For anyone who is interested in the ways in which politics and politicians are corrupt without (at least at this point) being caught breaking the law, read this story about New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman. As this story on the health care law and lawmakers’ big stakes in health care companies makes clear, Bingaman is not alone in having a personal financial interest in companies that he regularly makes multi-billion dollar decisions for and against.

Of course, Bingaman has done extremely well for himself while in Congress and is now ranked 40th richest of the 535 members of Congress. What can be done? First and foremost, it is time to strip Congress (and Washington in general) of much of its power and send it back to the states as the Constitution would have.

Secondly, we can stop falling for the crap like the Albuquerque Journal headline “New Mexico’s ‘Mr. Smith.’” Last time I checked, Jimmy Stewart didn’t have a personal financial interest in a boys camp.

I wrote recently about the Obama Administration’s efforts to stop Boeing from moving production of its new “Dreamliner” plane to South Carolina.

While that issue is interesting enough as a case of Washington overreach and the political power of labor unions, there is a “must read” article in today’s Wall Street Journal that shows how New Mexico can adopt two simple policies to spur economic growth.

As Art Laffer and Stephen Moore point out:

Two policies have consistently stood out as the most important in predicting where jobs will be created and incomes will rise. First, states with no income tax generally outperform high income tax states. Second, states that have right-to-work laws grow faster than states with forced unionism.

While other policies and reforms can and will have their positive impacts, eliminating personal income taxes and forced union represent the most important battles that fiscal conservatives and free marketeers can fight.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation don’t really get too caught up in politics per se or the latest presidential contenders, but some comments made by Mitt Romney caught our attention recently. For those of you who don’t know the history, Romney supported and signed into law legislation in Massachusetts that has many similarities to the health care legislation that President Obama eventually signed into law. Romney is running for president and has been defending his support for the legislation recently.

There is no question that RomneyCare and ObamaCare both rely on “command and control” policies made by government officials. There is almost nothing in either bill that uses pricing or market forces to lower costs and improve quality in health care. Rather, both laws use rationing and cost-shifting in what — at least in Massachusetts, where the impact is already being felt — is proving to be a futile effort to force costs down.

So, what does RomneyCare have to offer that ObamaCare does not? Quite simply, the only positive is that Romney experimented at the state level. And, were federal health care laws left the same as they were, other states would be able to learn from Romney’s failure and (hopefully) go in a more market-friendly direction. Unfortunately, Obama has doubled-down on Romney’s failed experiment and is now forcing it on the rest of the country.

I doubt that conservative voters will appreciate this nuance in a presidential primary, but that is another question that will be answered in several months.

I recently received this chart:

As the chart clearly shows, Texas has been a job creating machine relative to the rest of America in recent years. Two policies, the lack of a personal income tax (Texas is one of five states without one) and the existence of Right to Work laws which forbids forced unionization, undoubtedly have driven this growth and New Mexico must consider adopting both policies to be competitive.

Of course, no state is perfect and Texas is no exception. The state is facing a budget shortfall of up to $27 billion. And, while tough decisions must be made, it would seem that NOT spending $250 million to subsidize Formula 1 Racing in the state would be one of them.

So, Texas is to be applauded. I’m sure that the budget deficit will be closed without killing the state’s economy. What New Mexicans need to ask themselves is whether they want the Land of Enchantment to be a jobs magnet or not?

Today’s Albuquerque Journal has an excellent article on the major issues developing at Spaceport America. We at the Rio Grande Foundation have long opposed the project as being outside the appropriate scope of basic government services and a massive transfer from average New Mexicans to millionaires and billionaires.

We should have added to that criticism the fact that government is incompetent, particularly when it comes to doing something completely “new” like building a one-of-its-kind spaceport. As the Journal reports, the project has been delayed by more than a year (to date), costly modifications have been made, weather damage has occurred, and contractors are not being paid on time.

The Spaceport (like the RailRunner) is yet another “gift” from Gov. Richardson to the taxpayers of New Mexico. The project may eventually be built, but taxpayers should never have been put on the hook for a speculative project like this one. Private capital should be put at risk. One might expect that defending the poor and middle classes from wealthy shysters would be the “liberal” position, but they only want to raise taxes.

For quite some time now, I have been doing minute-long updates for KIVA 1550. If you listen to that station for any length of time, you have probably heard at least a few of them.

If, however, you just want to listen to several recent updates, you can find them online here.

Jon Barela, Gov. Martinez’s Secretary of Economic Development, doesn’t use the state’s car fleet and has actually sold off large number of state vehicles. Channel 4 took a look at the story and found that Barela’s efforts are fiscally-responsible and saving taxpayers money. They asked me for comment as well, so check out the video below:

The end of oil is coming! Like Paul Revere, two columnists take on “the end of oil” in today’s Albuquerque Journal and come off sounding like a couple of ignoramuses. As an article from a few years back points out, “the world’s reserves of oil and natural gas continued their long term trend of growing faster than production.”

So, it is unlikely that we’ll come anywhere close to running out of oil in our lifetimes. The real reason for this, however, is that prices will rise in times of scarcity. But, if the world ever does start to “run out,” prices will rise to the point that other energy sources are considered. Natural gas, for example, is used in many nations to propel vehicles. If oil prices skyrocket and remain high, we could make the same transition — without needing massive government mandates or subsidies — here in America.

The “end” of oil will be no more of a crisis than was the “end” of horse power or that of whale oil.

Former Albuquerque City Councilor Pete Dinelli takes current Mayor RJ Berry (and to an extent the Journal) to task for the supposed lack of ambition inherent in the Mayor’s efforts to allow Albuquerque residents to choose from an array of potential projects designed to make the City a better place to live.

Among the Mayor’s proposed ideas is:

Revitalizing and invigorating the plaza downtown;
Building bus rapid transit along Central;
Revitalizing the convention center;
Creating a “culture loop”;
Rebuilding the Paseo and I-25 interchange; and
Building additional parks and recreational facilities.

While not a big fan of all of these ideas, the charge that they are “lacking in ambition” leveled by Dinelli is just silly, especially when he offers no specific alternatives of his own. As an advocate of local government that adheres to the basics, it would seem that re-doing the Paseo/I-25 interchange is the most important way to improve Albuquerque for the greatest number of people.

Regardless of what I think, the Mayor has asked for input from the community. You can offer your own opinions here.

Yesterday I wrote about the sand dunes lizard and the potential negative impact its listing on the endangered species list could have for New Mexico. Interestingly enough, a recent study from the island nation of Palau finds that the economic impact of an individual shark to that island’s economy is $1.9 million.

I’ve written before about how markets have been used to revitalize endangered the bison in the US. It would appear that similar efforts may be attempted with regard to sharks, but of course the oceans are a “commons” and thus susceptible to the associated problems of “commons.”

If environmentalists feel so strongly about the sand dunes lizard, perhaps they should raise funds and buy the habitat? Of course, as long as the federal government and the state control, the free market will be hindered in prioritizing how land should be used and what species people actually want to save.

New Mexico’s economy is under attack from the extreme environmentalists once again. This time, the issue is the dunes sagebrush lizard in southeastern New Mexico. Read more details on the debate over at Capitol Report New Mexico. There are also serious doubts about the negative impact, if any, that oil and grass drilling may have on the lizard.

Anyway, if you are concerned about the issue, you can send comments to the Fish and Wildlife service at this link.

Ayn Rand’s epic Atlas Shrugged has made its way to Allen Theatres in Las Cruces. Showtimes here. If you support free markets and limited government, you need to see this movie. First and foremost, it is only part 1 and we need to show the producers that parts 2 and 3 are worth making, but also, the marketplace needs to know that liberals aren’t the only ones who go to the movies.

So, get out there and watch Atlas!

Yesterday, I appeared on Channel 13 to discuss a new plan from the Obama Administration to sell off unused and vacant federal buildings.

345 excessive federal buildings in NM: krqe.com

The full federal report can be found online here. At the end, the reporter mentions my push for federal lands to have a similar process done. No, I’m not talking about selling Yellowstone. There are millions of acres of unused and unnecessary land holdings currently owned by the federal government. These too should be considered for auction or sale.

I’ve been saying for some time that, in terms of how policies have impacted the marketplace, a useful comparison can be made between public schools and supermarkets. Thankfully, great minds seem to think alike because Nobel Prize winning economist Don Boudreaux makes the same point in a highly-eloquent manner in the Wall Street Journal.

To elaborate a bit on the point, vouchers are considered “extreme” and “free market” within the context of our socialized school system. A comparable “voucher,” known in the realm of food as a food stamp, is hardly what we’d call “free market,” but even in its flawed current form, it is far superior to total government monopoly power.

The Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico’s free market think tank, is pleased to alert New Mexico high school students to the following opportunity:

The Bill of Rights Institute is pleased to offer 1 FULL scholarships (a $3,000 value) for a New Mexico student to attend the Constitutional Academy this summer. This premier program for high school students to study the Constitution will be held in Washington, D.C. July 24-31.

The 6-week program, with 5 weeks of reading (Federalist papers, Founding documents) and online discussions and then 1 week in Washington, D.C. explores the Founding principles of limited government, freedom of religion, and economic liberty. While in D.C. students will explore the Capitol, Supreme Court, Mount Vernon, the Archives, and other sites while in D.C. and have reading discussions with college professors. For more information please visit their website or contact Laura Vlk at (703) 894-1776, ext. 31.

This is a fascinating piece on the reality of the “green” economy and what we can reasonably expect in terms of “green” jobs. The article is not written by a free market conservative, but by a recruiter who deals with the industry.

We are constantly told by President Obama and local advocates like the environmental group New Energy Economy that so-called “green” energy will create thousands of jobs. The reality, as this recruiter points out, is not so simple (or promising for those who want a speedy transition).

As the recruiter notes, natural gas, while not green in the purist sense of the word — even wind isn’t green in that world — does have the potential to fulfill a greater percentage of our future energy demand.

We recently were sent a link to a questionnaire that was sent to all candidates for Chairman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico.

It is well-known that the Democratic Party and government labor unions work hand-in-glove and it is also obvious that a labor union that benefits from bigger government will inherently support even bigger government, but it is enlightening to see exactly what policies actually drive decision making and candidate selection.

So, among the questions in the survey can be found several efforts to lock in the union’s monopoly status and prevent competition from anyone willing to do the job for a lower cost. Read the full survey for yourself, but specific “demands” made for union endorsement include:

support for collective bargaining which prevents employers (in this case the government operating on behalf of taxpayers) from hiring workers who would do the same job for less than union wage;

authorizes the union to automatically-deduct dues from workers’ paychecks;

oppose privatization (thus increasing union membership and locking out lower-cost providers);

oppose any efforts to reform New Mexico’s pension system in a way that takes taxpayers off the hook for luxurious government employee benefits;

raise taxes;

universal (socialized) health care;

indexing government-mandated wages to inflation;

From the looks of this survey and the fact that AFSCME is a dominant force in Democratic Party politics, it is hard to see the Party moving towards anything resembling free market principles without some extremely courageous leadership from someone who understands that government is not a firm basis upon which to build New Mexico’s economy.

I saw the headline “Obama Lacking Clear Vision” in the Albuquerque Journal and said to myself “duh” and almost didn’t read the article. Good thing I did.

Not surprisingly, since the writer was affiliated with UNM, the article is an attack on Obama from the left. He takes the president to task for not taxing his buddies at GE and for being wishy-washy. Fairly boiler plate stuff so far. But then the author makes two statements that still has me shaking my head:

First, “the most critical issue immediately facing our country is not entitlement reform, but global warming” and then “Global warming and its mitigation is to the 21st century what the abolition of slavery and the Civil War was to the United States in the 19th Century.”

WOW!!! First and foremost, it is clear from a variety of polls that a vast majority of Americans care a great deal about many issues much more than they do about global warming. Obviously, polls don’t make for the truth, but how can the clear collapse of the US economy and the destruction of our living standards due to over-spending even compare to the potential for man made global warming which may be addressed through improved technology or may not even occur.

Comparing global warming — something that is happening as a result of our own actions (if it is indeed happening) — to human slavery is just plain silly and not really worth debating at length.

Two of the economists whose ideas dominate public policy debates even to this day go toe to toe for Round 2 in this rap video. If you missed Round 1, check it out here. Also, check out an interview with the producer.

As I’ve written in this space before, the Governor’s “Business-Friendly Task Force” recommendations were spot-on. I shared this view and elaborated upon it in the Albuquerque Journal’s business section last week. My comments can be found below:

Issues of economic development are all the rage these days in New Mexico and we are glad to see the discussion. The latest addition to the discussion comes from the Small Business-Friendly Task Force, the recommendations of which were written about in this paper.

While regulations are not always well-understood and are often difficult to compare across state lines, the fact is that collectively they add tremendously to the costs of doing business in New Mexico and make our state less competitive with our neighbors.

All of the Task force’s recommendations should be considered for adoption by policymakers, but the most urgent and economically-impactful include returning to a more cost-effective “prevailing wage” law and elimination of New Mexico’s state-level carbon cap by becoming an observer instead of an active participant by capping carbon emissions within the state. The prevailing wage law drives up the cost of schools and roads while the carbon cap makes New Mexico less economically-competitive with no measurable environmental impact.

New Mexico has always been a poor state in large part because it is a tough place to do business. Tackling even a few of the most costly, unnecessary rules and regulations outlined in the Business-Friendly Task Force will go a long way towards creating jobs and spurring economic growth in the Land of Enchantment.

The Rio Grande Foundation is part of the State Policy Network, a 50 state network of free market policy think tanks. These organizations are providing the ideas that are fueling conservative majorities in the various states to reform education, tax, spending, and labor policies in a more market-based direction.

Naturally, the left-wing finds our ideas threatening and — at least when it comes to liberal talker Ed Schultz — is almost hysterical. Check out the video here:

Obviously, we disagree with the story in its view that our efforts are undermining the middle class. It is government policies that, more than anything, are preserving benefits for the elites and government workers while destroying our economy, but Schultz is right in touting our effectiveness.

If you support our efforts to bring free markets to New Mexico, please donate here.

When talk turns to cutting the budget, it is often viewed as a zero-sum game. Supposedly, the poor and less-fortunate always lose while the greedy fat cats always win. Or so the left would have us believe. The reality is usually quite different. Right here in New Mexico, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the Rail Runner, film subsidies, a spaceport, and generous government employee pensions, all of which benefit wealthier people at great expense to the rest of us.

Well, when it comes to federal food policy, there is a great opportunity for “win-win” when it comes to the ways in which existing federal programs encourage obesity while devolving those same programs to the states could actually spur innovation and result in better outcomes at dramatically-lower prices to taxpayers. Along with RGF Board Member Dr. Deane Waldman, I write about those here.

I recently spoke to a reporter from an online publication called “New West” about the New Mexico RailRunner. While fiscal conservatives obviously have deep concerns over the financial impact this train is having on the state budget, it doesn’t appear that the train will be stopped unless the budget takes another major downturn and deeper cuts must be made.

Of course, the fact that taxpayers are on the hook for $400 million to build and $20 million annually to operate the train — not to mention another $400 million in maintenance costs every 30 years that are not currently accounted for — makes the Rail Runner a huge subsidy for a relatively small group of workers, most of whom live in Albuquerque and work in Santa Fe.

The real issue at this point is in making sure that efforts to extend the train — discussed in the article — are not successful. Martinez wouldn’t go along with such a scheme, but you can bet that liberals around the state who worship mass transit will be looking for every opportunity to do so.

The Rio Grande Foundation primarily handles state and local issues, but if Washington doesn’t get its act together, we’re all in trouble. Now that Paul Ryan and President Obama have staked out their parties’ respective positions on the issues, I have my own analysis about what needs to be done and where the sides can work together.

Read the full article at NMPolitics.net.