A few days ago I posted about an upcoming Public Regulation Commission hearing on PNM’s requested rate hike that was to take place on Wednesday the 21st. This hearing has been canceled. No word yet on when it will be re-scheduled, but I received the word on this directly from Commissioner Jason Marks.
Rarely does anything surprise me in the newspaper these days. I do have to say that this article expounding on the benefits of the “Cuban model” was pretty surprising. What made it even more shocking was the fact that the author is a professor in the College of Education at Eastern New Mexico University (based in Portales). If communists like this guy are hanging out in Portales, I can only imagine what the education departments in Santa Fe and Taos must be like.
But enough about the author, what about the actual argument that Americans should look to Cuba as a model? First and foremost, it is hard to understand why so many Cubans have escaped their “socialist paradise” and “people first politics and economics” over the years in favor of coming to the United States and other freer nations.
While I know that the author would say that gross domestic product is not a useful measuring stick, it is also useful to note that Cuba’s is ranked 109th in the world. That is not exactly a stellar performance and it is maintained in part by reliance on Venezuelan oil.
I do agree with the author on one thing: the US should end the embargo. But I believe that a flood of US tourists and dollars would be the death knell for the Cuban state as it exists. After all, the embargo is the catch-all excuse that Fidel Castro and his brother have used as an excuse for their nation’s poverty. Taking it away would clearly show that the emperor has no clothes. Besides, free Americans should be able to travel wherever they are welcomed.
The latest Rio Grande Foundation article from the Las Cruces Sun-News details the rising gross receipts tax both in Cruces and around the state and details the many harms that result from this seemingly ever-rising tax.
A chart detailing the rising GRT in Las Cruces can be found here.
Next Wednesday (the 21st of July), the PRC will be meeting to discuss the PNM rate hike. Here is a summary of the issue from PNM, what is causing the rate increases, and how it will impact various groups.
I have written about the potential negative impact of New Mexico’s renewable mandates. That being said, as PRC Commissioner Jason Marks points out, this particular rate increase is not directly related to New Mexico’s renewable mandates per se, so this is an issue to bring up at future rate increase hearings that the PRC will inevitably need to hold, not this one. Anyway, I plan to attend at least a portion of the meeting, but no one picked up my call to the PRC’s number: (505) 827-6941 this morning to find out more details (which I’ll post in a comment to this email).
Check this excellent article from Kate Nash of the Santa Fe New Mexican out. In it, she explains that:
Riders took 45,207 fewer one-way trips on the Rail Runner Express in the second quarter of this year compared to April, May and June of last year, new figures show.
The second-quarter numbers are the first true comparison of riders during a time in which free rides were not offered.
Sprinkled throughout the article are several choice quotes from yours truly as well on the reasons for the decline and the importance of the new numbers.
The federal government does so much to waste our money. One under-appreciated way of doing this is by providing matching funds to help local governments build unnecessary projects like trains and transit. Check out this Reason article about the current push for a streetcar project in Cincinnati.
Oh, and then there was this article in the papers recently about how the federal government is spending $6.7 million to create another Rail Runner station (and transit center) at Montaño Road. Oh, and don’t forget the $5 million (of a total of $7.5 million) the feds put down to fund construction of the bike bridge over the Rio Grande at I-40.
Surely there are better uses for this money with the economy facing major hurdles, the federal government swimming in debt, and the state facing additional, major cutbacks in the coming year?
If you follow transportation and land use planning and enjoyed what Randal O’Toole had to say when he came to Albuquerque, you will definitely want to consider attending the American Dream Conference which is being held in Orlando in September. More information on that event is available here.
I have been doing weekly, minute-long commentaries on relevant issues on a weekly basis on AM 1550 KIVA. Tune in and be sure to listen to those commentaries which are also available on our newly-redesigned website.
Sen. Fischmann had a very nice opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal on the need for K-12 education reform. While he did not go as far as I’d have liked in terms of promoting school choice, the primary thrust of the article is the elimination of social promotion, which is straight out of the Florida-style reforms being advocated by Dr. Matthew Ladner who has written this paper and will be speaking about the topic at a series of events around the state at the end of July. More information on that here.
The fact is that we need to come up with innovative, cost-effective solutions to our education woes and we needed to do this yesterday. I applaud Sen. Fischmann for keeping the discussion going and being willing to speak out.
New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie is unveiling plans to save that fiscally troubled state $210 annually by privatizing such current state operations as motor vehicle inspections, state parks and turnpike toll booths. We’re looking at closing state parks to save money. Why not let an entrepreneur show what he/she can do to keep a park open, create some jobs and maybe turn a buck or two of profit? Golf courses–same idea. Garbage collection, street cleaning, servicing public vehicle fleets–if Jersey can do it with their morass of union connections and entrenched bureaucrats, a smaller state like New Mexico should at least be able to try some test privatization to see if it works better.
Check this out from the Clovis News-Journal. As I discuss in the article, the GRT rose .125 statewide on July 1. Albuquerque’s rate is now 7%, a 20% increase since 1999. See this chart.
Charts for historical gross receipts tax rates in other New Mexico cities can be found below:
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_grt_carlsbad.pdf
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_grt_clovis.pdf
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_grt_farmington.pdf
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_grt_hobbs.pdf
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_grt_las_cruces.pdf
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_grt_rio_rancho.pdf
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_grt_roswell.pdf
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_grt_santa_fe.pdf
Santa Fe’s has risen the most dramatically (26% in 11 years while Roswell’s rate has “only” risen by 9% in the same time period.
Remember when President Obama said his health care proposal was going to be like the Post Office?
Well, Tad DeHaven over at Cato’s blog makes a point that the Post Office monopoly is raising rates and considering cutting service at a time when its business is in a tailspin. This is not how things would work in the private sector — a private sector, he adds that is increasingly being allowed to compete in the postal marketplace worldwide.
Interestingly, the issue has direct parallels to health care as Obama states. His plan is all about attempting to reduce competition and further place health care under government control. That will inevitably make the incentives of our health care system look more like the Postal Service with rising costs and “rationed” service, but it will be government bureaucrats in charge of a dying monopoly, not individuals in charge of the rationing.
PNM will soon be holding a series of meetings statewide, including your community to determine whether the utility can raise rates yet again. While we at the Rio Grande Foundation do not in principle support bureaucratic controls over entities acting in a free economy, but the fact is that PNM does not act in a free economy. For starters, there is a renewable mandate which PNM has supported: see this recent op-ed on New Mexico’s renewable energy mandate which unnecessarily raise costs. PNM has also supported cap-and-trade at the federal level.
Rates have gone up by 24 percent in the past three years, but PNM wants another rate increase!
If you can show up at one of these meetings in your community to express opposition to the increase and PNM’s acquiescence to ever-increasing demands on the part of environmentalists.
PLEASE read the message from PNM, then find the community meeting close to you and plan to attend! If you can attend more than one meeting, that’s great, too!
Thank you for your continued support and enthusiasm to turn New Mexico around!
This is the message from PNM:
Energy Future – Together!
The electricity PNM sells its consumers comes from a wide range of sources: coal, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables like wind and solar. We also have aggressive energy efficiency programs that help offset the need to build new power sources. The amounts of power PNM gets from one source versus another affects the environment and the costs consumers pay for electricity.
Should the utility try to change the amounts of renewables, coal, nuclear or natural gas in its mix?
To what degree are consumers willing to pay more for a different combination of power sources?
What role should efficiency programs play in NM’s energy future?
These are among the tough questions PNM needs people like you to help answer. PNM will address these issues in our Integrated Resource Plan. We welcome and encourage the public to participate
and to help us plan your energy future – together.
Please join us for the public forum nearest you.
Alamogordo
Thursday, July 15, 2010
First National Bank of Alamogordo – Atrium Room
414 10th St.
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Albuquerque
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Albuquerque Public Schools headquarters – John Milne Community Board Room
6400 Uptown Blvd. NE
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Clayton
Monday, July 12, 2010
Clayton Civic Center
124 N. Front Street
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Deming
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Morgan Hall, City of Deming offices,
109 East Pine Street
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Los Lunas
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Village of Los Lunas Council Chambers
660 W. Main St.
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Las Vegas
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
N.M. Highlands University –
Sala de Madrid Room
801 University Ave.
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Rio Rancho
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Loma Colorado Main Library
755 Loma Colorado Drive NE
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Ruidoso
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Village of Ruidoso Council Chambers
313 Cree Meadows Drive
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Silver City
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Grant County Commission Offices
1400 Highway 180 East
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Martin Salazar of the Albuquerque Journal had a nice story this morning that further buttressed previous Rio Grande Foundation research and writing on the bloat in higher ed in New Mexico. Just search for “higher education” at our blog for even more.
One of the better bits of writing in Salazar’s piece was the following:
New Mexico does a great job of getting students in the doors of colleges and universities. But the state does a lousy job of graduating those students. UNM’s six-year graduation rate, for instance, is 42.7 percent, and that’s one of the better graduation rates posted by a New Mexico university.
Maybe someday we’ll realize that trying to be all things to all people is a recipe for mediocrity and that it doesn’t make sense to build a college and university in everyone’s backyard.
According to Salazar, “The state Board of Finance has asked for a master plan for higher education before approving any new degree programs, and the Higher Education Department is hard at work developing that plan.” This is a start, but it would seem that real cutbacks, not just restraint, is necessary. Hopefully the Legislature and incoming Governor have the stomach to make the tough choices necessary to make higher ed as efficient and cost-effective as possible.
Oh, and just in case you think that money spent on college is always well-spent, check out this story on why college tuition may be “the next bubble” to burst.
Most of the state budget goes to schools, and that’s where a lot of mystery remain for anyone wanting to see what happens to those hundreds of millions of dollars. The nationally respected Sunshine Review checked out the websites of New Mexico school districts and gave a general ‘F.’ But three districts did quite well and deserve our appreciation. New Mexico Watchdog reports.
Don’t you just love it when the government “invests” your money? The latest debacle in this regard is the loss of $17 million (the total loss is actually more) that the state “invested” in Advent Solar. This comes on top of a $20 million loss on Eclipse Aviation, a $9 million loss on Earthstone International, and a general failure of the state’s private equity program.
Politically-motivated state “investments” are destined to fail. Rather than wasting money to bring individual businesses to New Mexico, our political leaders should look for ways to use these resources to “invest” in lower taxes and a friendlier business climate. It may require Constitutional changes, but it is pretty clear that allowing the State Investment Council is an ineffective tool for bringing business to the Land of Enchantment.
I’m quoted throughout the article as to the need for reforms to the system and reasons why the current defined benefit system is simply unsustainable. Read the full article here or pick up a copy of the paper today.
And Happy Independence Day!
The simplest answer is that it is a new novel by talk show host Glen Beck. But the Overton window was actually developed by Joe Overton who at one time worked for our friends at the free market think tank the Mackinac Center based in Michigan.
The Overton Window applies directly to think tanks. It describes the “window” of political possibility with free market think tanks constantly fighting to raise that window to help create more freedom. An application of the “window” can be seen here as it relates to school choice.
With options ranging from most free “no government schools” to the least free option, “compulsory indoctrination in government schools” and containing a wide range of options in between, the window itself actually applies to those options that actually have a realistic opportunity of being adopted.
The role of free market think tanks is to raise the window so that freer options are available. Yes, I’d like to see no government schools, but like food stamps which are simply a voucher for food, the state or local government could provide vouchers for those families who cannot afford to pay for education on their own.
The Overton Window concept is important in understanding change in our society because it is rare that radical change is welcome or able to “stick” unless the public is ready and willing to accept the change.
K-12 education is a serious and ongoing problem in New Mexico. I wrote about it in The Alibi last week. The Rio Grande Foundation has been impressed with the results of Florida’s education reform under Jeb Bush approximately a decade ago, so Dr. Matthew Ladner wrote a study explaining how Florida turned their educational system around and how that has led to dramatic improvements in educational attainment, particularly for minorities. The full study can be found here.
One chart that explains just how well Florida has done is this chart which explains how low-income Hispanic children are beating New Mexico’s general student population on an important and widely-respected standardized test:
Because of the importance of this issue and the compelling results experienced by Florida, we are hosting Dr. Ladner for a series of events in Albuquerque. More information on Ladner’s presentations in Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Las Cruces — including information on how to register and attend these events — can be found here.
Guess which ones wants taxpayer-funded full-time bodyguards and which one carries a .45? New Mexico Watchdog’s latest look at the candidates for Governor.
The Rio Grande Foundation has been doing a great deal of work on the need for higher education reform in New Mexico. Our policy paper and Channel 13 KRQE interview are just two of the most recent efforts, not to mention several opinion pieces that have appeared statewide.
The topic came up in a recent Winthrop Quigley interview with former Gov. Garrey Carruthers in the Albuquerque Journal’s business section. In the interview, Carruthers noted that:
In 2008 New Mexico employed 7.3 people per thousand population to administer and provide support services in the state-run institutions of higher learning. Arizona had 2.8 employees per thousand population, Colorado had 4.6, and Texas had 3.3.
Carruthers goes on to question the reasons behind this out-sized bureaucracy such as the presence of too many schools in New Mexico, but the reality is that without additional transparency and either coordination of majors or genuine market-based competition for funds, nothing will change. The data don’t lie, however, hopefully the Legislature tackles this important issue in the 2011 session.
At the Rio Grande Foundation’s recent “Lights of Liberty” luncheon, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock was the keynote speaker. His presentation can be found below:
Murdock’s powerpoint slides from the luncheon are available here.
Who is this lobbyist who took up Nancy Pelosi’s request and adopted U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich? Meet him over at New Mexico Watchdog.
If you haven’t heard yet, the Supreme Court has handed down a favorable 5-4 decision on McDonald v. City of Chicago. The decision extends second amendment protections to cities across the country which is a big deal and represents the restoration of an important Constitutional right.
But that’s not all, the really good news, as our friends at the Institute for Justice point out, “Today’s ruling should be celebrated not just by gun owners, but by everyone who cares about liberty and the unique role played by courts in protecting it under our system of government.” Why is that?
Justice Thomas agreed that the gun ban should be struck down, but instead proposed “a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is more faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history”—namely, the 14th Amendment’s “Privileges or Immunities Clause.” That Clause states that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
“The most important takeaway from today’s decision is that it remains an open question which provision in the 14th Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement,” said IJ Senior Attorney Clark Neily, who was one of the three attorneys who litigated District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case that struck down the D.C. gun ban.
The phrase “privileges or immunities” may be unfamiliar today, but as Justice Thomas’s concurrence shows, 19th-century Americans used it synonymously with a term modern Americans know very well: rights. After the Civil War, officials throughout the South systematically violated the rights of newly freed blacks and white abolitionists in their states and sought to keep them in abject poverty and terror. The whole point in amending the Constitution to add the 14th Amendment—and with it the Privileges or Immunities Clause—was to end the pervasive culture of oppression and tyranny by state and local governments. As the Institute for Justice explained in its amicus brief, two rights the Privileges or Immunities Clause was clearly intended to protect were armed self-defense and economic liberty.
But the Supreme Court essentially wrote the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the 14th Amendment in an 1873 decision called the Slaughter-House Cases. The result was predictably disastrous: Those who were politically disenfranchised would continue to be economically marginalized and stripped of any meaningful ability to protect themselves from the vicious reprisals and Klan violence that soon became a shameful hallmark of Reconstruction.