out and then billed the guy later.

Private fire departments can succeed. We at RGF don’t fight that battle because at $75 a year, if government was limited to fire, roads, ambulance, and police, I’d be a happy camper. Leave it to the lefties to make this stuff up.

I have written Rep. Heinrich in the past on a variety of issues. While one of these issues was the health care bill that Heinrich voted for twice and that is now deeply unpopular, I’ve written to him and received responses from him on a variety of issues.

Recently, I received this unsolicited letter from Heinrich’s office. I was surprised to receive it because it had been some time since the health care vote and any correspondence with the Congressman on the issue. But, we are getting close to Election Day, and this mail (known ad “franked” mail) is taxpayer-financed. The letter simply defends ObamaCare and is clearly meant to assist with Heinrich’s re-election campaign. While it is technically legal according to my former colleagues at the National Taxpayers Union, that doesn’t make it right or fair.

This year may see a record number of incumbents go down to defeat, but franking is one of the advantages of incumbency that most certainly tilts the playing field in favor of those already in office.

State income taxes are big news these days. First, we published of our study on Governor Richardson’s successful income tax cuts. Today, the Wall Street Journal had an excellent piece by Art Laffer which shows how personal incomes slow economic growth in those states that have adopted them.

As Laffer writes:

Each and every state that introduced an income tax saw its share of total U.S. output decline. Some of the states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, have become fiscal basket cases. Even West Virginia, which was poor to begin with, got relatively poorer after adopting a state income tax.

Richardson’s cuts, as we’ve shown, stimulated growth. Our next Governor should seriously consider eliminating New Mexico’s personal income tax, especially once the economic outlook brightens and needed cuts and reforms are made that will further increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of New Mexico government.

As this column from the Albuquerque Journal notes, “Waiting for Superman” may be the most important movie of 2010. With a popular movie, widely distributed in theaters and on Oprah, the push for school choice and improved access to an excellent education is taking on an urgency not seen since the 1950s.

New Mexico is one of the worst performing states in terms of educational achievement in the entire nation (which isn’t performing all that well either). Check this movie out and get yourself and your friends educated and active on the issue.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have been saying to anyone who will listen that major new environmental regulations (a New Mexico-specific carbon cap) are too important to be decided by an un-elected and highly conflicted Environmental Improvement Board (also see testimony here).

It looks like someone has been listening. I am heartened that Republican legislators have taken the conflict of interest issue to Attorney General King and I hope he does the right thing by demanding that partisans with personal interests on either side of the global warming debate recuse themselves. Only time will tell, but it is good to know you are not shouting into darkness sometimes!

While it is easy to get caught up in the errors of our own politicians. For some perspective, it is useful to compare their foibles to those of other politicians in other states. The Rio Grande Foundation recently praised Richardson for his income tax cuts which have had a positive economic impact. The Cato Institute which has generally graded New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson highly in the organization’s report card on the nation’s governors, gave Richardson relatively high marks scoring him a “B” in their latest edition.

Here is what the folks at Cato had to say about the Guv:

Governor Richardson has carried through on phased-in income and capital gains tax cuts
he put in place seven years ago. The top income tax rate fell from 8.2 percent in 2003 to 4.9
percent in 2008. Richardson has supported other modest tax cuts, but they have not been progrowth
reforms like his income tax cuts. In 2009, for example, he signed into law energy tax
credits and one-time income tax rebates. The governor has supported some tax increases. In
2010, he signed into law an increase in the gross receipts tax rate, a broadening of income and
sales tax bases, and a cigarette tax increase. On spending, Richardson allowed the budget to
balloon during the middle of the decade, but he has cut back recently. Between FY03 and
FY09, the general fund budget increased 49 percent. However, Richardson’s proposed spending
for FY11 is down 11 percent from the peak in FY09.
New

Interestingly-enough, Richardson crushed right-wing darling Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, who scored a lousy “D” on the report which only examines fiscal issues. Richardson also scored better than likely presidential candidate Mitch Daniels who also received a “B,” but was not scored as highly as Richardson.

What do you think? Did Cato go overboard in praising Richardson?

All this week, KUNM has been airing interviews (available on their website) with various Richcardson-watchers during its afternoon “All Things Considered” program. I (Paul Gessing, President of the Rio Grande Foundation) took part in this effort. I was interviewed for stories on scandals and energy and environment which have been posted.

More will be available here as they are uploaded to the site.

Congressional Republicans are now running for office on a platform of repealing the recent federal takeover of the US health care system. Unfortunately, while repeal would undo a great deal of harm, positive reforms are needed in the health care sector. Rio Grande Foundation board member and physician Deane Waldman wonders what will happen and outlines some positive reforms in a new article "If Obamacare Is Repealed, What Then?"

The Rio Grande Foundation has previously analyzed and criticized higher education spending. While this sector is particularly bloated in New Mexico, the problem is not limited to our state. In fact, the cost of college is rising nationwide.

That’s why the National Center for Policy Analysis recently studied the cost of higher ed and found some interesting facts:

Where Is the Money Going? Much of the increased spending is going outside the classroom. For example, according to economist Richard Vedder, at four-year U.S. colleges and universities:

The ratio of teachers to students remained relatively stable, at about seven teachers per 100 students from 1976 to 2000.
In contrast, the ratio of nonteaching staff members to students doubled from three to six per 100 students from 1976 to 2000.

This suggests that less money is being spent on students’ education and more is being spent on noninstructional activities, such as administration and faculty research.

Also,

Institutional spending per fulltime equivalent student for student services – such as student organizations, intramural athletics and career counseling – rose more than 36 percent at private research universities from 1998 to 2008, after adjusting for inflation.

By contrast, institutional spending on instruction increased only 22.4 percent at private universities.
At public research universities, student services spending increased 20.1 percent and instructional spending rose just 10.1 percent over the same time period.

The reason I (and many others) believe higher education to be in a “bubble,” much like the real estate bubble is that students are being forced to take on ever-greater levels of debt:

The average amount of a federal student loan increased 180 percent from 1990 to 2008, after adjusting for inflation.
Students borrowed $1,637 in federal loans (in 2008 dollars) during the 1990-1991 school year, on the average.
By contrast, students borrowed an average of $4,585 during the 2008-2009 school year.

In case you haven’t seen it, Congressional Republicans have released their “Pledge to America.” It has a few very nice, solid ideas in it, specifically:

Repeal and Replace ObamaCare;

Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels (2008 levels);

End TARP Once And For All;

End Government Control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

Those are all very good ideas as far as they go, but as Gene Healy of the Cato Institute writes, there is a lot of work needed — going far beyond the ideas contained in “The Pledge” — needed to turn around the US economy.

Whether it is mandated 401k’s, ObamaCare, or his latest, nationwide renewable mandate, it would seem that New Mexico’s senior senator’s best and only idea for turning our nation’s economy around is for the federal government to mandate economic growth.

Of course, the real-world economy doesn’t work like that. Mandates are necessary because the behavior that government force is used to dictate is not the most efficient or least expensive way to do things. Paul Chesser writing in the Washington Times As Chesser writes:

A study by the Washington-based Institute for Energy Research found that states with their own binding renewable electricity standards have 40 percent higher electricity prices than do states without such mandates.

The full impact of these renewable energy mandates at the state level has not yet been realized as most of them (like New Mexico’s, which goes fully into effect in 2020) are not fully-implemented. If Bingaman and his allies in Congress really want to turn the economy around, perhaps they will consider repealing some mandates. I’m not holding my breath though.

Governor Richardson's big-spending ways have often drawn the ire of fiscal conservatives (like the Rio Grande Foundation), but there is no doubt that the 2003 tax cuts which he pushed through the Legislature that year have resulted in a burst of economic prosperity for New Mexicans, especially when compared to other states.

In fact, as personal income data from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and compiled online by New Mexico’s own Bureau of Business & Economic Research clearly shows the upward trend that started after 2003.

Read the full text of the new study here.

I found this article from today’s Albuquerque Journal fascinating. It was written by 32-year educator Del Hansen. It would seem to me that Mr. Hansen and his ilk are a big part of the problem in New Mexico education.

Hansen spends more than 800 words complaining about parents and our society and how it molds students into what they are. In Hansen’s world, schools have little to no impact over the 12 (or more) years of schooling because if parents don’t do the job, teachers and schools are doomed to fail. Ben Chavis, who I blogged about yesterday, is just one prominent example of an educator who, regardless of society and parents, pushed his students to succeed. I’m not blaming teachers for not always succeeding, but until we have a school system that is designed with success in mind, mediocrity will be the norm.

Speaking of mediocrity, I found the comments of Houston Texans running back (and Albuquerque native) Arian Foster very interesting. An article about him appeared in the paper as well.

Said Foster: “Looking back, it’s easy to see why so many Albuquerque kids fail. It’s the attitude out here, and that’s terrible,” says Foster, who says he still visits at least three times a year and is in the process of creating programs to help straighten out troubled teens. “I will do anything to help the kids there. But there’s just kind of this attitude where people accept mediocrity.

Strong stuff, especially to tell your home-town newspaper, but I find his statement compelling and accurate. Until our schools demand excellence and our government’s policies reward (rather than discourage) hard work and individual initiative, New Mexico and its citizens will be achieving far less than they should.