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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today marked the end of the last flight of the Space Shuttle. Many are questioning what the legacy of the Space Shuttle is in American history and in the history of space travel. Some (mostly “national greatness and neoconservatives” are decrying the lack of a US vehicle to deliver astronauts to space.

Me, I think this is an opportunity for both the nation and New Mexico. Certainly, it would be great to rely on private enterprise — or at least contractors — to be more engaged in space exploration as President Obama (of all people) has discussed. Also, New Mexico MAY benefit from this shift. We’ll see.

Needless to say, we’re not big fans of the Spaceport. There is no guarantee that, even if Obama’s vision for space holds and private companies play a greater role in space exploration and transportation, New Mexico’s Spaceport will be used in those activities. After all, there are dozens of spaceports in the US already.

So, I actually think Obama is going to right direction here. We need to shift away from the “big-program” style of governance — whether that be in space or in health care. As to whether New Mexico will ultimately benefit or not from this shift, that is another question. The Spaceport is so speculative at this point that any positive result would seem to be a bonus.

This is a great, short, ad that pretty much sums up what has happened in Washington over the last several decades. The ongoing crisis over raising the debt ceiling is just the first battle in a much-needed effort to restore government to sustainable, Constitutional principles:

With all the debate these days over the debt ceiling and the need to cut spending, I’ve been pondering new, innovative, and relatively politically-palatable ideas for cutting federal spending. I can’t help but to keep coming back to the Base Realignment and Closure Commissions (BRAC) that have saved hundreds of billions of dollars for taxpayers by shutting down unneeded military bases.

I’d be interested in readers’ thoughts, but I’d be hard-pressed to come up with a more effective tool for cutting spending than BRAC. So, why not use similar commissions to build political support for (and overcome regional and special-interest objections to) spending reductions.

Specifically, I’m thinking that something along these lines could easily be used to sell off and dispose of federal lands and buildings and to close unnecessary military bases overseas. I also wonder if something similar could be used by the US Post Office which — although theoretically private — is still very much burdened by federal rules and regulations that cause it to lose billions of dollars annually.

I’d be very interested in reader input on this issue. I think it could be a real winner, but I’d like to hear thoughtful suggestions from all sides. What other areas of the federal (and state) budget could this procedure be used for? I’m thinking higher ed and closing branch campuses, but am open to other ideas.

This article which included Albuquerque Chamber President Terri Cole had me scratching my head. Not that we haven’t had our differences with Cole and the Chamber, but their ongoing defense of the Rail Runner is getting ridiculous.

Simply put, the Rail Runner is an unaffordable luxury and it always was. Remember I-25 before the Rail Runner? If anyone can clearly show that traffic has improved on that road, I’d like to see their data. Also, if businesses in Santa Fe do such great business from the train, why don’t they put their money where their mouths are?

Ultimately, the issue boils down to whether, as they say in the article, “a comprehensive multimodal transportation system which efficiently moves people and product because it is an economic development necessity and is essential to creating a vibrant and competitive city and state.” How so? We have a socialized transportation system, what signals are we using to determine the best mix of the various transportation modes? Is there really solid evidence that cities which massively invest in heavy rail transit are in better economic shape than those that don’t?

The train did not markedly improve transportation issues — such as traffic congestion — in the I-25 corridor and is clearly unaffordable without tax hikes of some sort. Of course, we agree with the Chamber that tax hikes are a bad idea, but doesn’t this mean that we have to cut spending somewhere?

Recently, the folks at the Center for the American Experiment (a sister think tank based in Minnesota) put together a symposium of free market leaders (including yours truly) on what they personally would be willing to give up in terms of government services to cure the budget problems facing the federal government.

As I write here, I’d be willing to give up quite a lot. Read what other free market luminaries including Grover Norquist, Former Congressman Tim Penny, and David Theroux have to say.

A recent columnist in the Albuquerque Journal said something that I’ve been saying for a while (here and here): to spur economic growth, business leaders need to see some certainty and consistency out of Washington.

The trick is that many of Obama’s keynote policy accomplishments (namely health care) are driving the very uncertainty that is holding the economy back. I’m sure the current gridlock over raising the debt ceiling isn’t helping the situation, but SOMETHING must be done to stop Washington’s over-spending even if the debt ceiling is a blunt instrument to use.

While I applaud the many Republicans who are standing firm against a blank-slate raising of the debt ceiling, the fact is that many of them (both Republicans AND Democrats) are totally spineless when it comes to proposing and voting for actual spending reductions. Even if entitlements are a tough thing to reform, there are spending programs in dire need of reform that only a few politicians in Washington are willing to actually cut.

I hear the constant refrain from the left about jobs and why they aren’t being created. Now, Wal Mart is looking to open a supercenter on the West Side (right down Coors from my house, I might add). It is going to be a controversial battle as 500 people have already signed up to comment at a public meeting on the proposed store. Ironically, the average Wal Mart supercenter creates 500 jobs.

Mayor Berry and Gov. Martinez are trying to create the conditions to make economic growth and jobs possible. Will the NIMBY crowd and the Wal Mart haters stop jobs from being created? Will Sam Bregman be out in front defending Wal Mart’s right to build a store in Albuquerque?

According to this article (written by a representative of the liberal think tank “Third Way,”) Even some so-called “progressives” are waking up to the fact that Social Security is in dire need of reform.

This is great news. After all, as bad as the economy has been recently, if you’d invested in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 2006 (back when George W. Bush was talking about “privatizing” Social Security and before the stock market bust), you’d have still made some money in the stock market. That’s pretty good compared to the paltry rate of return provided by Social Security which doesn’t invest your money, rather robs tomorrow’s Peter to pay today’s Paul (as it has from the very beginning).

Of course, long-term and diversified investing is the way to go, so most investors would have made a great return for themselves for decades and would not have all their retirement money in stocks as they near retirement. But, as long as the government operates Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme, the system will continue to go further in debt and young people will continue to lose out on a reasonable return on their retirement dollars.

Those who want to create a new, convoluted scheme to ensure that governments grab more revenues from sales made over the Internet are at it again. First, the Albuquerque Journal had this editorial and more recently it ran this opinion piece.

The problem is that sales made over the Internet ARE already taxed! It’s just that the Supreme Court has ruled in Quill v. North Dakota that state governments cannot force retailers located in another state to act as revenue collection agents for them. If you purchase something at Amazon.com, you owe taxes on that item and, at least in theory, the state can come after you if you don’t pay it.

What advocates of Internet taxation really want is far more complex than simply closing a loophole.

Where are the taxes charged and who collects them, the seller or the buyer? At what rate is the tax collected?

Even with computing technology, there are over 100 different GRT rates charged in New Mexico alone. Multiply that among the other 49 states — mostly far more populous than New Mexico — and keeping up with this and charging the right tax rate will be an accounting nightmare for businesses.

Governments have been the ones getting a free ride for too long. They’ve been able to bully local businesses into doing the dirty work of tax collection for them (at tremendous cost to those businesses). The Internet changes all that. This is hardly a “loophole.”

Lastly, while state government officials would have us believe that taxing Internet sales is a panacea for balanced budgets, the reality is that only 4.4% of total sales are made on the Internet, many of which are taxed. Slight revenue growth might occur if ALL sales were taxed, but at what cost to businesses and economic growth?

I took Jerry Ortiz y Pino’s article on our recent appearance on 770 KKOB as an opportunity to respond to his compliment/hostility. My response in The Alibi can be found here.

First, Larry Abraham blew the proverbial whistle on the debacle that is the Rail Runner. His was the first real public accounting for the train’s shaky finances. Today, the Journal ran another article noting that the State will need to pony up another $16 million for track and system maintenance.

The legislator who we can thank for bringing this additional information to the public is GOP freshman legislator Alonzo Baldonado. The Legislative Finance Committee is due to report on the Rail Runner and its finances this November and I’m sure that report will contain further bad news and bombshells. Specifically, as Mark Mathis wrote in his excellent — albeit unposted on the web — article this morning, the $16 million is just the beginning of the train’s maintenance costs. Taxpayers will have another massive bill foisted upon them in a few decades (again) to keep the crazy train moving down the tracks.

Thanks to Mathis for helping to lead the (at this point small) chorus calling to stop the RailRunner in its tracks and before it bankrupts us.

The Leadership Institute is the granddaddy of conservative training organizations. Founded in 1979 by its president, Morton C. Blackwell, the Leadership Institute (LI) teaches conservatives the nuts and bolts of how to succeed in the public policy process.

Rather than traveling to Washington, DC for training, LI is bringing its top-notch (I have participated in several of their programs) training on how to run and manage campaigns to New Mexico later this month. The training will take place in Albuquerque on July 22nd and 23rd. Specific information on location and registration is available from the Albuquerque Tea Party here.

If you ever want to run for office, work for a political campaign, volunteer for a candidate, or want to maximize your effectiveness in working with a political party, be sure to attend this event.

On what planet is it a good idea to ration toilet paper as a means of closing a budget deficit? Apparently, this is exactly what New York City is doing right now.

The picture contained in the article makes me wonder whether the savings from the “spared squares” is being eaten up by having to pay salaries to bathroom attendants. Of course, in a leftist’s dream world where “jobs” is the mantra (as opposed to economic freedom, efficiency and growth), this makes perfect sense. In a logical world, Mayor Bloomberg would confront nasty and bloated government labor unions like our own Mayor Berry is doing.

Albuquerque Mayor Berry is taking heat from the unions again. They feel entitled to take care of union business on the taxpayers’ dime. Needless to say, paying city workers to work on behalf of their union and not the people who are paying them (the taxpayers) is a bad idea, no matter how the union bosses try to spin it.

This will save taxpayers money and will make the City a less profitable victim for the unions that feed off of the rest of us. Tell Mayor Berry and your city councilor that you support their efforts! I’m sure the unions will be voicing their opinions.

I read this recent article in the Journal with some amusement. It is a discussion of a new economic development tool — a website — that is supposed to help New Mexico attract new businesses and jobs to the state.

Color me skeptical. I’m not an expert on economic development and the mechanics of attracting companies to a particular plot of ground, but I think it is more complicated than just a website. In fact, the author notes that most companies want to know: “Where can they make the most profit?”

Well, the answer to THAT question has nothing to do with websites (unless you are Google or Amazon). We at the Rio Grande Foundation have some more substantive ideas for economic development that directly involve businesses’ bottom lines and, if adopted, would lead to a significant influx of businesses and jobs.

I appreciate the efforts of those who concern themselves with economic development in New Mexico, but I’d rather see a more thorough economic development plan based on real policy changes.

The constant refrain among many is that funding has been slashed in education and that more money is all that is needed to turn the system around. As I write in response to a recent article this new opinion piece, reforms, not money, are the keys to educational success.

I recently posted some charts that also explain the funding situation here.

If you want to see how cost-effective educational success CAN be in New Mexico, check out this listing of private school tuition rates.

The Albuquerque Journal and Los Ranchos Mayor Larry Abraham deserve thanks for their combined efforts to (for the first time, really), explain the Rail Runner’s finances to the public and show just how big of a debacle the train really is. The recent article “Fiscal Train Wreck” certainly sums the situation up as do the Journal’s editorial and Larry Abraham’s op-ed which was not posted on the paper’s website.

Basically, the train was built like a house of cards, relying on massive debt with the day of reckoning pushed off as far as possible (the years 2025 and 2027 to be exact) when payments of $230 million are due in each of those years. That doesn’t even account for the fact that train sets and rails will need to be replaced after 30 years of operation at something close to original cost, so a mere decade after these two “balloon payments” are due, taxpayers will be on the hook for another $450 million or so.

Of course, that is just the infrastructure cost. In terms of operations, passengers pay — according to Abraham — only 13.5 percent of the annual operating budget for the train. So, eliminating weekend service may save money, but any savings from that (or fare increases) will be a drop in the ocean. Abraham states at the conclusion of his article that we are faced with an “opportunity” to “make the best of what looks like a very bad situation.” It is time for Gov. Martinez to pull the plug on this rolling disaster.

Remember when folks on the Left thought the guy who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was a conservative/Tea Party guy instead of a nut? If they weren’t actively trashing conservatives, they were talking about “toning down the rhetoric.”

Fine, I agree, we can disagree without being disagreeable (see my posting about Sen. Ortiz y Pino). But, isn’t it time the union thugs in Wisconsin got the civility memo? There, supporters of needed union reforms have gotten death threats. Lest you believe that this is an isolated incident, check out articles here, here, and here.

Now, it has been reported that at least one Wisconsin school has seen a dramatic, positive, budget turnaround due to Gov. Walker’s labor reforms:

The Kaukauna School District, in the Fox River Valley of Wisconsin near Appleton, has about 4,200 students and about 400 employees. It has struggled in recent times and this year faced a deficit of $400,000. But after the law went into effect, at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it’s all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.

The lesson: If you go after the entrenched unions, you will pay a price, but facing unfair criticism is what leaders do when they make the right decision.

There’s no doubt that Sen. (Comrade as many call him) Ortiz y Pino and the Rio Grande Foundation are on the opposite sides of most issues. But, recently, I asked him — after attempting to get several New Mexico-based environmental groups to participate — to debate our guest Pat Michaels, a climate change expert with the libertarian Cato Institute on the issue of global warming and climate change. To give Jerry credit, he was willing to show up.

Of course, he followed up the debate with an Alibi column that, among other things, attacked conservatives for not giving appropriate spaces to lefties. We could have had Pat on for an hour by himself, but we (and host Bob Clark) wanted to have the other side represented…

So, according to Ortiz y Pino, I “garner ungodly amounts of print” and specifically reached out to him to get the left’s perspective. They may be backhanded compliments, but I’ll take them considering who they are coming from.

The rest of the article is a rant against the supposed corporate interests and other ad hominem attacks, but he does explain in his own way the nub of the disagreement he has with Michaels. However, Ortiz y Pino seems sanguine about the very real and imminent economic crisis facing our nation. Leaving solutions up to individuals acting in a — preferably, energy-subsidy free market — simply don’t believe that we are facing a crisis. Rather, they are instead being forced through backdoor mileage regulations to give up the comfort and safety of having a spare tire in their vehicles.