I don’t normally spend time talking about the national blog scene or the left-wingers at the Huffington Post, but this story caught my attention.  The left-wing website is being sued by its unpaid bloggers. Let that sink in for a moment. A group of BLOGGERS is suing the now-AOL owned company. They even claim to have union representation through New York Chapter of the National Writers’ Union (UAW 1981).

This is already funny. How full of yourself as a blogger do you have to be to believe that your unsolicited postings on a website ENTITLE you to income?

Of course, this couldn’t happen to a more appropriate website — one that has done yeoman’s work to foster the sense of entitlement shared by its bloggers. So, the site that at once claims that the minimum wage is “a disgrace and a scandal” and that the minimum wage “increases and promotes jobs,” won’t pay the people who provide much of its content a dime. According to their “logic,” paying a minimum wage to the site’s bloggers would increase revenue and profits, right?

Funny stuff indeed. I won’t waste more typing on this silly site, but I eagerly await an outcome.

Back in 2008, I wrote about some Medicaid reforms that had taken place in Rhode Island and urged the Richardson Administration to take note and consider similar reforms. Unfortunately, nothing was done and, Medicaid continues to grow rapidly (far more rapidly than the average state) in New Mexico, crowding out other spending and lower taxes.

But, Rhode Island moved ahead and, according to data from the Pacific Research Institute, is seeing excellent results. According to the report:

Rhode Island’s waiver is not quite a block grant. It preserves the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages or FMAP, but caps aggregate federal and state spending through 2013 at $12.075 billion. Nevertheless, it appears to have had the results one would expect from a block grant. Spending has plummeted from what was anticipated. Remarkably, through the first six quarters of the waiver (January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) actual spending was only $2.7 billion versus $3.8 billion budgeted.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget would block grant Medicaid. While Rhode Island’s experience was not a true block grant, it only makes sense that states are going to be more innovative and flexible than the federal government. New Mexico’s leaders (both state and federal) need to start pushing for this reform regardless of the success or failure of Ryan’s budget lest Medicaid continue to consume ever more of the state and federal budgets.

We are now being treated to the latest rounds of outrage from New Mexico’s education establishment about the “dramatic cuts” being made to the schools. Yes, it is true, some cuts are being made, but the idea that spending on K-12 education has cratered or should cause some kind of crisis is ridiculous. We’ve already discussed per-pupil spending on K-12 here and shown how dramatically spending has risen over the past few decades.

But what about more recent spending cuts. We’ve SLASHED the budget, right? Not really. As this chart which was based on reports like this one from the LFC, which shows “Total Public School Support,” there have been some slight cuts in recent years after several years of massive spending growth. In fact, since FY 2004, spending growth has averaged 6%, factoring in the cuts made for FY 2012 during the last session.

New Mexico schools should not be in a crisis and, while I empathize with them on the demands placed upon them, particularly by Washington, DC, it is time to quit complaining and solve the problems facing the schools.

According to President Obama, the recent deal that kept the federal government open included “the largest annual spending cut in our history.” In nominal terms, he’s right (barely). According to page 21 of the federal Historical Tables of federal spending, between 1945 and 1946, federal spending dropped by $37.48 billion in one year from 92.712 billion to 55.223 billion. Sure enough, Obama has got Truman beat in numerical terms.

Of course, anyone who is indeed as smart as a 5th grader knows that nominal terms are next to useless when the topic is the Federal Budget. Some quick math shows us that in one year, Harry Truman and Congress cut spending by more than 40%. Clueless Obama and the spineless Republicans who went along with the charade cut spending by just $38.5 billion. And how much of a spending cut is that? The FY 2011 budget is $3,883.861 (nearly 3.9 trillion). The cuts made to this budget amount to just 1 percent of the total.

(update here): it appears that the “cuts” were nowhere near what was originally reported in the media. The Congressional Budget Office has found the “cuts” to be only $352 million and that fails to account for emergency spending.

By not putting serious cuts on the table, Republicans are losing the debate and letting Obama portray himself as a common-sense fiscal-conservative who can make “tough decisions.” Paul Ryan’s plan is a start, but it is not serious because it fails to curtail defense spending. Rand Paul, on the other hand, would shut down some government agencies and make government more efficient. Republicans need to get serious before Obama makes them chumps again (of course it would be great if the Democrats made serious spending cut proposals, but I’m not holding my breath on that one).

Those who follow this space are undoubtedly aware that Ayn Rand’s individualist anthem Atlas Shrugged has been made into a movie. It looks like the only theater in New Mexico that is planning to show it on opening night is the Century Rio 24 in Albuquerque.

Opening night is April 15 (appropriately enough), so get out and protest with your local tea party group and then enjoy an evening at the movies. More information on tickets and showtimes can be found here, but I will be attending the 7:45pm showing.

Thanks to all of you who “demanded” the movie. And, it is good to see that at least one theater has responded. The only way to make sure that Atlas Shrugged is shown widely around the nation and eventually the world is to get out there and see it. So, get your tickets and we’ll see you at the movies!

(Albuquerque) The Rio Grande Foundation is pleased to announce that it has hired former Santa Fe New Mexican report David Collins to head up its investigative projects at New Mexico Watchdog.

David Collins proved his mettle as a professional reporter covering civil unrest in Wisconsin in 1989. Since his first professional assignments as a talk-radio host and news producer at a rural, tribally owned radio station, he has reported for several print publications as both a freelancer and a staff writer. He has held positions as a cops-and-courts reporter, a business writer, an investigative journalist and a general-assignment news hound.

In addition to work as a freelance reporter and a Web developer, he has held desks at WOJB-FM in northern Wisconsin, the Centralia Fireside Guard in Missouri, the Junction City Daily Union in Kansas, Rio Grande Sun in Española and most recently the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Building on early mass-communication experience as a fleet-footed remote-broadcast specialist at a community public radio station, he developed skills for the digital millennium as a Web programmer and a data analyst. An aggressive advocate for open governance at a time when complex technologies threaten to put much government information beyond the reach of the lay public, he often prefers to query official data than to take a quote from a public official.

Ideologically, he’s embraced neither the left, the right nor the center, but supports informed understanding among diverse interests. When pressed to testify about his own ideals, he calls himself a pragmatist with a steady inclination toward personal freedom.

Paul Gessing, President of the Rio Grande Foundation, in announcing the hiring, said “Jim Scarantino blazed the trail for web-based investigative reporting in New Mexico. I am confident that David Collins will continue to break new stories and make the political classes uncomfortable as he asks probing questions and digs deep to uncover the truth.”

Collins’ first story, “Controversy Looms Over Sunshine Portal Hand-Off” is available at: http://newmexico.watchdog.org/.

The federal government is on the verge of “shutting down” due to a disagreement over minuscule budget cuts. Of course, the shutdown will hardly effect much of what government does: Social Security checks will be paid, the military will still be deployed and fighting, and good luck trying to get out of paying taxes to the feds.

And, as this article points out, a federal shutdown actually costs taxpayers more. Talk about a “Catch-22.” The federal government sticks it to taxpayers every day while it is operating and hammers us even more when it “shuts down.”

What needs to happen is for taxpayers to demand that Washington simply abandon much of what it does. Block granting Medicaid to the states, for example, would save an impressive $114 billion over 10 years and would likely result in tremendous improvement in a system that, as it currently works, has a nasty “low-wage trap.”

So, I won’t be cheering the current “shutdown,” rather I’m looking for more leaders who will return the federal government to its proper bounds.

Bernalillo County Commissioner Wayne Johnson has introduced a resolution that would dramatically expand transparency in the County. The bill will be heard before the Commission on Tuesday, April 12th. If you can, please attend and show your support for transparency. If you can’t attend, send the Commissioners an email.

The resolution would do the following:

1. Create an Internet transparency portal to be completed by August 1st, 2011 where the public will have searchable access to public records created by or in the possession of Bernalillo County hereinafter referred to as a “Sunshine Portal.”

2. The County’s Sunshine Portal will provide access to information and/or documents including but not limited to:

a) A complete County employee listing including employee name, job title, department, supervisor, annual compensation, annual total compensation including benefits, and year-to-date compensation. Listing to include all full and part-time employees and elected officials. The County shall also post all job descriptions.
b) A complete listing of contracts between the County and any contractor or service provider that includes a brief description of the scope of work, contractor name, contractor principle name, amount of contract, term of contract with start and end dates, amendments to contract including changes in scope, term, and amount of contract. Contract listing will also include a link to the signed and executed contract as well as any amendments to the contract. This listing will include all active and completed contracts that are currently in electronic form. Records not currently in electronic form will be added to this listing as soon as practicable.
c) A complete listing of all County real estate holdings including name of the County department using the facility or name of the tenant leasing or subleasing a facility, property, a building or part of a building from the County, percentage occupied, property address, and estimated property value. Listing shall include links to executed tenant leases.
d) A County check register or “checkbook” to include payee name, contract reference if any, description of purchase, date, and amount of payment.
e) All department budgets and budgets of County elected officials including year-to-date expenditures, percentage above/below appropriated budget, and department purchases.
f) County budget as proposed including any administrative changes made during the budget year.
g) Agendas, meeting dates, and minutes for County boards, committees and commissions formed and appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.
h) A searchable frequently requested documents listing where documents that have been requested under the Inspection of Public Records Act will be made available for quick access.
i) An “As Built” agenda section for the Board of County Commission that makes proposed agenda items immediately available to the public as meeting agendas are being built. Listing should clearly indicate whether or not it has been finalized for the indicated meeting. Said finalization will occur no later than specified by the Board of County Commissioners’ Open Meetings Resolution adopted annually by the Board of County Commissioners.

3. All agenda items included for consideration or action by the Board of County Commissioners will include name of the commissioner or manager proposing the item.
4. Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) requests will be handled in a manner that is in compliance with New Mexico law keeping in mind the Board of County Commissioners’ intent with respect to the disclosure of public information. Those individuals processing IPRA requests shall not assert a claim for exemption that is not supported by law.
5. Redactions to public records will be accompanied by an explanation of the basis for such redaction from the requested document along with the provision of state or federal law that allows for or requires redaction. It is the policy of the County that items will only be redacted where such authority is provided for or required by state or federal law, in cases of pending litigation, in cases where dissemination of information could result identity theft, or where there is a countervailing public policy.

If you listen to the radio, you may have heard our ads urging Gov. Martinez to veto SB 208. The ads are posted below:

It seems like UNM has more economically-ignorant people affiliated with it than most universities. Take Nick Estes and his recent column in the Albuquerque Journal, please. The level of economic ignorance from this former UNM lawyer and current staffer at the far left-wing Voices for Children is truly appalling.

He starts with a truthful statement about World War II and the US government running up massive deficits. It’s true. Fighting the combined forces of Hitler and the Empire of Japan cost a lot of money. The thing is that after the War, our leaders enacted massive spending cuts and the economy grew faster than ever before. Estes and his ilk would have a fit if spending dropped by 2/3rds as it did after WWII, but it did.

Then Estes goes into the farcical “we owe it to ourselves” routine. Debt is debt whether it is owed to a family member or to someone in a far-off foreign country. If that debt burden becomes too much a default is possible and those are still painful. If your cousin doesn’t pay you for the care he “bought” from you and then he crashes it and can’t pay you, you are still out the money. This is just a dumb argument from Estes.

Then Estes claims that trade imbalances, not government deficits are the real problem. REALLY. On what planet does this guy live? Nations that have major “current account balance deficits” include the USA, Canada, Australia, and England. Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya, and Iran all have major surpluses. I’ll leave it up to Estes to pick the countries he’d rather live in. Of course, these “deficits” partially represent foreign investment in firms located in those nations.

In other words, governments going into debt is bad, but so-called “trade deficits” are irrelevant as economist Walter Williams rightly points out.

The good news is that Nick Estes’ title indicates he was a lawyer and not involved in teaching economics. The bad news is that there is a clear pattern of economic ignorance from current and former faculty at UNM.

The following is an original article by Grace-Marie Turner. Turner, a native of Albuquerque, is president of the Galen Institute, a non-profit health policy research organization in Alexandria, VA. She is a co-author of Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America, which was published last month.
*************
Gov. Susana Martinez should oppose efforts by the state legislature to establish a health insurance exchange because it will turn the state into little more than a contractor to the federal government in implementing the new health overhaul law.

Further, the state should return the $1 million in federal funds it has taken to study creation of an exchange. New Mexico must retain its independence so it can do what is right for the citizens of the Land of Enchantment.

Yes, there are problems with cost and access to health care in New Mexico, and small businesses are especially desperate for relief. But the new health law will only add to their burdens. Under federal law, any business with more than 50 full-time employees will be required to provide health insurance which is likely to be more comprehensive, and expensive, than most can afford today.

Those purchasing insurance in the individual market are going to be hit especially hard. The Congressional Budget Office has said that costs for a family of four in this market are likely to be $2,100 a year higher than they would have been had the law not passed.

And under the new federal health law, all citizens will be required to purchase government-mandated insurance or pay a fine.

The exchanges are the vehicle that the federal government hopes the states will establish so it can close the loop on federal regulation of health insurance. By taking the exchange money from Washington, states give up their autonomy and authority to do what is right for their own citizens. They must follow Washington’s rules.

Small businesses and individuals would be better off if the state were to instead set up a web portal that would allow people to buy coverage on a pre-tax basis and that would allow health insurance resources to be pooled together. If a husband and wife are both working for different companies, both employers could contribute money toward their purchase of a single family policy. Utah accomplished this and hired just two people to get it done. But that is where the authority should end.

The president adopted the name of the Utah Health Exchange but none of its flexibility. To be clear New Mexico isn’t turning itself into a subject of Washington, it could call its purchasing portal a “Health Freedom Gateway.” It should have no regulatory authority, and people should be able to purchase less-expensive, mandate-light policies, if they choose.

The key is individual ownership of health. This will go a long way toward reducing the problem of pre-existing conditions. If people have policies that they can own and take with them as they move from job to job or city to city, they will have continuity of insurance so the insurance will be there when they need it.

New Mexico should do what is right for its own citizens. Don’t create a Washington-designed exchange and don’t accept federal exchange funds.

If enough states resist – as many are – the federal government will be compelled to find a better way to provide financial assistance to the uninsured to help them in purchasing coverage without the heavy, expensive, and inflexible weight of federal control over New Mexico’s health insurance market.

The practice of government giving incentives to specific industries and businesses is popular among politicians. For starters, it plays into the classic concentrated benefits and dispersed costs paradigm — in this case the business or industry receives great benefit, but the public is ignorant of the costs. Also, incentives seemingly allow politicians to avoid tough and politically-unpopular decisions while attracting business to their jurisdiction.

The problem is, as I write in today’s Albuquerque Journal, what is needed is for the Legislature to make tough decisions that spur economic development statewide and for the benefit of ALL businesses and industries in the state.

Unfortunately, local government has little say in some of the biggest policy decisions that are holding New Mexico back. But, rather than pushing incentives in a never-ending cycle of failure, our local leaders can and should work to use the bully-pulpit and work with local representatives in Santa Fe to spur economic growth. Oh, and go to the following links for more information on the economics of personal income taxes and “Right to Work” legislation.

Generally-speaking, Mayor Berry has done a good job in challenging economic times for Albuquerque. That said, fiscal-conservatives and advocates for limited government are sure to have some concerns about the City’s new budget.

First and foremost, why give government employees a raise of 1 percent at a cost of $3.3 million? This is not merely a rhetorical question. Is the City losing good workers to other cities and the private sector? By all accounts, the job market out there is still incredibly soft and with a 9% unemployment rate, I can’t imagine the City is losing too many quality workers…but I’m open to data showing otherwise.

What I’m even more concerned with is that taxpayers really aren’t getting anything for these raises. If the raises were purchasing more flexibility in union contracts — like the one that makes it impossible to fire a bus driver that shows up for work drunk — I’d be a great deal more sympathetic. It would also be nice if fire fighters could be fired for blatantly unethical electoral activity on the job.

I realize that not all government workers are unionized, but it would be great if the Mayor could have leveraged increased pay for increased flexibility. Unfortunately, with this budget as the starting place, the liberals on City Council are only going to argue for smaller cuts and higher raises.

Legislation is now sitting on Gov. Martinez’s desk that would, at least in theory, bring greater transparency to health insurance pricingas explained by this article in the Albuquerque Journal. The long and short of the bill is to set up new requirements if a company wishes to raise rates.

It is designed to achieve “mom and apple pie” status. Who could oppose transparency that makes it more difficult to raise rates? As we’ve discussed in this space before, however, transparency is nice, but what we need are pro-market health care reforms, not more meddling in how rates are adjusted.

We have a competitive market that “regulates” the price of car insurance and life insurance — not to mention the prices of computers, food, and nearly every other object we purchase in our daily lives (without an elaborate and costly review process). Unfortunately, the Legislature did nothing this session to peel back New Mexico’s 57 mandates or actually make the provision of health care any cheaper. Until we have policies in place that encourage a competitive market, no amount of reviews or transparency will make health insurance — or health care — more affordable.

Paul Chesser writes about several energy issues at American Spectator. He notes that “based on government data…Ninety four percent of federal onshore lands are off-limits to oil and gas exploration, while 97 percent of offshore federal lands are off-limits.”

Also noteworthy is the fact, not mentioned by many, that North Dakota is booming. One reason for this is that their resources are not owned by the federal government. See this useful map of where federally-owned lands are located.

Last, but not least, while New Mexico unfortunately suffers from lots of federal land ownership, the folks at the State Land Office have seen an uptick in leases in recent months. This is some good news for the state economy.

I for one am tired of Sam Bregman’s silly columns in the Albuquerque Journal. For starters, partisan hackery on both sides is a bother, but Bregman’s ignorance of basic economics and political reality is what really sends me over the top.

He attacks Gov. Martinez for the silliest reasons.

Taping committee hearings: These should be broadcast on the internet and hosted online, on-demand, by the Legislature. Lack of transparency on the part of OUR public servants is inexcusable;

Jobs: First and foremost, Gov. Martinez took office three months ago. These things don’t happen overnight. More importantly, there are plenty of policies like “right to work,” eliminating renewable energy mandates, reducing regulations, and reducing taxes.

Bregman pushes for the film industry and “jobs programs” that he sees as a panacea, but if the previous Administration’s jobs programs like the costly Rail Runner, the Spaceport, and yes, the film industry, were so great, wouldn’t New Mexico’s economy be generating those jobs already? Sure, Susana could send construction crews out and pay them to dig holes in the ground, but that is an expensive way to “create jobs.” What we need is wealth-generation and that takes time and legislative willingness to cooperate which they have not.

Lastly, Bregman trots out the old canard that the education reforms she’s promoting are somehow flawed because they are from out of state. I don’t get it. People on all sides of the political debate acknowledge that we rank in the bottom 5 in education. Shouldn’t we be looking for good ideas wherever we can find them?

I realize Bregman is a political hack and wants to be Chair of the Democratic Party, but even he should try to come up with some better arguments if he’s going to put them in print.

Wal Mart has a reputation as being inexpensive. And, while some studies show that Target has lower prices, the fact is that Wal Mart generally provides goods people want at a low cost. It was interesting to me that UNM David Schmidly recently called the school the “Wal Mart” of flagship Universities.

I wish. The reality is, according to information from NCHEMS which collects data on higher ed around the nation, New Mexico has the third-lowest 6 year graduation rate, asks families to put up the 7th-lowest percentage of family income for tuition, and derives the 5th-greatest amount of funding from taxpayers.

So, the reality is that New Mexico state universities — of which UNM is the largest — are graduating fewer students who pay less for their schooling than those in other states. Taxpayers, on the other hand, pay quite a bit more. This is hardly the Wal Mart model (it actually resembles US health care with its third-party payment system, but that’s another topic).

The fact is that the best way to reform New Mexico’s universities is to have their customers (students and their parents) pay more and for them to demand efficiency. UNM can and should look for more efficiency in tough budget times, but until they lose “customers,” why should they?

Interesting article by Heath Haussamen on the possibility and peril of Gary Johnson’s run for the White House. Personally, I’d still like to see Gary run for the Senate, but assuming he does run for president, he will make a useful contribution to the debate as a limited government, socially-moderate candidate.

University of New Mexico is now looking at some fairly significant tuition increases (8.6 percent). This is a fascinating issue for fiscal conservatives because the die has been cast — the University faces cutbacks — but the makeup of those cutbacks is now being discussed. What we see at a government-run institution is instructive of how government works (or fails to).

Prior to the legislative session, we at RGF argued for higher tuition as a means of solving the budget situation. While we stand by that, it is interesting to note that our other recommendation — closing branch campuses — is not even being considered. Nor was a more symbolic step like abandoning plans to spend $2 million on a baseball stadium. And, of course, as the Albuquerque Journal recently editorialized, plans to raise 1.75 percent increase in pension contributions for state employees, including teachers, have received a chilly reception to say the least. UNM also has 17 highly-paid executive vice presidents. Surely, a few jobs in the Administration could be combined or eliminated in this tough economic time, right?

It would seem that UNM has two main functions: 1) serve its workers by paying them well and providing generous pensions; 2) athletics

It is worth noting that only a competitive, free market in higher education can lead to true efficiency (a la Wal Mart). Until then, resources will continue to be mis-allocated.

Too bad Governor Martinez can’t run for Mayor of Santa Fe while she performs the duties of Governor in Santa Fe. If she could, taxpayers in the “City Different” might not be in such a bind and someone would be telling City Council to cut spending rather than sticking property owners with an astounding 41 percent property tax increase as early as this Wednesday. (see previous link for full story and interviews)

According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, the proposed increase of 1.16 mills would add approximately $116 in additional taxes on $100,000 of taxable property — an increase of 41.4 percent. If the City Council approves the measure, the higher tax would first show up on bills issued in November and add about $4 million to city revenue.

Not surprisingly, the primary beneficiaries of the tax increase….unionized government workers! Again, according to the New Mexican:

Members of the three city-employee unions packed the council chambers at City Hall, mostly to express disdain for wage-cut ideas and kudos for tax proposals.

“I grew up believing the citizens of this country were willing to pay for their government,” said Adrian Dalton, a transit operator who is vice president of the largest city union, a local chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

It is another classic case of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. The unions want the Mayor and Council to do their dirty work and pass this without a public vote. And, unfortunately, they may do just that this Wednesday.

If you disagree and you live in Santa Fe, you can tell your elected officials what you think:

Mayor David Coss
mayor@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6590
Fx: 505 955 6695

District 1
Councilor Patti Bushee
pjbushee@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 2345
Fx: 505 955 6683

Councilor Chris Calvert
ccalvert@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6812
Fx: 505 955 6683

District 2
Councilor Rosemary Romero
R2romero@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6818
Ph: 505 690 3016
Fx: 505 955 6683

Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger
rebeccawurzburger@gmail.com
Ph: 505 955 6815
Fx: 505 984 9180

District 3
Councilor Miguel Chavez
miguelmchavez@msn.com
Ph: 505 955 6816
Fx: 505 955 6683

Councilor Carmichael Dominguez
cadominguez@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6814
Fx: 505 955 6683

District 4
Councilor Matthew E. Ortiz
mortizlaw@msn.com
Ph: 505 955 6817
Fx: 505 955 6683

Councilor Ronald S. Trujillo
rstrujillo@santafenm.gov
Ph: 505 955 6811
Fx: 505 955 6683

I recently posted on the topic of whether spending cuts necessarily harm the poor. I felt that the subject was sufficiently important to write about in a full-length article that recently ran in the Las Cruces Sun-News.

While government is always touted as a means for lifting the poor and disadvantaged out of poverty, the fact is that President Clinton’s last budget was $1.9 trillion back in 2001. President Obama’s 2011 budget was double that at $3.8 trillion. Is there anyone who thinks the poor in this country (or anyone else, for that matter) are better off today than they were when the budget was half as big?

And, while New Mexico’s budget hasn’t grown like Washington’s has, we are spending more than ever on education and Medicaid. But are we getting any more for our money? The things that have improved most over the last decade involve technology and were accomplished by the free market, not government diktats. Shrinking the government will help the poor.

Government Labor Unions! No surprise there. See the breakdown for yourself from Opensecrets.org here. I admit that we are dealing with different (national) data here than applies specifically to New Mexico (which I discussed here). Of course, Carter Bundy (AFSCME’s lobbyist) took me to task for my supposed disinformation.

The fact is that public sector unions were the single biggest “industry” with other unions following close on their heels. Not surprisingly, ZERO of those labor union dollars went to “conservatives” according to the report. Amazingly enough, both classes of labor union give more than those nasty Wall Street bankers who suckered Congress and the White House into bailing them out.

While New Mexico got at best half a loaf on education reform this year, states like Florida are racing ahead on education reform. In this article, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush explains some of the latest ideas being implemented in Florida and other states and reiterates that ALL children can and must learn and our education systems must be able to help students regardless of background and poverty.

The free ride for New Mexico’s movie industry is slowly coming to an end. As Rob Nikolewski of Capitol Report New Mexico writes:

The State Investment Council (SIC) on Tuesday (March 22) — with Gov. Susana Martinez taking part in the entire four-and-a-half hour meeting — unanimously voted to end the SIC’s practice of granting zero-percent interest loans to film companies who make their movies in New Mexico and also terminated the $260,000-a-year contract for the film consultant whose job was dependent on that practice.

This is an eminently sensible change. The SIC needs to focus on making the best return it possibly can for New Mexicans, not on providing money for preferred industries. Former New Mexico Watchdog Jim Scarantino did a ton of writing and research showing that such efforts by the SIC typically failed and resulted in nothing but ethical problems.

Our position has nothing to do with the film industry per se. Regardless of the industry, it makes no sense to provide zero-interest loans at taxpayer expense (in terms of foregone investment opportunities). Kudos to Gov. Martinez and the SIC.