I just love Rep. Mimi Stewart’s transparently-ignorant political stances. Her latest is a defense of the WARN Act, HB 180, which, in summary, would make it much more difficult for employers to let go of employees.

Of course, if all you look at is the visible consequence of a new policy, that being giving workers more time to prepare for unemployment or their transition to another job, then Stewart’s idea is hard to argue with. But, of course, policies have both obvious and not-so-obvious results. If you are an employer, say Gardunos, and you know that you are struggling to make it, you will be more likely to either not hire or start to fire workers, even if this is not the best thing for the company.

So, Stewart, in her infinite wisdom, would seemingly rather push Gardunos and others towards bankruptcy — including by not hiring needed workers — rather than allowing Gardunos and other companies that might be struggling to do their level best to keep going even in tough times. I’m sure Stewart and other backers of ill-advised rules and regulations would rather see unemployment north of 10% in New Mexico.

Jon Barela is running for Congress against Rep. Martin Heinrich, who, since the early days of the health care debate has been a strong supporter of a bigger government role in health care. Of course, Heinrich supported the recently-passed health care bill.

Thankfully, this November, residents of District One will have a stark choice to make when it comes to health care. Barela outlined his concerns about health care in an excellent opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal. Among the many critiques that I and others have made regarding the legislation, I was most interested in Barela’s solutions. After all, it is one thing to stop Obama’s ill-advised expansion of government, but it is another thing to oppose Republican health care boondoggles. He lays his vision out towards the end of the article:

There is a better way to offer high quality, affordable health care in America, and it begins by discussing proposals that could win bipartisan approval, as well as the support of states, small businesses, and American families. Among other things, these include allowing for the sale of health insurance across state lines, encouraging small businesses to pool together to compete for lower insurance rates for their workers, significant tort reform to reduce the waste that is generated by junk lawsuits and defensive medical practices, and providing tax credits to individuals to use in health savings accounts.

I like what Barela says here, but there is one thing he forgot to mention. That is, ultimately America must replace its third-party-payment system when it comes to health care. Relying on employers for health insurance is just silly, but that is the way our system is set up and Obamacare only reinforces that absurd system. Hopefully, Jon Barela and what I imagine will be a significant majority in Congress come November will repeal Obamacare and go about dealing with this and other core issues.

In case you missed it, New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman recently defended the health care bill that Congress passed in an Albuquerque Journal piece entitled “Health Reform will Benefit New Mexico.” Unfortunately, Bingaman seems ignorant of the bill’s real impacts to the point where he repeats the untrue assertion that “New Mexicans who like the insurance coverage they have can continue to purchase the same insurance in the same way.”

Well, apparently Bingaman doesn’t know that the bill will have dramatic, negative consequences on Health Savings Accounts. As an owner of one of these “consumer driven health care policies,” I know better. The folks at the Heritage Foundation provide a more thorough analysis of the Bill’s impact on HSA’s here. According to Heritage:

The Obamacare law limits these consumer-controlled accounts in two ways: it restricts the types of health products you can purchase with your HSA money, and it reduces the amount of money you’ll be able to put into your FSA.

Unsurprisingly, there’s a price hike, too. It doubles—to a whopping 20 percent—the tax penalty for withdrawing HSA funds to cover non-medical expenses.

That hardly sounds like “same insurance in the same way.” Of course, Bingaman’s entire article is full of lies like “the new law more than pays for itself.” That is simply not the case, even if we assume that Congress will make the future cuts necessary to achieve the assumptions laid out in the legislation.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, Bingaman is fully aware that this health care legislation is going to drive America into deeper deficits and increase health care costs for average Americans. Unfortunately, to Jeff Bingaman, the truth about health care reform is worth covering up.

On Channel 13’s 10pm news last night, I discussed the problems with, and potential savings that could be had, if Mayor Berry addresses the City’s policy of paying out full equivalent wages for unused sick days. The Rio Grande Foundation has done a great deal of research showing that New Mexico’s state and local work force is both bloated and over-compensated.

Changing this policy would seem to be an easy, if not politically-difficult, way to eliminate $9 million of the City’s $54 million or more deficit. Watch the story here.

The Obama Administration has announced that it would reverse a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. shores. In many ways this is a good thing. It opens 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to domestic production. This is all good news and in many ways it is long overdue.

The bad news is that Obama readily admits that he is going to use this decision as a tool to drum up support for his economically-devastating “cap and trade” legislation. While that may be a pipe dream, even this decision by Obama has some hidden negatives. These include pulling other areas from potential production. According to this article from the Globe and Mail, “But while it will provide new access to the U.S. east coast and eastern areas of the Gulf of Mexico – provided such plans are cleared on environmental grounds – the new strategy also cancels one planned lease sale in Alaska’s Bristol Bay, considered too environmentally sensitive, and delays two others.”

So, while it is good to see that Obama is not simply putting his head in the sand and universally opposing all oil and gas production, he has a long way to go before he earns any credibility as someone willing to pursue rational energy policies.

In case you missed it, the results of the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics and reading for grades 4 and 8 which is given every two years to students nationwide, were released recently. The results are not pretty for New Mexico.

According to the data sheet for Fourth Grade reading:

“the average score in New Mexico was lower than those in 43 states/jurisdictions, higher than that in 1 state/jurisdiction, not significantly different from that in 7 states/jurisdictions.” Worse, the all-important 4th grade reading score — studies show that if students don’t know how to read by 4th grade, they will continue to lag in reading-related learning areas — dropped from 212 to 208;

While eighth graders did slightly better in math and reading, New Mexico students were worse than at least 40 other states in both math and reading and typically scored better than only one or two other states. Scores tended to be equivalent to 7-8 others.

Combined with our statewide graduation rate of approximately 50% and the ineffectiveness of more spending, it would seem that policymakers should take a look at Florida where all students (especially Hispanics) are seeing rapid improvement.

The Rio Grande Foundation has been telling the political class for years that a disproportionately large public sector was stifling our economy.  Turns our the Lt. Governor’s–and the Governor’s–own advisers have been saying the same thing.  New report from New Mexico Watchdog.

Some of President Obama’s biggest fans around the world happen to be leftist despots like Cuban President Fidel Castro. Congress’s recent passage of a government takeover of the US health care system provided an opportunity for socialists of all stripes from Castro to our own Jerry Ortiz y Pino to heap praise on the US President’s “momentous accomplishment.”

The fact is that ObamaCare is designed to fail and leftists of all stripes will use it as an opportunity to further spread the tentacles of government through the US economy in order to “fix” the new system’s flaws. The only thing left to do is resist it nonviolently.

President Obama recently announced his so-called “National Broadband Plan.” The supposed goal of this plan is to “make America’s nationwide broadband infrastructure the world’s most powerful platform for economic growth and prosperity.”

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in this piece in the Las Cruces Sun-News, Obama’s efforts to use the federal government to expand broadband are both misguided and in direct contradiction to his other cherished “Net Neutrality” policies which would again increase federal control over the Internet.

Feel free to borrow and send your own.

March 25, 2010

NM Attorney General Gary King
PO Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508
FAX: (505) 827-5826

Dear Mr. King:

On behalf of the many citizens of New Mexico who have deep concerns about and will be negatively impacted by the health care legislation, HR 3590, I write to urge you to join the efforts by other state attorneys’ general to challenge the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was recently passed by Congress.

The legislation passed by congress requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Such a sweeping federal mandate has never before been enacted. In fact, when such a mandate was previously considered, a 1994 report from the Congressional Budget Office said, “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

It appears that congress may be overstepping its bounds by forcing individuals or businesses to buy insurance. I respectfully request that you review the legal issues being raised by these unprecedented federal interventions which I believe violate the following Constitutional provisions.

4th and 5th Amendments violation: The mandated IRS monthly audits to determine if citizens have complied with purchasing satisfactory insurance is unreasonable search of a citizen’s financial accounts and threatens self-incrimination.

10th Amendment violation: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The “Commerce Clause” of Article I, Section 8 does not refer to mandated health insurance.

13th Amendment violation: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States…” Punishment by fines and imprisonment for failure to purchase mandated health insurance is definitely involuntary servitude.

As you may be aware, attorneys general in at least 12 states have indicated they plan to file lawsuits to block implementation of the federal health care reform legislation on constitutional grounds. I hope you will join this effort.
Sincerely,

I don’t have to state that the Rio Grande Foundation is and has been opposed to ObamaCare. Now that it has passed, here is a list of 20 ways in which Obama’s health care plan will reduce our freedoms. One of these ways is that ObamaCare eliminates my health care plan (a health savings account) by making it illegal.

At this point, unless the various state lawsuits (which New Mexico has not joined to date) succeed in stopping ObamaCare, Shikha Dalmia of Reason explains that opponents need to take a page from Gandhi and his non-violent resistance efforts.

Among the keys to the effort, Dalmia cites:
1) avoiding Mitt Romney who promoted the individual mandate in Massachusetts;
2) always remaining non-violent in rhetoric and actions;
3) defeat ObamaCare supporters in 2010 and 2012;
4) sue em’;
5) average citizens must refuse to comply with the individual mandate and the associated fines.

It is being reported by the Albuquerque Journal that Governor Richardson has vetoed the food tax while approving, as expected a 75 cent hike in the cigarette tax, a .25% hike in the GRT, and a personal income tax hike for about one-fourth of New Mexico taxpayers. Total approved hikes come to $170 million.

Richardson says he’ll close the budget gap “by dipping into cash reserves, employing $20 million in federal stimulus money and cutting state agency spending as a last resort.” Of course, I’d rather have seen Richardson veto any one of the other tax hikes due to the economic harm (or harm to specific groups) that they inflict. It will be interesting to see how Richardson does in fact “close” the budget deficit. It seems more likely that the issue will have to be revisited either before Richardson leaves office or immediately by the next governor.

After all, according to the Legislative Finance Committee, FY 2010 revenues were down 9.3% over the prior year. The estimates for FY 2011 are for an absurd 6.2% jump in revenue. That 15.3% turnaround seems unlikely at best. Anyway, enjoy your tax-free groceries while you can. As for the rest of us taxpayers, we’re stuck with a worse economy and a more difficult business climate.

The folks at Reason — along with comedian Drew Carey — have put together a series of videos on urban development issues over at Reason.Tv.. One of the videos discusses how cities can and cannot successfully draw people to their downtown areas and make those areas vibrant places where people want to be.

The video below tackles convention centers, an expansion of which is now being considered by Albuquerque Mayor Berry (you can comment here). It also discusses sports arenas and stadiums, zoning, and activist efforts to stop politically-incorrect businesses from locating in certain areas. Enjoy!

Over this past weekend, I was on Channel 7 talking about efforts by a few schools around the state — using a combination of private grants and federal money — to provide full-service health care and a variety of other social services. The concept is called “community schools” and the idea is to further transform K-12 schools from centers of learning to being focused on the mental and physical needs of children and their families. The article and video available here.

You can’t turn on the television or radio these days without being bombarded by ads urging you to fill out and return your census form. This is especially true if you have watched the NCAA Tournament over the weekend where the commercials were played constantly.

One of the most common tag lines is “We can’t move forward til you mail it back.” The idea is that if you don’t fill out your census forms to let the government know you exist, hospitals, roads, schools, government office buildings, and other infrastructure will be inadequate. After all, we need to “get our fair share of federal dollars,” right? All of this loses sight of the one legitimate purpose of the census, that being Congressional apportionment.

This entire exercise clearly illustrates the power of the free market relative to the incompetent and inefficient government. After all, if hospitals, schools, roads, etc. were provided by the free market, then entrepreneurs would add to the existing infrastructure based on need. That need would be expressed as high enough prices and/or crowding that leads one to believe that additional services are necessary and can be supported in the free market.

So, on one hand, we have the free market which allocates all these resources efficiently based on need and for free. On the other hand, every 10 years, the government spends $13.7 to $14.5 billion in a futile attempt to replicate what the market does. I’m sure our new health care system will be just as efficient!

My daughter Grace reacted tonight to the House vote and the fact that she’s now personally in hundreds of millions of dollars of additional debt:

I do like this reaction from the Colorado Springs Gazette.

I protested the health care bill with the folks from the Albuquerque Tea Party today. 200 or so folks, including families and people of all races and creeds, protested the Obama Administration’s takeover of America’s health care system today.

Unfortunately, some “yahoos” in DC gave the national media fodder to label the whole Tea Party movement as a bunch of racists and homophobes. While one of the strengths of the movement is its decentralized nature, some in the movement clearly need to get “on-message” and not resort to racist name-calling. If Tea Partiers nationwide can’t be more disciplined, then I think it might be time for some effective Tea Party groups to break away and become their own, locally-controlled pro-taxpayer groups. Just a thought, but a few bad apples cannot spoil the whole bunch.

In case you haven’t been following them in recent years, the League of Women Voters has been transformed from a “mom and apple pie” group that attempts to get Americans (especially women) involved in the democratic process into just another left-wing advocacy organization. So, it was with some raised eyebrows that I read this recent opinion piece from the group which took the New Mexico-based Association of Commerce and Industry to task for assorted wrongdoing…namely, working on behalf of businesses attempting to squeeze out a profit doing business in New Mexico.

The League has an innocuous-sounding mission statement:

The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.

But don’t be fooled. In reality, the League is a far-left organization that not only endorsed ObamaCare, but endorsed the anti-democratic “deem and pass” methods considered by Pelosi to allow the federal government to take over 1/6th of the US economy without a recorded vote.

If you know anyone who thinks the League of Women Voters is not far-left, please disabuse them of that notion and by all means, don’t donate to the League of Left-Wing Voters!

As I noted recently, the nature of the health care debate has declined dramatically in recent months. Once Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, the intellectual debate ended. The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats shifted their thinking away from persuading the American people to looking for loopholes that would allow them to pass their plans “by any means possible.”

That is why this recent column from my colleague John Hood at our sister think tank in North Carolina, the John Locke Foundation is so refreshing. Hood, like me, has clearly had enough with debating the shape-shifting, nation-bankrupting plan that will likely be voted on in the House this weekend. Instead, he’s calling for civil disobedience as the only moral reaction to this Constitutionally-bankrupted debacle.

I for one see no other alternative and would be happy to join Mr. Hood in taking this last stand for freedom.

I just learned (from reading an article in today’s Albuquerque Journal) about the “Coffee Party,” which is supposedly a more polite alternative to the Tea Parties. Now, I have had nothing but good experiences with the various New Mexico-based Tea Parties, particularly those in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces, but I certainly understand the need for civility and I think an overwhelming majority of the Tea Parties and people involved with them are civil. Of course, the media will focus on those outliers and other “man bites dog” episodes.

The description of the Coffee Parties offered in the Journal article, instead of making me want to get involved with the movement, leaves me cold, particularly her blaming the attack on the IRS building on the Tea Parties to which not even a tenuous connection has been made. Ultimately, the indictment of the Coffee Parties is on their own website which indicates a basic ignorance of the Constitution and the vision of the Founding Fathers:

We want a society in which democracy is treated as sacrosanct and ordinary citizens participate out of a sense of civic duty, civic pride, and a desire to contribute to society. The Coffee Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift — Democracy — and we must use it to meet the challenges that we face as a nation

This is all wrong. The Founding Fathers were not big believers in “Democracy” or majority rule. Rather, they wrote the Constitution in a way that strictly limited the power of the federal government, set up a system of checks and balances to slow the political process, and gave us the First Amendment protections for free speech. The First Amendment’s protections are extremely important, not because it protects free expression on the part of the majority, but rather the views of the minority.

So, in summary, I won’t be heading to a Coffee Party anytime soon. I’ll take my TEA strong, thank you.

You might enjoy the New Mexico Watchdog video report on the Kewa “station.”  We had fun doing it.

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.