A few weeks ago, we at the Rio Grande Foundation started circulating this petition in response to the unfair attacks upon them by the Los Angeles-based Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. The union is stationing small numbers of “protesters” in front of local businesses with banners stating “Shame on…” for something the business is doing that the union doesn’t like. The Rio Grande Foundation is urging supporters to actively visit businesses that have been targeted by the Union.

Please sign the petition, send it to your friends and other concerned citizens, and send the names of locations of businesses that have been targeted and thus deserve support to info@riograndefoundation.org. The current list of businesses is available here.

I enjoy picking up The Alibi, particularly when Jerry Ortiz y Pino’s columns run. For starters, Ortiz y Pino provides a good window into the thoughts of New Mexico’s left-wing progressive/socialist community. In the past, it has also given me some nice fodder for letters to the editor. I was a bit disappointed in this week’s missive from the good Senator, however.

In his column, Ortiz y Pino simply resigns himself to the “unhappy compromise” that is the recently-passed budget. As a reminder, that budget included the following tax hikes which are estimated to raise the following amount of revenue:

$.75 cigarette tax hike: $31.3 million;
Reinstate part of the gross receipts tax on food: $70 million;
.25% increase in GRT: $60 million;
Eliminate an income tax deduction for taxpayers that itemize: $66 million;
Clarify that the compensating tax applies to most goods and services purchased by New Mexico businesses: $12 million next year.

So, why am I disappointed in Ortiz y Pino? Well, the left which supposedly stands up for the poor, willingly increased taxes on the poor in a regressive manner (cigarette taxes, the GRT, and the grocery tax are all regressive). I wish Ortiz y Pino had stuck up more for his beliefs or maybe admitted that they were wrong to spend $500+ million on the Rail Runner, $80 million annually in film subsidies, hundreds of millions on the Spaceport, and $36 million on a supercomputer.

Most of these spending items have little positive impact on the poor (or on New Mexico’s economy as a whole), but the left seems all too willing to go along with higher taxes on the poor. Who is the “progressive” now?

Winthrop Quigley of the Albuquerque Journal claims to be a “free market fan” in his column in today’s paper. He then spends 800 words defending the various bailouts passed under both President Obama and Bush. Worse, Quigley makes no serious arguments in defense of massive government intervention. The best he can come up with is the fact that the recession supposedly ended in the middle of 2009.

To say the least, I find his arguments dubious. Kind of akin to the Aztecs sacrificing a virgin to the gods for a good harvest and believing that sacrifice to be effective when the harvest turns out well. Quigley essentially admits this at the end of his piece.

I believe that government policies have actually exacerbated the current crisis and sown the seeds for an even greater future crisis. This has been the case historically as the “too big to fail” Long Term Capital Management and the pumping up of the housing market through Fannie and Freddie are two major policies that sowed the seeds for the current crisis.

The market –even a heavily-regulated one like we have now — is more resilient than Quigley seems to believe. If the big banks, AIG, and even the automakers had failed with no bailouts, the US economy would emerge from this crisis in much better shape than before with more responsible, less corrupt companies coming in to replace those that failed. Better still, the federal government would not be burdened with trillions of dollars in debt that Bush and Obama gave us. As this article from Reason Magazine argues, the economy is getting worse, not better thanks to these federal policies. Only time will tell, but I find Quigley’s arguments unconvincing.

Given the huge impact that the regulations being considered by the Environmental Improvement Board could have on New Mexico, I felt that it was important to alert a national audience to the issue and the possibility that similar actions could be undertaken in their state. Check out my National Review Online article here.

The left loves to talk about various “rights,” particularly the supposed right to health care and other economic rights that are not really rights because they involve infringing on others’ rights. But how about the right to home school one’s children?

Thankfully, despite efforts to limit home schooling, particularly in California, most US states are willing to leave home schoolers alone. That is not the case, specifically in Germany, where home schooling is illegal. According to the article, the parents, “music teachers, left Germany because they didn’t like what their children were learning in public school.” The family decided to move to the US “in 2008 after he and his wife had accrued about $10,000 in fines for homeschooling their three oldest children and police had turned up at their doorstep and escorted them to school.”

I am proud that, despite its many flaws, the states of the United States by and large stay out of the way when parents wish to home school their children. It is a freedom to be jealously guarded. I hope our government bureaucrats see fit to give this family — which is clearly fleeing persecution at home — asylum.

I remain a hot topic among Alibi readers in this week’s letters pages. Good to see that I rattled some cages among the lefties with my recent article.

Here are some responses to the points made in the letters:

Letter 1: Not sure what the writer’s point is here. He seems to claim that giving a group of people property rights over animals, for example, is a clear sign that capitalism doesn’t work. Not sure if the writer understands that a corporation is merely a legal entity formed by multiple people (typically) to act in the legal and economic spheres.

Letter 2: According to this individual, the sum total of the conservative philosophy can be summed up in one book by John Dean. All of the other sources on conservative and libertarian thought are out the window. This is silly.

Letter 3: The author makes no attempt to respond to my points. Very silly and I don’t know why they printed it at all.

Letter 4: Thanks Bill! Agreed.

Despite all the tax hikes during the last legislative session, we at the Rio Grande Foundation got some sense of vindication today when yet another pork project that we had outlined in our 2008 Piglet Book (page 13) was abandoned. The latest is the $13 million that the Legislature had set aside for a $23 million equestrian center from which money will be diverted to other, more pressing capital projects.

While this hardly represents a “victory” for taxpayers in light of all of the spending and the general lack of fiscal responsibility among those in the Executive and Legislative Branches who control the process, it is a start. Now, if we’d only abandon (or at least constrain the growth of) programs like the $80 million film subsidies, never have built the RailRunner or Spaceport, and gotten serious about reducing government employment, we’d be dealing with surpluses rather than tax hikes.

Nothing gets the blood flowing like internecine warfare. It is very easy to lob bombs at the left and others who want to “socialize” medicine, but it is quite another thing — a much more difficult one — to disagree with a nationally-recognized advocate for free market health care.

John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a health care expert with far more years in the field than I, recently blogged about some of the ideas put forth by Republicans in their health care meeting with President Obama. The idea that Goodman disagrees so vehemently with is to allow all out-of-pocket spending on health care to be deductible. This, proponents (like me) argue, would ultimately undermine the third-party-payer system of health care in this country because employees would no longer have the incentive to rely on their employers for health care and would instead take the additional pay and enter the individual market, more than likely adapting health savings accounts and other consumer-driven health care products in large numbers.

Goodman argues that eliminating taxes health care expenses would create a situation in which “government would be paying almost half the cost…” With this subsidy, health care spending would rise dramatically. He instead argues for equalizing the tax treatment of health care with other goods — an ideal solution that I agree with — but I doubt that Congress or the American people would go along with such a massive tax hike unless tax rates were lowered…and you get the picture. Very complex and not likely to happen.

So, I remain supportive of eliminating taxes on health care. Why? Well, first and foremost, even if you are being subsidized to the tune of 50% for health care, you still control the money and will work to keep costs down. Pricing will become a part of the health care industry in a way that it is not today because of the third-party system. Also, the individual market will grow, thus making that a more viable proposition and keeping costs down and giving millions of Americans greater control of their health care (no more remaining stuck in a job just because of health care). Lastly, consumer-driven health care like HSA’s will take off and flourish. These all seem like good things to me. Besides, do you really trust politicians to not cave into special interests by exempting health insurance from taxation as we did in New Mexico (NM’s gross receipts tax still hits certain health care costs like deductibles and co-pays).

Ending taxation of health care costs seems to have more benefits than drawbacks. Maybe I’m wrong. What do you think?

The problems associated with Toyota’s faulty brakes are by now widely known. Many on the left and in government will use this as an opportunity to expand government power while blaming the free market for yet another failure.

But, as this column from the free market think tank, The Independent Institute points out, people (and businesses) are not perfect. Toyota clearly screwed up here and the market (average customers reacting to information) is punishing them. The loss of millions of dollars in sales, not to mention the harm this issue has done to the company’s public image, will serve as an incentive to Toyota not to cut corners next time and a reminder to other businesses — automotive and otherwise — to make sure that their products are ready for “prime time” before they are sold to the public.

In other words, the market is responding quickly to make sure this doesn’t happen again or happens less often in the future. As we see in the field of education, the same cannot be said for government.

Footage of my appearance before the Environmental Improvement Board on March 1, 2010 is now available (below). Also, Paul Chesser over at the American Spectator blog picked up the story and added his own thoughts.

Dr. John Vigil was one of two doctors that appeared on a panel with me at Rep. Martin Heinrich’s town hall meeting last summer (video available here). (Remember the good old days when Obama and Congressional Democrats actually cared what form health care reform took rather than just attempting to pass any health care reform they could muster up the votes for?)

Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised when I sat on that panel to learn that Rep. Heinrich had not stacked the panel with pro-government reform proponents. Dr. Vigil in particular impressed me. Well, in today’s Albuquerque Journal, Dr. Vigil explains that medical malpractice, while not solving all of America’s health care problems, could have a significant, positive impact in terms of cost savings of $20-$30 billion annually or more.

Tort reform, as one component of other market-based reforms, could have a significant, positive impact on costs and quality, but as we have seen since Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts, Obama is pushing harder than ever, regardless of what that “reform” ultimately looks like.

On this week’s Forum over at the New Mexico Independent, the question was whether or not Gov. Richardson should or should not sign the tax hike on groceries which he claims to “hate.” View my response (and those of other panelists here). As I point out, the decision at this point is a difficult one. No one hates taxes more than I do, but as Terri Cole points out in support of re-instating the tax, this is a broad-based tax.

If Richardson really “hated” the food tax, he might have wanted to consider that before he pushed so hard for/refused to reconsider costly projects like the RailRunner, the Spaceport, and $80 million annually in film subsidies. Even during this legislative session, Richardson refused to get serious about cutting government spending and our bloated state government (including merging agencies as was recommended by his own government efficiency task force).

So, should Richardson sign the food tax hike? Well, since he seems hell-bent on raising taxes, I’d rather have that tax raised than hikes to income taxes or further hikes to the economically-devastating gross receipts tax even further. No matter what happens, it is clear that Richardson doesn’t “hate” the food tax hike enough to actually do something about it.

Last week, the Rio Grande Foundation hosted a candidate forum between District 3 (the norther district) Congressional candidates Tom Mullins and Adam Kokesh. Incumbent Ben Ray Lujan was invited, but did not attend.

The video is split into two parts. Part one can be found here:

Part two can be found here:

The Rio Grande Foundation, in response to the unfair attacks upon them by the Los Angeles-based Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, is urging supporters to actively visit businesses that have been targeted by the Union, to report which businesses are being targeted (for posting at ErrorsofEnchantment.com) and to sign this petition which will be released to the local media in early April and mailed to the union in Los Angeles (all contact information will be stripped from the petition before it is sent).

So, sign the petition and send the names of locations of businesses that have been targeted and thus deserve support. An initial list can be found here:

La-Z-Boy on San Mateo & McLeod
Healthsouth hospital on Jefferson and Ellison
Lovelace Women’s Hospital on Montgomery
Il Vicino at Alameda and Corrales
Hotel Andaluz (downtown)
Hotel Albuquerque on Rio Grande
The New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union
on Americas Parkway NE

I’m calling for a “buycott.” Not a “boycott,” but a “buycott.” If you read the Business section of today’s Albuquerque Journal, you may have an idea what I’m talking about. You have probably seen the “shame on” banners around town in front of certain businesses. It turns out that an out-of-town union, the Los Angeles-based Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters is behind the “shame on” banners, but they wouldn’t even tell the Journal’s Rivkela Brodsky why exactly they are attempting to give these businesses a black eye.

So, I hope you’ll join me in this “buycott” by actively helping these businesses whenever possible. Patronize them and when you do, tell their employees or a manger if you can find them that you are actively counteracting the union thuggery. An active “buycott” will show these union thugs that they are not welcome in Albuquerque, but we need your help. The unions are not picketing 24/7 and they only picket once in a while — after all, they are hiring minimum wage, non-union workers to do their dirty work.

So, I hope you’ll help me compile a list of businesses that have been targeted by this out-of-state carpenter’s union. If you see these “shame on” banners around town, send us an email at: info@riograndefoundation.org and we’ll post a list of targeted businesses on our websites errorsofenchantment.com and newmexicoliberty.com. Thanks for your help!

I just loved Rusty Schmit’s article on the Environmental Improvement Board’s supposed “need” to cap carbon emissions. According to Schmitt, who happens to run a solar company based in Albuquerque, reducing carbon emissions to 25% before 1990 levels would have an undeniably positive impact on New Mexico’s economy. He cites a study from the liberal “Center for American Progress” to back up his claims.

I read through the CAP study and found nothing convincing to back up Schmit’s claim. Basically, it was a rehashing of optimistic national job growth estimates, most of which have been put together by supporters of wind and solar. What I’d like to know is this: “If the EIB cap of 25% below 1990 levels will be so good for the economy, then why the heck are we stopping at 25% below 1990 levels?” Why not really boost job growth by eliminating carbon usage entirely?

The fact is that carbon-based energy sources, coal, oil, and natural gas, to name just a few, are far more cost-efficient and, because they are cheaper and more reliable, they will raise our living standards far more effectively than a radical shift to “renewables.” There is simply no way for the special interests to refute the fact that doing something for 50% of the cost — and that is being generous to the renewable folks who will have to reach into far less optimal solar and wind sources to build necessary capacity — is worse for the economy than doubling costs.

Of course, when your business depends on government subsidies and intervention in the economy, you can do amazing tricks of logic.

Join me tonight at the Albuquerque Convention Center (details below) for a candidate “Meet and Greet” sponsored by the Albuquerque TEA Party. Meet many of our local, state and national candidates personally. Ask them questions. Find out their positions on issues of limited government here in New Mexico and America.

The Rio Grande Foundation will have a table and I’ll be there to meet attendees. Stop by and pick up a “Free Markets” bumper sticker or tee shirt.

There will be tea (of course) and snacks with a cash bar for those who prefer stronger beverages than tea.

At this time, the following candidates have confirmed their presence tonight:

Allen Weh/Governor
Janice Arnold-Jones/Governor
Susana Martinez/Governor

Kent Cravens/Lt. Governor

Jon Barela/Congress – Dist. 1
Adam Kokesh/Congress – Dist. 3
Tom Mullins/Congress – Dist. 3

Spiro Vassilopoulos/Commissioner of Public Lands
Bob Cornelius/Commissioner of Public Lands
Jim Jackson/Commissioner of Public Lands

Wayne Johnson/Bernilillo Co. Commission – Dist. 5
Pat Morlen/Sandoval Co. Commission – Dist. 1

William Kurth/Bernalillo Co. Sheriff

Errol Chavez/State Auditor

Justin Horwitz/State Rep. – District 15
Clyde Wheeler/State Rep. – District 12
Tom Molitor/State Rep. – District 23
Conrad Jame/State Rep. – District 24
Tonia Harris/State Rep. – District 60

KIVA 1550 AM plans to attend and will interview supporters and candidates. The interviews will be broadcast through the following week.

I look forward to seeing you tonight!

$20.00 per person (can be paid at the door)
7:00, Doors open at 6:00
Albuquerque Convention Center
Ballroom “C,” West Building
401 2nd Street NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Our arch-nemesis, Carter Bundy of AFSCME dismisses our work on New Mexico’s government over-employment problem by saying that large, sparsely populated states naturally have bigger government bureaucracies (as does New Mexico). Our study can be found here and the relevant chart is on page 3. I heard Carter say this on the radio today, so he’s not letting it drop.

First and foremost, Bundy, in his article above, uses incorrect data. His top ten list is from 1970, the left hand column (again, on page 3), not the right hand column which is 2008 data. Utah is not in the top 10 in government employment, nor is Idaho, South Dakota, or Montana. In fact, Carter’s argument that big (in square miles) and small in population states — aside from Alaska which is totally unique because of its massive oil revenues — doesn’t hold water. It may have in 1970, but that is a long time ago. For a full list of states by population density, check this page out.

Now among the top ten in state and local employment are West Virginia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. Sure, these are decent-sized states, but not the largest, nor the least densely populated. Anyway, New Mexico has a problem — the second-largest government workforce by population size in the entire nation.

You may have read a few weeks ago in the Albuquerque Journal that Mayor Berry is again considering the construction of a taxpayer-financed “events center”/convention center expansion downtown. While I have made the case against this project repeatedly in the past — the target has certainly shifted — I’ll give the Mayor credit for listening to what average citizens have to say.

Go to this link and take a few moments to submit your comments pro or con. I certainly don’t think this should be a top priority for Albuquerque taxpayers, particularly in light of the long-term decline of the convention business and the $50 million deficit facing the City. So, take a few minutes to make your thoughts known.

Like the train has money to burn.  How about blowing the annual salary of a teaching assistant on an overnighter to Raton, just to show off?  Latest report on the Great New Mexico Train Robbery at New Mexico Watchdog.org

Haven’t talked much health care around here recently. That’s in part because things in Washington have slowed down dramatically recently. It’s also because the debate has devolved from one based on ideas to being nothing more than a power struggle with Obama and the Democrats attempting to push something, anything through Congress — even if they have to resort to “Republican” ideas.

Unfortunately, as long as the Republicans and Democrats keep trying to “solve” health care in Washington, they’ll continue to fail. After all, the Republicans have not exactly achieved a stellar track record on health care reform in recent years. The focus, as this recent article from The Politico notes, needs to be on those laboratories of democracy, the states.

Certainly, there are federal issues like Medicare and Medicaid and the tax treatment of care that need to be addressed, but true solutions to our health care problems are not “one-size-fits-all” and they won’t come from Washington. This is one idea that could and should be bi-partisan and would actually improve American health care.

Yesterday, I was at the Willie Ortiz Building in Santa Fe to deliver my comments to the Environmental Improvement Board. While meeting in the lobby with our investigative journalist, Jim Scarantino, we both simultaneously noticed this sign:

Rarely are government bureaucrats so honest! Unfortunately, as the Rio Grande Foundation has repeatedly pointed out, government truly is the “Career of First Choice” for all too many New Mexicans. Instead of addressing this over-employment problem during the current, special legislative session, it looks more and more likely that tax hikes are on the way. Only angry New Mexicans can inform their “representatives” in Santa Fe that the private sector, not government, should be the “career of first choice” for New Mexicans.

As the Legislature moves into a special session with tax hikes on the horizon, I point out in today’s Albuquerque Journal that the political winds have done a 180 degree turn from the leftward lurch of 2008. Only the New Mexico House and the Governor’s office are up for election, but I do believe that there is a strong anti-incumbent undercurrent among conservatives and independents alike. Support for tax hikes during the special session is going to have consequences in November.

Thankfully, Albuquerque has not gone as far down the transit path as Denver, but this story (from the Economist) about their over-promised, under-delivered transit system certainly sounds familiar.