New Mexico has a reputation as a low property tax state:

But, according to the Tax Foundation, at least between the years of 2009-2010, that burden grew more rapidly in New Mexico than all but a few other states.

One year doesn’t make a trend and New Mexico is not currently in danger of losing its low property tax status, but if the trend continues, it could become a larger issue. However, if property taxes rose (they are a tax on wealth) and the personal income tax (a tax on productivity) were eliminated, might that be good for New Mexico’s economy?

I had a chance to attend last night’s meeting on the proposed West Side Wal Mart. A large and boisterous crowed turned out, largely in opposition to the project. Interestingly-enough, about half the opposition, including the most vocal opponents, came from the Bosque School which is located between the Rio Grande and the proposed Wal Mart.

I won’t go through all of the arguments presented against the store, but the evening boiled down to a bunch of people who have the financial resources to pay more than $18,000 annually to send their kids to school (in addition to what they pay to APS, but that’s a different story) who oppose the location of a store that primarily serves middle and lower class Albuquerqueans (including your humble non-profit President).

The facts are simple: the land is zoned commercial, so some kind of development was inevitable. This means traffic and all of the visual/environmental issues were bound to arise. Somehow I don’t think a Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s would generate the same opposition.

Also, while opponents note correctly that Wal Mart has three stores on the West Side, is it really up to them to decide how many stores are “enough?” If Wal Mart thinks it can turn a profit and their customers show up, then apparently there are NOT enough stores.

So, if the Bosque School simply can’t tolerate being next door to a Wal Mart, why don’t they do what the Academy has done over the years and buy all the surrounding land so that nothing is located next door? That would be one pro-freedom way to address this issue, but it seems like the leadership of Bosque would rather use their wealth and connections to manipulate the political process in their favor.

Recently, large numbers of Republicans in Congress have been criticizing the Obama Administration for its role in the Solyndra scandal. If you’ve been hiding under a rock, Solyndra was the Obama Administration’s prime example of its “green job agenda.” It received more than $500 million in federal loans and recently collapsed, going out of business.

It was a bad idea from the first place. Crony capitalism in which the government picks winners and losers is always a bad idea. The problem, as Dana Milbank of the Washington Post points out (at least for Republicans) is that many of them were four-square behind the loan program (which George W. Bush signed into law), before they were against it. While it is great that Republicans are now criticizing the “investment,” it doesn’t give me much confidence that they’ll take such a principled stand if they take Congress and/or the Presidency in 2012.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: the US federal government needs to stop picking winners and losers. See New Mexico’s experience with Eclipse Aviation as a cautionary tale.

President Obama and his “tax the rich” acolytes on the left would have us believe that the federal government will raise significant revenues if only Congress would raise taxes on the “rich.” Unfortunately for them, real-world economics doesn’t actually work that way. In fact, federal revenues over the span of decades have been approximately 19 percent of GDP.

At the state level, the tendency for the “rich” to avoid higher taxes has been even more dramatic. See California as an example where the top income tax rate is 10.3% and where tax revenues have plummeted in recent years.

See, the problem is (as Jonathan Williams of ALEC pointed out) that the way to grow revenues is to create new taxpayers, not gouge the ones you have. Rather than raising taxes and thus pushing people out of the labor market (either voluntarily or through job loss), Obama should be lowering marginal rates and reducing job-killing regulations to encourage economic growth that will in turn, generate more tax revenue.

The hard left in New Mexico rallied to kill the elimination of social promotion in the special session. They also don’t much like our state’s new A-F grading system. They seem hell-bent on preserving our state’s 49th out of 50 status in education results (perhaps they can coach the Lobos football team).

Anyway, I found it interesting that the Obama Administration made statements in support of education reforms that the Martinez Administration has been pushing (and against what the hard left is doing).

Here are the relevant statements as taken from an Albuquerque Journal article that ran over the weekend:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan on 3rd grade social promotion, said “If your students keep being allowed to leave third grade and fourth grade without being able to read, you’re not doing them any favors.”

As the Journal noted, Duncan was particularly critical of New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system, citing the fact that 99.9 percent of teachers are considered satisfactory under the current system.

“That’s a broken system,” Duncan said.

He went on to say that such a nonspecific view of teacher effectiveness is not helpful for teachers of any ability level. He said the efforts of excellent teachers are not currently recognized, while average or ineffective teachers are not getting the support they need to improve.

“If the system isn’t working for any of the adults, the teachers, I promise it’s not working for your kids,” Duncan said.

The article further noted that Duncan outlined specific criteria states must meet, including holding students to high standards, creating accountability systems for schools and evaluating teachers based “significantly” on student growth.

The Education Secretary could not be more clear in stating that New Mexico’s hard left is becoming increasingly isolated in opposing needed reforms. While we at the Rio Grande Foundation certainly don’t agree with Obama’s Administration on much, perhaps they can talk sense to the hard left here in the Land of Enchantment.

I was downtown on Friday for the Hispanic Leadership Network conference at the Hyatt when I saw perhaps the most unusual protest I’ve ever seen. As I’ve discussed in the past, there is an out-of-town carpenters’ union that has been protestingnumerous Albuquerque businesses. This protest of Amtrak appeared to be coming from the same source.

For the uninitiated, Amtrak is America’s federally-owned passenger rail system. It received $1.565 billion in taxpayer subsidies last year. What reason would a carpenters’ union have to protest the railroad? Honestly, I have no idea. And asking the paid, minimum wage protesters won’t get you any answers either, we’ve tried.

So, I say, shame on Amtrak for taking $1 billion+ in annual subsidies, but I don’t think that was the point of the debate.

I got the call about 7pm last night from the folks at the Hispanic Leadership Network: Paul, we need you to be on a panel about education reform tomorrow morning. Rep. Espinoza is going to be stuck in Santa Fe finishing up the legislative session.

So, I put together a few thoughts on the sorry state of education in New Mexico and added a conclusion that emphasizes the vast potential of virtual education to transform education for the better in New Mexico and nationwide.

Unfortunately, not all the education news today was good. As this opinion piece from today’s Albuquerque Journal points out, “the usual suspects have again killed any progress that will benefit this state in regard to the improvement of our schools.” In this case, the issue is 3rd grade social promotion which appears to be dead in the Special. As the opinion piece continues, “When 80 percent of your fourth-grade students cannot read at a proficient level, your school system is in crisis – yet no one in the traditional education camp is ringing any alarm bells.”

Ironically, Sec. Skandera had to send a replacement to the Conference today as well. She is in Washington meeting with President Obama who, while not where I’d want him to be on education reform, has a more reform-minded outlook than the “usual suspects” here in New Mexico.

Early voting is now going on here in Albuquerque for City Council, red light cameras, and a slew of bond measures. Find out where to vote here. Find more information on the election here (including sample ballots).

My old Councilor, Michael Cadigan, had a very interesting opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal in which he made a persuasive case against Tax Bond 12 which would allocate $25 million to a sportsplex and $25 million to the Paseo/I-25 interchange. I agree with Cadigan that Paseo and I-25 should be the number one priority for any current and future infrastructure spending and think it is a bad idea to place the Interchange and the sportsplex on the same question. I also found the history of the various sportsplexes to be interesting and concerning.

While I appreciate Mayor Berry’s attempts to create amenities for the City, we have long stressed that government should focus on the basics. It does not appear that a sportsplex would rise to the level of something that taxpayers should be forced to pay for (all taxation is force).

And, how about those other bond measures? Sure, they are all “mom and apple pie” things like community centers and libraries, but just know that each of them authorize the government to take on additional debt that is ultimately paid for by you, the taxpayer. Each bond that fails means more money in your pockets. 

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, a self-identified “Democratic investigative reporter” attacks Gov. Martinez’s education reforms based on a study for which the authors demand $28.80 to even read.  He claims that the Gov.’s agenda is a “one-size fits all, cookie cutter agenda.”

Perhaps Mr. Corwin should have investigated this and this a little more closely. The point is that elimination of social promotion MUST be part of a comprehensive education reform strategy. In Florida (click on the second “this”), that included: A-F grading of schools, eliminating social promotion, dramatic expansion of school choice, expanded virtual schools, resources for early learning, and alternative teacher certification.

Florida’s reforms, particularly those involving school choice and virtual schooling (which can be carried out in tandem or totally outside of the classroom, with a variety of software tailored to student needs and learning styles), are completely opposite of the “one-size-fits-all” mentality that Corwin accuses it of being.

If I had my druthers, the Legislature would pass these reforms all at once, but it didn’t happen in Florida and it won’t happen here, largely due to opposition from supporters of the abysmal status quo.

As this report from the US Department of Education concludes: “the vision of school improvement held by teachers, administrators, and political leaders must be comprehensive. Ending social promotion cannot be the only objective.”

We agree, keeping children in a poorly-performing, monopoly school district for an extra year is not a “game-changer.” Education reform must be comprehensive and designed with both choice and accountability in mind.

President Obama has been busy defending his latest tax hike plans. Notable among his statements on the issue is the pronouncement that “We can’t just cut our way out of this hole.” He uses this statement to justify tax increases, but it is factually inaccurate.

For starters, there have been no cuts made under President Obama, so the hypothesis that we can’t cut our way out of this hole has not been tested. With federal spending having more than doubled since Clinton left office, it would seem that federal spending could shrink back to approximately 2000 levels (adjusted for inflation and population growth) and life would be pretty decent. Honestly, I don’t think the Republicans or Democrats have the guts to make the cuts to do that, but it COULD be done.

The fact is, however, as the following chart shows, the federal government has a serious spending problem. Raising taxes is not the answer. Congressional candidate Eric Griego rightly stated, in response to Obama’s plan that “We can’t keep squeezing the middle class to balance our budget,” but what Griego won’t admit is that it is not spending cuts that are squeezing the middle class, it is out of control growth of the federal government that is harming the middle class.

My old friends at the National Taxpayers Union have proven that left and right CAN agree to cut large amounts of wasteful and unnecessary federal spending. The conservative taxpayers group and the liberal Nader-spinoff PIRG have co-authored this report called “Common Ground” which outlines more than $1 trillion in real spending cuts.

According to the two organizations, the study identifies 54 specific cuts in federal spending, including:

• $214.9 billion in savings from eliminating wasteful subsidies to agribusiness and other corporations.
• $428.8 billion in savings from ending low-priority or unnecessary military programs
• $232.3 billion in savings from improvements to program execution and government operations.
• $132.1 in savings from reforms to major entitlement programs

Kudos to NTU and PIRG for showing that there is plenty of wasteful and unnecessary spending being done by the federal government and that large amounts of that spending can and should be eliminated if left and right will only sit down and work together.

The political terms “conservative,” “liberal,” and “progressive” are among the most confused words in current political discourse. However, it is clear that when it comes to education in New Mexico, Gov. Martinez and supporters of reforms like A-F school grading and a ban on social promotion (of both parties) are among the “progressives” in the State. By that, I mean the best possible definition of “progressive” which is: making progress toward better conditions; employing oradvocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods.

Those who want to kill these reforms, ie: some in the Legislature, the school districts who are demanding more money to simply do their jobs, and the teachers unions, are the “conservatives.” They are perfectly happy with the status quo in which New Mexico is perpetually among the bottom 5 — if not the bottom two — in educational outputs.

Of course, there are “progressive” reformers from all corners including the Albuquerque Journal which had an excellent editorial calling for an end to social promotion, the New Mexico Business Roundtable, which had an excellent opinion piece on the same topic, and many other organizations and individuals. But, until concerned parents either rally in the streets or vote out those who oppose reforms (or both), supporters of the status quo who are perfectly comfortable with failing half of New Mexico’s children will continue to hold our education system hostage and deny the blessings of a good education to large numbers of New Mexico children.

The debate over what to do about unemployment is (at least theoretically) on the agenda during the special session. Unfortunately, no matter what happens, there are major problems with the system in our state.

For starters, according to Capitol Report New Mexico (reporting on a report from the Department of Labor), the state overspent by $104.7 million, the third highest amount in the nation. In Oregon, a system called JOBS Plus provides incentives for work rather than continued unemployment. According to the Cascade Policy Institute, the sister think tank of the Rio Grande Foundation, this program “uses money that would otherwise pay a person not working to instead subsidize a new private sector job. The presence of these jobs eliminates the disincentive to job
search, because one has to accept such a job or lose benefits.”

Might New Mexico learn from this example to reform its own, failing unemployment system?

Jonathan Williams of the American Legislative Exchange Council discusses the findings of Rich States, Poor States at a presentation in Albuquerque.

9-14-11 Jonathan Williams presentation by gessing

Jonathan’s powerpoint presentation is available here. He wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the Albuquerque Journal as well. Lastly, our capitol reporter, Rob Nikolewski, interviewed Jonathan and did a write-up of the event here.

I love engaging in the battle of ideas. That’s why I got into the think tank/public policy business in the first place. Unfortunately, the ideological opponents of the Rio Grande Foundation don’t always bother with pesky things like facts and data. I understand, after all, when the facts and data aren’t on your side, it makes sense to just spew anger and ad hominem.

Case in point, this hilarious letter to the editor from today’s Albuquerque Journal:

THE QUESTION IS, why does the Journal give repeated ink to Paul Gessing, “Put Rail Runner Out of Its Misery Sooner, Not Later,” for his attack on all things that serve the public good? You could just as easily print a short letter from him with a byline: Here he goes again trying to fit his square peg of ideology into a round hole, because Gessing always comes to the same Libertarian conclusion whether it be education, roads, water, etc. Things that serve the public are run bad, too expensive, corrupt or out of control. His math and examples of financing and utility are always so distorted as to not make any sense except to his cult followers. …

In fact, the Rail Runner should be expanded quickly from El Paso to Denver and eventually from Mexico City to Canada. We could cut out some of the expensive war bases in New Mexico and fund it easily, but you won’t hear that from the Journal or from its favorite son, Paul Gessing.
BEN ACO
Albuquerque

Notice the absence of any specific reasoning or argument. Lots of jealousy and anger, though. Of course, the writer further displays his ignorance by ignoring the Rio Grande Foundation’s advocacy of spending on the Paseo/I-25 interchange, but that would involve actual research and facts.

Rather than wondering why the Journal runs the Rio Grande Foundation’s research and writing, I’m wondering why people who bring no facts or data to the table expect New Mexico’s most widely-read newspaper to publish their work.

Surprise, surprise! The only major lobbying push — one way or another — on the upcoming red light camera vote, is coming from the main special interest group that benefits financially from those very cameras. A full report is available from KOBTV below:

Recently, even the big-government epicenter of Los Angeles got rid of its red light cameras. It seems like the trend is in opposition to the cameras because they are simply not effective. I can see the “pro” arguments, but I find the self-serving arguments made by Redflex hard to stomach.

Kate Nash of the New Mexican had an article recently that quoted me on the Gov.’s efforts to pare back on Richardson’s bonanza of press officers. While I applaud the restoration of sanity to the Executive Branch in Santa Fe, it would have been hard for Martinez to outdo Richardson in terms of unnecessarily padding his offices or political patronage. Of course, Martinez is not where Johnson was in terms of reduced budgeting, but that may not be reasonable or realistic.

So, without knowing the specific workloads of the Gov.’s PIOs, we can summarize the situation by saying that Martinez is more fiscally-responsible than Richardson….but you knew that already.

According to a new, interactive report, New Mexico’s laws and policies favor big labor in a big way. Notably, no western state is as favorable to big labor (and unfavorable to taxpayers) as the Land of Enchantment. Even “Rust Belt” and traditionally-unionized states like Michigan and Ohio perform better on the index than does New Mexico.

See the map and read the full report here.

The rankings are based on the labor vs. taxpayer friendliness of each state in the following areas:

Collective Bargaining
Paycheck protection laws
Secret ballot protections and card check
Binding Arbitration
Open meetings laws
Government union density
Public employee pension underfunding
Project labor agreements
Strike policy for government employees

Rep. Tim Lewis makes a number of good points in arguing, as he did in today’s Albuquerque Journal, that the Legislature’s top infrastructure spending priority should be the Paseo/I-25 interchange.

Without having an encyclopedic understanding of all infrastructure needs in the state, I would be willing to put that project up against any other in terms of traffic volumes and need. What I’d like to see Lewis add is that New Mexico could save up to 15% on the project’s cost if we suspended Davis-Bacon rules for it. After all, with limited funds available for this large project, every dollar counts.

I recently sat down with Channel 13, KRQE, to discuss whether the practice of “comping” state legislators with passes to all of New Mexico’s state parks was a wise move or whether stopping the practices — as Gov. Martinez did — was a wise move. Interestingly enough, as seen on pages 10 and 11 of our 2011 Piglet Book, the parks are losing $5.8 million annually.

No more free park passes for officials: krqe.com

I am sick of the left lying about the supposed “subsidies” being offered to the oil and gas industry. See the screed by F. Mary Lee Ortega in today’s Albuquerque Journal. The author calls these tax breaks — which are available to other businesses — a subsidy — which is factually inaccurate under the definition of a subsidy: a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. Notice the active verb “paid to.” This is very different from not collecting taxes from a business or industry which is nothing more than a tax break or tax expenditure.

She also states that “We are paying the oil companies twice – once at the pump with high gas prices and then again on tax day.” Again, “we” are not “paying.” There is no transfer of money here and New Mexico families are not “under financial attack.”

We can/should have a debate about energy and tax policies — including fundamental tax reform and whether “green energy” should be subsidized — but no progress will be made until honest language is used. Ortega is either lying or attempting to create a smokescreen to cloak her real goals which is to simply attack an industry she doesn’t like. Regardless of her goals, it is important to understand that “subsidy” involves a direct payment.

There are some important issues on the docket for the ongoing special session. Aside from redistricting itself, the Gov. is pushing for an end to “social promotion” for 3rd graders, something the RGF strongly supports.

Additionally, there are several jobs and economic development issues on the agenda. Various business groups are promoting these initiatives. I have placed a brief explanation of the RGF’s position below the point:

Capital Outlay – Severance tax bonds allow the State to complete capital projects and improve infrastructure statewide.  Authorizing these projects now will keep more New Mexicans working.  If the capital bill passes in September, projects would receive funding around December.  If these projects are not considered until the 2012 session, monies would not become available until May, causing a six-month lag in work.

RGF’s take – Tentative support. The key here is not job creation. After all, we could send construction workers out with shovels to dig and fill in holes if our only goal is “job creation.” We must focus these efforts on building needed infrastructure for the state (the Paseo and I-25 interchange would be a great place to focus resources, but the state may not have the money to start that project at this point)

5% New Mexico business advantage when bidding on contracts with state and local governments – The current statute needs to tighten up residency requirements to ensure that only New Mexico businesses are receiving this advantage.  In the past, other entities—which are not true New Mexico businesses—have qualified and received this credit.

RGF’s take – Generally opposed. While it is understandable that New Mexico’s government contractors would want to have similar preferences as those enacted by surrounding states, policymakers are ultimately sticking taxpayers with the bill. New Mexico policymakers should attempt to move the needle in the opposite direction by encouraging open and fair cross-border competition.

High-Wage Tax Credit – By clarifying that the State’s high-wage job tax credit is to be calculated on the wages and benefits earned by the employee, businesses will continue to receive a predictable credit for hiring New Mexicans in “high-wage” jobs.

RGF’s take – Undecided. Generally, we favor moving away from specific tax credits and carve-outs. We’d like to see a dramatic shift towards less taxation of income and economic growth. This may not be on the table for some time, but we remain concerned about the effectiveness of such credits.

Unemployment Trust Fund – This bill addresses the solvency of the Unemployment Trust Fund without adding over $120 million in taxes on small businesses.  It keeps the current employer contribution rate stable for at least one more year, so the Governor, lawmakers and industry experts can determine the best approach to achieving a predictable and fair contribution schedule in the future.

RGF’s take – Supportive. The entire unemployment system needs to be revamped, but if policymakers can restore solvency without raising taxes, this is a good step.

(Albuquerque) The Rio Grande Foundation is again tracking all the legislation introduced in the 2011 legislative session through its recently launched NewMexicoVotes.org Web site. RGF launched the site with the opening of the 2008 special session in order to provide a more transparent window for New Mexicans to follow what happens in state government. The site www.newmexicovotes.org is free and open to the public and will be updated with votes from the 2011 special session.

With plain English bill information, the site also reveals the missed votes of every legislator; links that show everyone who has donated to each legislator and the amount of each donation; and a whole host of features that those who want to track what happens in Santa Fe will find useful. It even features House floor votes, which are not available online at the state legislative Web site.

Users of the site will be able to interact with each other, commenting on legislation as it moves during the session.

Paul Gessing, President of the Rio Grande Foundation, said of the new public service, “With more alleged corruption in New Mexico making national headlines, the need for more transparency in state government is becoming ever increasingly important. ‘Votes’ is part of our organization’s efforts to bring more transparency and accountability to New Mexico state government.

We want everyone to be able to find out, with a few clicks of a mouse, what his or her legislator is doing, to be able to sign on and read plain English descriptions of what each bill does in a way that the average person can understand, and know immediately what our tax money is being spent on, or whether the bill increases or decreases taxation, regulation, or government transparency.”

Gessing noted that among the most important features of the site is its “missed votes” report which allows users to determine how often their elected official is missing votes in Santa Fe. This report is available here: http://newmexicovotes.org/MissedVotes.aspx Said Gessing, “There are potentially-legitimate reasons for legislators to miss large numbers of votes (such, but not limited to, the family illness that caused Sen. Kernan to miss 180 votes in 2011), but it is something voters should be aware of and follow up with their legislators on.”

The Albuquerque Journal’s Washington correspondent Michael Coleman recently had an excellent article on the various trade bills now being held up by the Obama Administration. The Administration is now sitting on trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama because of something called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).

Basically, TAA is a payoff ($1.3 billion in 2011) from the rest of us taxpayers, to those workers who have supposedly been impacted negatively by free trade. Disregard the fact that free trade benefits everyone, as Adam Smith pointed out many years ago:

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.. . . If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

With Obama holding up job-creating trade agreements, it is no surprise that Democratic Sens. Udall and Bingaman as well as Lujan and Heinrich all want their payoff for going along with the agreement. Sadly, even Rep. Pearce (at least as quoted in the article) isn’t completely opposed to TAA.

These trade agreements would be a shot in the arm to the US economy. The fact that Obama is sitting on them is the amusing but obvious result of big-labor’s influence. Republicans and Pearce need to strongly support these agreements while opposing the wasteful spending inherent in TAA