I talked with Mike Jaxson of KSVP radio in Artesia this week about the Environmental Improvement Board court decision and our 2011 New Mexico Piglet Book. Tune in to the 10 minute interview here.

I met Hanna Skandera recently, the new head of New Mexico’s Public Education Department. She is a real go-getter and a fresh face that brings needed energy and new thinking to the state’s education system. We are especially pleased because Skandera is going to be promoting an education reform model that has actually worked.

Skandera recently had an opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal which outlined some of her reform ideas and her plans to implement them. Skandera is going to be battling an entrenched, unionized, education establishment and she needs your help. If you support education reform that works, now is the time to communicate your preferences to your elected legislators in Santa Fe.

Some in Santa Fe have conflated the state’s film subsidies with the elimination of a single tax that would attract a Union Pacific rail yard to Santa Teresa. Quite simply, this is an absurd comparison.

As I wrote for NMPolitics.net, the Union Pacific deal is eminently sensible, permanent, and will create jobs and economic prosperity for many years to come.

Too often, simple principles are lost in the clutter of misleading arguments and confusing language. Economics is prone to such problems in large part because it is not a science. There is no control group because we are living it.

Anyway, I discuss a few of these ideas and apply them to some hot-button issues in a recent Albuquerque Journal article.

The Rio Grande Foundation, along with the Washington-based Citizens Against Government Waste, has released its latest “Piglet Book” to expose wasteful government spending in New Mexico.

Examples include everything from peanut subsidies in Portales to wasteful job training subsidies and interest-free film loans that are still outstanding. All of these and much, much more are contained in the Booklet which is available online here.

Thanks to the Concerned Citizens for APS Reform, the Rio Grande Foundation has received this voter guide to the APS election. The questions asked are relevant to education reform and the need to transform APS into a responsive, successful organization that encourages transparency and oversight from taxpayers.

Take a look at the guide and be sure to get out and vote.

Trip Jennings of the New Mexican recently interviewed several legislators and Gov. Martinez about film subsidies and other potential tax hikes. I thought the article was reasonable, but clearly showed the ignorance of basic economics and tax policies of certain legislators, particularly Brian Egolf and Michael Sanchez.

Both of these legislators attempt to conflate tax collections foregone (basically, any business tax incentive for any other industry besides film) and direct expenditures. The difference is that Union Pacific, for example, if they build a rail yard in Santa Teresa, may receive some tax breaks. But that does not directly cost the state or taxpayers anything (in fact, they’ll pay other taxes). The film industry, on the other hand, gets checks from the state for far more than they ever pay in taxes.

How do I know this? Even if we assume that the industry’s numbers are correct and that it brings in $500 million in economic activity, the industry costs taxpayers $70 million. With a state GRT rate of 5% and personal income rate of 4.9%, that $500 million in economic activity earns at most $25 million in tax revenue….so we’re giving away $70 million to get $25 million? That’s apparently what Egolf and Sanchez (and others) want.

The oil and gas industry, Union Pacific, grocery purchasers, and others who receive breaks against taxes that would otherwise be collected are not costing the taxpayers of New Mexico a cent, so policymakers should stop playing word games.

Seeking input from New Mexico government officials and agencies on how to do things more efficiently is like asking a cow for the best green chile cheesburger recipe. Despite the fact that New Mexico has more cabinet agencies than the federal government.

Yet, when Sen. Tim Eichenberg, chairman of the legislative Government Restructuring Task Force, tried to communicate with the bureaucracy to find ways to do things better or in less costly ways, he was stymied. Said Eichenberg, “Instead of suggestions (from state officials and employees), we heard impassioned defenses of the status quo.”

Of course dozens of boards could be eliminated and cabinet officials could be merged. My idea for Martinez: “Tell each of the top-level bureaucrats to find at least 5% savings at their agency or they lose their jobs.” Of course, many of these bureaucrats have the protections of civil service jobs, but many of them do not. It is high time that government bureaucrats realize they serve the taxpayers of this state, not themselves.

I could not help but laugh when I read this article in the Albuquerque Journal that included a lot of bellyaching from APS board members over Gov. Martinez’s “State of the State” speech and reform proposals.

Robert Lucero called the Governor “disingenuous” for attacking the APS bureaucracy. Well, if APS wants to show that they DO NOT have a bloated bureaucracy, why don’t they start by publishing salary information for all district employees (including teachers) on the Internet? While they’re at it, they could add vendor transactions as well. We requested this information in an electronic format for our “newmexicospending.com” site and APS basically told us to “go to $%*&” (even though this is supposed to be public information).

So, without the public having adequate information (thanks to APS), the situation is reduced to a “he said, she said” situation. Of course, the Governor has been in office for a few weeks, so she is not the problem. The problem is APS which has failed year after year.

Sen. Fishcmann has introduced legislation demanding that electronic records be made available upon request, but ultimately we need to have school district data added to the Sunshine Portal.

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.