New Mexico Sen. Dede Feldman is a leftist Democrat. She wants government to control all aspects of American health care. She’s settled for the corporatist ObamaCare plan that passed in Washington last year. Recently, in the Albuquerque Journal, Feldman made her pitch for why the Martinez Administration should not opt out or work to abolish the law.

Her argument can be summarized in one word “money.” Specifically, sprinkled throughout the bill are federal funds for the states to help align themselves with the federal law and to supposedly expand coverage. Of course, Feldman doesn’t really mention where all this money is coming from. The answer to that is simple: 1) taxpayers in New Mexico and other states 2) China;

What is needed is not more funding of state programs. Instead, the fundamental payment structure of health care must be addressed. Rather than the individual mandate which locks us into the 3rd party payer system, Congress should consider either abolishing businesses’ tax advantages for health care or extending those to individuals as well. Putting health care decisions back in the hands of individuals (and limiting insurance companies to actual insurance) is the only way to cut costs and improve quality at the same time.

The House of Representatives did a good thing by passing a repeal yesterday, but they need to come up with an alternative plan of their own that relies on free market principles and devolves policymaking to the states. In the meantime, Obama, Feldman, and others will rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic of ObamaCare.

With the House of Representatives poised to pass a repeal of health care (the effort is likely to die in the Senate, but it is still a worthy exercise), Dr. Deane Waldman explains in this new article where the much-discussed “death panels” really are to be found in the new health care law.

Yesterday, I was in Santa Fe for the start of the legislative session and the Tea Party rally. Overall, the rally was very good and I commend them for bringing people from all over the state to make their voices heard before the Legislature and Governor.

Among the speakers at the rally was former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. Among other things like fiscal restraint etc., he talked about his position on legalizing drugs. This drew some derisive hisses and catcalls from the crowd that I think were unfortunate. And, while 95% of the crowd either cheered or were at least respectful, some in the crowd made for an awkward scene. This is not the first time Johnson has received a mixed reaction for his legalization message from Tea Partiers.

I just don’t understand this. Gary Johnson — with the possible exception of Ron Paul — is the single most fiscally-conservative candidate likely to run for president in 2012. He SHOULD be a tea party rock star regardless of what you think about the drug issue.

More importantly. Under the Tea Party’s professed (and my actual) reading of the Constitution, the drug war as is now being fought by the Federal Government is blatantly unconstitutional. This is because drugs are not mentioned in the document, so this is rightfully the province of the states. Also, there is the precedent of alcohol prohibition which required an amendment to the Constitution. Shouldn’t the same be done if the feds are going to ban all drugs?

Lastly, and perhaps most ironically, the issues of marijuana and ObamaCare are inextricably linked now due to the Raich case which was decided a few years ago by the Supreme Court. When the anti-ObamaCare lawsuits hit the Court, one of the biggest arrows in the Administration’s quiver is bound to be this case which clearly gives the federal government control of what medicine Americans have access to.

Anyway, regardless of your views on drug prohibition, next time Gary Johnson speaks, don’t give him a hard time.

No surprise that, despite poor results, the US ranks near the top of this survey. So much for more money being the answer to education woes in the US or in New Mexico. Thanks to the folks at the Mercatus Center for this useful information.

There are lots of reasons to love freedom and liberty. One good one that is not talked about enough is that, contrary to popular belief, markets lend themselves to helping our fellow humans. Don’t believe me?

Check out this story and contrast the “compassion and understanding” of the nameless, faceless bureaucrats at the TSA with the courageous and loving actions of the pilot of the Southwest Airlines jet. I’ve always enjoyed flying Southwest and do so now more than ever with a little one and the need to check luggage on most trips.

Thank you to Southwest Airlines for showing the world that having the freedom to be compassionate is what freedom is all about!

Surprise, surprise! The heavily-subsidized RailRunner continues to bleed riders. As Kate Nash at The New Mexican reports, traffic on the train declined 11% from the second part of 2009 to the second part of 2010.

The train’s advocates claim that not running the train for Balloon Fiesta had a major impact (and for one month it did have an impact), but ridership declined every single month. Besides, the decision to not run the train for Fiesta was due to budget constraints and the fact that the train loses money with every passenger it carries. If this were not the case, then the train should have run for Governor Martinez’s inauguration.

Gov. Martinez remains non-committal on whether or not to continue the train in the foreseeable future.

As readers at this space undoubtedly know, we at the Rio Grande Foundation have argued for cuts to higher education. One area we neglected to mention is continuing education. These are basically classes that are not taken for credit and often involve yoga or tennis classes and a variety of things like couples counseling that are offered in the private sector (check out a UNM Continuing Ed catalog here).

Well, as part of Martinez’s efforts to eliminate the budget deficit, there will be cuts to continuing education, including a very generous benefit of free classes which is enjoyed by university employees. This is a good move, but according to the Journal article “Continuing Education sent a mass e-mail Friday asking students and supporters to contact university officials, including President David Schmidly’s office, to oppose the recommendation.”

I for one am sick and tired of government employees who ostensibly serve the taxpayer lobbying against cuts to their own departments or agencies. It would seem that using university resources for this purpose should be a firing offense. I hope UNM will put Joseph Miera, associate dean for Continuing Education, or whoever was responsible for the email under scrutiny for this.

Heaven forbid, taxpayers no longer have to subsidize someone’s tennis lessons or yoga classes (these classes are offered at campuses across the state).

Rio Grande Foundation board member (and pediatric cardiologist) Deane Waldman explains at American Thinker who the “true liberals” are. While the term has been tarnished in the American lexicon by decades of socialists mis-representing themselves as “liberals,” it is worth explaining the situation every once in a while, particularly since in most foreign countries, “liberals” still are labeled appropriately.

Oh, and as Jonah Goldberg writes, after billions in aid, Haiti is in dire need of free market liberal policies.

If there’s one thing that’s as reliable as the sun coming up, it’s that public employee unions (like the Albuquerque Teachers Federation) believe that bigger government is better and that taxes should go up. So, it was with absolutely no surprise that I saw this “news” story from KOAT Channel 7 that included union leader Ellen Bernstein calling for the budget deficit to be closed with “creative revenue sources.” Bernstein went on to suggest taxing alcohol to generate $43 million and suggests that the governor close corporate tax loopholes to bring in more revenue for the state.

Of course, Bernstein and her union buddies flatly refuse to even consider that maybe, just maybe, there is some bloat and waste in New Mexico’s budget. Nor do they wish to comprehend that the $70 million shelled out for the film industry or the $20+ million spent on the Rail Runner could have any negative impact on their own budgets.

For a far more interesting discussion of New Mexico’s budget situation, check out this interview I did with Fred Martino of NewsMakers in Las Cruces. My interview starts at the 5:15 minute mark:

It is not getting a great deal of publicity, but Albuquerque Public Schools is having a board election on February 1. Early voting is now under way and readers of this site are strongly urged to learn about the candidates running in their districts and vote for those who will reform APS.

And, if the APS board isn’t enough to get you to the polls, how about a $70 million tax cut? That is what homeowners could see on their taxes if they vote “no” on the CNM bond that is also on the ballot.

While CNM is among New Mexico’s more efficient providers of higher education services, the reality is that we need to wean higher education off of the taxpayer dole. Innovation and efficiency in higher education will only come about if it is financially imperative. Getting out to vote and telling CNM that more reforms and more efficiency are necessary will be a good start.

The debate concerning Texas’ economic success continues. With a Tejana as our new governor, many on the left believe New Mexico will become more economically similar to Texas. We at the Rio Grande Foundation have cheered that prospect.

Not surprisingly, left-wing economist Paul Krugman is not so sanguine about the prospect. But, as this blog posting at The Economist notes, Texas and slow-growing, high tax, heavy regulation states like New York really are economically different.

While New Mexico may not want to adopt every single policy Texas has in place — I’d settle for no personal income tax and a Right to Work laws. As this article points out, Texas is not perfect (spending growth has grown rapidly in recent years), but it is doing a lot right.

The film debate last night (the 11th) was a huge success and unfortunately many who showed up could not get into it. The good news is that full footage of the debate is now available online. Thanks to Kevin McDonald and the folks at KNME Channel 5 for the video!

New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall wants to expedite legislative action in the Senate by eliminating the filibuster. If Udall has his way, the Senate would not need 60 votes anymore to proceed to a vote. A simple majority would suffice. This is not a good idea.

None other than George Washington explained that the Senate was designed to act as a “saucer” to “cool the passions” of the House which is more directly responsible to the people and comes up for election every two years. The Senate is meant to be slow.

The basic issue is that Udall views Senate action as inherently good. Of course, he is a member of the body and part of the Democratic majority, but legislative action in Washington more often than not reduces our freedoms rather than enhancing them. Witness the ObamaCare abomination as just one recent example. The Founders were justifiably suspicious of pure democracy which is little more than mob rule. That is why we have the Electoral College, the First Amendment (a protection against unpopular speech by minority groups), and arcane Senate rules that slow the process down and thwart simple majorities from making radical changes (to name just a few rules and laws against rampant majority rule).

Udall’s rule changes would undermine the Founders intent when it came to the Senate. I believe that all Republicans and most Democrats will reject his changes.

This evening, at 4pm, the Rio Grande Foundation is co-hosting a debate on the film industry’s subsidies with the newly-formed New Mexico Motion Picture Association. While the debate will involve four legislators, I felt that it was important for us to put out our own statement explaining our concerns about the program. That statement follows:

New Mexico’s film industry is heavily-subsidized. Filmmakers are reimbursed for 25% of everything they spend in the state to make a movie (not including the interest free loans and job training considerations which are not discussed here in detail). This is a very generous program that has undoubtedly led to a large number of films having come to the state. Of course, this program is also direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars collected by the state. This money was taken from average citizens and other businessmen in the form of taxes and transferred to a chosen industry (the film industry).

Simply put, this violates the basic principle of tax fairness and this is grounds for our opposition.

But what about the program’s effectiveness? Advocates claim that millions of dollars in economic activity and thousands of high-paying jobs have been produced by the program. A variety of other studies including non-ideological ones from the Arrowhead Center at NMSU, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the conservative Heartland Institute (to name just one conservative critique) have pointed out the flawed economic logic associated with New Mexico’s film subsidy program and similar programs nationwide.

Some 44 states nationwide offer film subsidy programs of one type or another. So, why does the Rio Grande Foundation believe that it is right and that policymakers in 44 states are wrong?

First and foremost, what we have here is a classic case of concentrated benefits and designed costs. The film industry and its employees derive significant benefits from the diversion of $60 to $90 million annually to their industry. They have a tremendous amount at stake when it comes to preserving and continuing the subsidies.

Other businesses and average taxpayers do not see how much is being taken from them to fund this program. All they hear about is the films that are made here, not what they could have done or businesses could have done with the money – including hiring New Mexico workers – if they’d had the opportunity to keep their money.

Currently, the state faces a $400 million budget deficit. Even if we wished to keep subsidizing the movie industry to the tune of $60-$80 million annually, can we afford it? If we are to continue the subsidy, what areas of program should be cut? Should K-12 education be reduced or Medicaid? How about higher education? These are problems that advocates for the film industry rarely address.

Another anti-subsidy perspective outlining corruption concerns over the internal workings of the program and analyses of the program were discussed recently in the Albuquerque Journal by Rep. Kintigh.

The Rio Grande Foundation is co-sponsoring a free legislative debate over the film subsidies currently offered by the state. The debate is Tuesday and more information can be found here.

Please let us know you’re coming by reserving a seat at info@riograndefoundation.org We’ve been advocating for at least a $30 million cap on the program which would save taxpayers at least $30 million annually (perhaps even more as the program is not capped). This would put a significant dent in the $400 million budget deficit the state is now facing.

Come, learn about the program and decide (or weigh in) for yourself.

With a $400 million deficit (revised upwards from $286 million during the campaign), Tom Molitor explains that Medicaid in New Mexico should be on the table for some reforms. Leaders of other states, facing far worse deficits, are making more dramatic cuts. Governor Martinez can and should take on Medicaid.

Of course, as Molitor writes, Congressional action to give states more responsibility for, and control over, Medicaid spending, is absolutely essential to the long-term viability of both federal and state budgets.

Great news for New Mexicans and the state economy: Governor Susana Martinez has halted the implementation of the state’s carbon cap that was passed through the Environmental Improvement Board.

This is a clear, early sign that Martinez is serious about turning New Mexico’s economy around. If environmentalists want to pass a carbon cap in New Mexico, I highly recommend they pursue it through the democratically-elected Legislature and Governor. We’ll fight them, but at least it is a fair fight when legislators have to stand for election once in a while (unlike the unelected EIB).

Left-wing columnist E.J. Dionne’s columns run regularly in the Albuquerque Journal. He is a dyed in the wool statist and I rarely bother to respond to his nonsense, but he wrote a few things about the incoming Republican Congress, the Tea Party, and the Constitution that I take issue with.

First, he claims that the Tea Party has “treated the Constitution not as a collection of shrewd political compromises, but as sacred scripture.” This is simply not true and it misunderstands the meaning of the Constitution which is meant to serve as the law of the land. The Constitution DID indeed contain numerous compromises, most notably over slavery. The document has been altered (amended) numerous times over the years to fully acknowledge the equality of blacks and other minorities. The Bible on the other hand is unaltered and unalterable.

This is Dionne’s fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. He believes that it should be “living.” That is, it should be interpreted broadly in such a way as to accommodate his big-government agenda. The Tea Party and other conservatives may disagree with the 16th Amendment which legalized the income tax, but we at least recognize that it was the right way to change the original intent of the Constitution.

As for his statement that “tax cuts add to the deficit,” Dionne is simply assuming, as do many on the far left, that all wealth belongs to the government and that it allows us, the peons, to keep the scraps. This is not the way our government was intended to operate and it is simply immoral. Sorry E.J., only spending increases the deficit!

I previously blogged about New Mexico’s tax credits and deductions. The posting included this spreadsheet from the Tax and Revenue Department which compiled the listing and explanations.

It is important to note that simply eliminating any of the tax credits or deductions (aside from the film rebate subsidy) would result in a net tax increase. This doesn’t mean it is ALWAYS bad policy, but as I explain in this article from the Las Cruces Sun-News raising revenue by eliminating tax credits and deductions is not a good path to solving New Mexico’s budget problems.

In today’s Albuquerque Business Journal I discuss ObamaCare and the need for the threat of coercive government force to enforce the law. As Winthrop Quigley wrote last week, the law falls apart without the individual mandate.

I note that this is accurate and show the proverbial “gun in the room” that is federal control over Americans’ health care:

Winthrop Quigley is absolutely correct that the individual mandate, i.e. using the coercive power of the state to force people to purchase health insurance, is integral to President Obama’s health care law. Reliance on government force is at the very heart of the law and is at the very core of what is wrong with the law in the first place.

Unfortunately, due to past government interventions in the health care sector, there is no “free market” in American health care. Governments pick up 50% of the tab and, due to various incentives; patients pay less than $1 out of every $8 out of pocket as it relates to health care. The result is the mish-mash of a system we have had for the past several decades.

Voluntary interaction is at the core of the free market. Not only is it more efficient; it is also morally superior. But rather than peeling back the thicket of government rules and regulations to restore the free market (equalizing the tax treatment of health care purchased by employers and individuals would be a good place to start), Obama and Congress chose to simply force all Americans to purchase a government-approved health care plan. This may conceal the fundamental flaws of the new health care law for some time, but time and reality have ways of exposing government rules and regulations.

Recently, the Rio Grande Foundation published a policy paper outlining more than $280 million in specific spending cuts designed to help Governor Martinez and legislators close New Mexico’s budget deficit.

Then, throughout December, we gave average New Mexicans a chance to weigh in on which cuts they supported and how strongly they wanted to see the cuts made. Survey respondents were asked to rank their preferred cuts on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being the strongest desire to see an item cut). More than 2,000 people took the opportunity to weigh in and the results are as follows:

• Saving $20 million annually by cutting the state work force by 2,000 was the most strongly supported with a rating average of 8.08;
• Saving $60 million annually by repealing SB 33 which increased the costs of public works projects around New Mexico followed close behind with an average rating of 7.91;
• Saving $6.4 million by diverting probationers and parolees who are revoked for technical violations of their supervision, not new offenses, from prison, scored 7.79;
• Diverting drug possession offenders from prison at a savings of $13 million garnered a score of 7.73;
• Saving $30 million by capping the cost of New Mexico’s 25% reimbursement for films made in the state scored 7.34;
• Shutting down the Rail Runner at a savings of $20 million annually scored 6.44; and
• The only budget cut items that scored below 5 were shutting down half of New Mexico’s branch campuses with a score of 4.81 and raising tuition to the national average which scored 4.71.

Said Rio Grande Foundation President Paul Gessing of the results, “While the results of this survey are not scientific in the polling sense, 2,000 New Mexicans inherently represents a reasonable cross-section of the public in terms of their beliefs on these important issues. The survey generated interest far beyond the conservative community with a public campaign by people at UNM Taos to name just one organized effort to sway results.”

Concluded Gessing, “Even if 100% of our spending cut proposals were enacted, Governor Martinez would still have to come up with more cuts to close the $400 million budget hole. Nonetheless, we hope that she will carefully analyze these results as she begins the difficult task of placing the state budget on a sustainable path.

I couldn’t have said it better than this myself. By all accounts, it seems that Gov. Martinez has two main priorities: solving the budget deficit and reforming education. As Daniel Ulibarri tells us, a healthy dose of school choice — along with a series of reforms based on the Florida model — is New Mexico’s best chance to improve education outcomes.

My biggest problems with many of my fellow conservatives are a lack of optimism and a lack of openness and inclusiveness. These traits are too-often associated with the left even though it is simply not reality to claim that those on the left are optimistic or any more inclusive than those on the right.

A perfect example of the liberal viewpoint on these issues appeared on New Year’s Eve in the Albuquerque Journal. The article, written by Kathleene Parker, displayed an obvious lack of understanding of economics and simply rehashed the old Malthusian arguments that humans will die off due to overpopulation.

Among the factors Parker cites in making the case for overpopulation are: gridlock on the roads, our overwhelmed health care system, poor educational system, and water shortages. What she doesn’t mention is that our roads are socialized (government ownership and operation), so is our educational system. Our health care system is not socialized yet but is well on its way and our limited water supply has never resembled anything close to a free market.

While nations can and should have some control over who comes in, the idea that we need to stop immigration and restrict birth rates is silly. Rather than trying to control others’ lives, Parker and her ilk should read their Julian Simon who years ago debunked Malthus’s (and Paul Ehrlich’s) “chicken little” predictions.

So, have a Happy and Optimistic New Year! If government gets out of the way, there is no problem too big for humans to solve.