But the new members on the SIC, due to their independence from Governor Richardson, and the new State Investment Officer, who also has newfound independence from the Fourth Floor of the Roundhouse, are also cause for hope.  The latest report from New Mexico Watchdog on what’s happening with our $14 billion in permanent funds.

In his response to my Albuquerque Journal article last month, University of New Mexico president David Schmidly announced that UNM had “identified $6 million in cost-containment measures in developing its fiscal 2011 budget.”

The Strategic Advisory Team made a report, which included short term reductions (summarized by RGF’s Corey Davis):

Short term recommendations are as follows, preceded by estimated cost-savings:
$173,184–1% invoice discount with vendors by paying in 10 instead of 30 days from date of invoice;
$315,000–provide capital projects’ vendors with PDF instead of printed docs;
$83,000–eliminate water coolers in offices;
$198,532–obtain multiple bids for furniture acquisitions;
$1,000,000–standardize the purchase of computers through a Dell contract;
$280,000–shift printing from desktop printers (which require printer cartridges) to copier fleet;
$1,000,000–centrally purchase all Microsoft software licenses;
$500,000–identify incorrectly enrolled participants in the employer insurance plans;
$360,000–have part-time employees contribute to the ERB only when they are at least .25FTE;
$1,000,000–divert budgeted salaries for vacant positions back to the university (“Historical practice has been that some units have balanced their budgets using vacancy dollars. This will need to be addressed.” p. 15);
$20,000–reduce Academic Program Review operating budget;
$70,000–reorganize Provost’s Office;
$40,000–reduce Freshman Family Day budget;
$300,000–reduce Extended University’s Instruction & General allocation;
$269,532–reduce frequency of office cleaning;
$200,000–reduce UNM Foundation’s Instruction & General allocation.

What is interesting about this list is that it doesn’t appear to include any re-thinking of the academic programs at UNM. There appears to be no consideration of the possibility that the university could better serve New Mexicans by altering the degrees offered. Contrast this with University of Maine’s recent changes:

From a UMaine press release on May 4th:

• Elimination of the Dept. of Public Administration
• Suspension of the German and Latin language majors
• Suspension of the theatre major
• Suspension of the women’s studies major and graduate concentration in that discipline
• Reduction of music master’s degree concentrations from five to two, retaining music education and music performance while eliminating instrumental conducting, choral conducting and collaborative piano
• Downsizing of the Master of Arts in Teaching program
• Downsizing of the Center for Research and Evaluation in the College of Education and Human Development
• Consolidations in the College of Engineering, including the assignment of certain Dept. of Mechanical Engineering teaching responsibilities to faculty members in the School of Engineering Technology
• Elimination of bachelor’s degrees in aquaculture, wood science, forest operations and forest ecosystem science, folding those fields of study into other majors in more cost-effective way.

More about UMaine’s strategic plan can be found here.

The difference between strategic cutting and just “trimming the hedges” is that strategic cutting is done with an eye towards better opportunities whereas a little trimming is about doing basically whatever has been previously decided, just a little more efficiently. If the program is generally sound, these trimmings might be the appropriate course. But, with the state’s budget crisis, a more radical re-envisioning may be in order.

In the coming days I’ll explore UNM’s budget cuts to see if they actually are substantial and realizable.

With oil still spilling into the Gulf, the issue of BP’s (and Transocean’s) culpability is being discussed by policymakers in Washington and the states. I wrote about the lessons we should take from the oil spill awhile back over at the Independent Forum. Among other points, I argued that Congress should not retroactively increase BP’s liability for the spill (as the Obama Administration is proposing).

That said, I don’t think BP’s liability should have been curtailed by Congress in the first place. As libertarian writer Sheldon Richman points out, weak and poorly administered government regulations and liability protections are part of the corporatist model that America is increasingly pursuing. This is not free market capitalism!

As Richman points out:

Those who see “tougher” government regulation as the answer are evading some formidable objections. First is the knowledge problem. Empowering regulators to prevent the next disaster tells us nothing about how they would know what to do without imposing costs that would dwarf any benefits.

Second is “regulatory capture.” Regulators and the industries they oversee develop mutually beneficial relationships that would appall those who idealize regulators as watchdogs. The rules that emerge from those relationships tend to foster more monopolistic industries.

Accidents happen, but they’ll happen less often and be less severe if the responsible parties are truly held responsible. Read Richman’s full article on BP and Transocean here.

Thousands of petitions (including mine) were submitted to Attorney General Gary King. But, despite the fact that 21 other states have filed suit against the recently-passed health care bill and 63% of Americans favor its repeal, King has not lifted so much as a finger to take action to stop the health care bill from being implemented.

As Sylvia Bokor of the Albuquerque Tea Party writes, the bill “violates individual rights. It forces Americans to buy a product. It violates the First, Fourth and Tenth amendments. It is replete with “mandates” that increase near-total control of American lives. It interferes in the relationship between doctor and patient. It will cause a decrease in medical practitioners, research, innovation and quality of medical service.

The health care bill is among the most impactful pieces of legislation ever passed. It is of highly questionable constitutionality, but King will do nothing to question or challenge it.

According to this excellent video from PJTV, the new Iron Man movie is quite pro-capitalist. The video not only analyzes the messages of the movie but shows Dr. Milton Friedman at his very best by explaining capitalism to Phil Donahue.

Check the video out here.

Hat tip to Steve McAllister.

Did you know that Albuquerque taxpayers are subsidizing golfers? Taxpayers of Albuquerque, the major city with the highest property tax burden (check pages 3 and 4) in New Mexico, are paying for General Obligation bonds to install a new, $1.5 million irrigation system at Ladera Golf Course Taxpayers are paying an additional $500,000 for other city golf courses (according to an article on page 9 of this publication). This, despite the fact that city golf courses are supposed to be operated as an “enterprise” within the city budget.

The problem is that greens crews at Ladera and the other municipal golf courses in Albuquerque (Arroyo del Oso, Los Altos, and Puerto del Sol) all hire highly-paid, unionized city workers (read the article at the top of page 21 of this publication). Worse, at least at Ladera, the unionized grounds keepers (making $18 to $20 to cut grass) have repeatedly damaged the golf course, making it less playable and, perhaps even resulting in costly repairs.

I just wrote about the need for government efficiency and specifically mentioned golf courses as an area of improvement through privatization. Perhaps Albuquerque could take a lesson (just this one time) from Detroit, where the city has privatized golf course management and actually earned $250,000 annually on its golf courses rather than asking overburdened taxpayers for ever-more. With workers paid at private rates and more flexible work rules, I’ll bet Albuquerque’s golf courses, located in a far better climate than Detroit’s, could turn a profit and become truly first-class courses as well.

If you’ve been paying attention to the various debates taking place in Congress over the past year from health care to climate change to financial services, you may be aware that our delegation has found itself on the side of bigger government and against taxpayers time and time again.

For a more specific snapshot of this situation, I point you to the recently released report from the National Taxpayers Union: “NTU Rates Congress”. Unlike some other Congressional scorecards, EVERY vote of importance to taxpayers is included. Members are given a letter grade and a percentage indicating how often they voted for/against taxpayers.

So, how did our Congresspeople do? The answer is, not well at all.
Harry Teague led the pack with a “D.” He voted with the taxpayers 25% of the time.
Martin Heinrich received an “F” and voted with taxpayers 7% of the time.
Ben Ray Lujan received an “F” and only managed to vote with taxpayers 4% of the time.

Our senators were even worse.

Supposedly “moderate” Jeff Bingaman received an “F” and voted with taxpayers only 4% of the time. Udall also received an “F” and edged Bingaman out by voting with taxpayers 5% of the time. Notably, Jeff Bingaman’s voting with taxpayers only 4% of the time is tied for worst in the Senate. Only a handful of the most left-wing members of the Senate like John Kerry (D) Mass. and Tom Harkin (D) Iowa voted for bigger government and against taxpayers as often.

None of our Senators are up for election in 2010, but all three of our House members are.

Awhile back, Carter Bundy of AFSCME encouraged us at the Rio Grande Foundation to “Drop the rhetoric and join the real debate.” I responded, but there are so many ways to improve government efficiency by finding alternative ways to government employees that I felt the need to go back to the well to offer even more on the topic.

So, I wrote another article for NMPolitics.net on improving efficiency to the tune of 5 to 20 percent by opening up government services including trash collection, pothole repair, wastewater services, government buildings, golf course maintenance, parks and recreational maintenance, and even airport maintenance – to competitive bidding.

Of course, there is a right way and wrong way to create competition in government services, and I go into that in the article as well.

The Republican candidates for governor of New Mexico are running a lot of ads and will soon be debating on May 27 on television. But, what I want to know is whether anyone running for Governor — yes, that includes Diane Denish who is running some conservative-sounding ads of her own — has the ability to stand up and fight for taxpayers in New Mexico.

Governor Christie of New Jersey has been a, perhaps THE, national leader in putting taxpayers first and going on the offensive to change a state’s culture of big government and waste. Check out this amazing video of Christie explaining to the media what this entails:

I noticed an article (based on this press release) in Sunday’s paper explaining that the US Department of Labor had approved Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits for workers who lost their jobs when Eclipse Aviation ceased operations back in 2008.

So, what’s the problem? First and foremost, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program is supposed to help those who lose their jobs as a result of free trade make the transition to other jobs. Few who followed Eclipse Aviation would place free trade among the culprits in causing Eclipse’s demise. The reality is, as the blog Eclipse Aviation Critic pointed out, the company could not ramp up production and profitability at a fast enough rate to avoid inevitable insolvency. This had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed “burden” of free trade.

The reality is that the Trade Adjustment Assistance program is unnecessary. Trade benefits us all through lower prices and better quality goods. And, of course, as Ronald Reagan once said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Oh, and, government is very slow. While I’m sure there are still some Eclipse Aviation employees that were laid back in 2008 who are looking for jobs, if the government is going to “help” these people, wouldn’t that help have been more useful two years ago?

$2 billion awarded, an only 332 more stimulus-funded jobs since last quarter, and the state’s unemployment rate hits 9% according to U.S. Department of Labor.  All those “stimulus-funded jobs,” where are they?  Mostly state government.  We’ve simply switched out funding sources.  New report at New Mexico Watchdog.

Wisconsin Republican Congressman Paul Ryan has made something of a splash among fiscal conservatives with a plan to bring America’s fiscal picture back into balance. His plan, which has been embraced by many conservatives, but not necessarily most Republicans, is called “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” It is one of, if not the only serious, numbers on paper, ideas for pulling the US federal budget out of its current tailspin. It should be noted that Democrats haven’t put together a real plan for balancing America’s long-term budget either.

While Ryan’s efforts should be applauded by anyone concerned about America’s future, as Reason Magazine points out “Ryan voted in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the widely despised bank bailout. He also endorsed the taxpayer-funded auto bailout, citing ‘mounting hardships’ in a part of his state once dominated by carmakers. His ballyhooed spending plan is so incrementalist that it wouldn’t balance the budget until 2063. And this year, while defending his policies to The New York Times, the congressman declared, ‘I’m not trying to win an award from the Cato Institute.’”

With all that said, Ryan has at least started a debate with his “Roadmap.” If Republicans are going to gain control of Congress anytime soon, they need to seriously consider making some of the tough choices Ryan outlines (and perhaps coming up with some that he fails to consider, like reducing defense outlays).

Tax lightning is still striking New Mexico property owners. One of the problems associated with tax lightning is the convoluted way in which property is assessed and thus taxed in New Mexico.

Our own Micha Gisser, professor emeritus at UNM, wrote in the Albuquerque Journal about one component of the solution, that is, returning assessments to market values. This more logical system, as outlined by Gisser, would operate along the following model:

The market values of all homes are estimated as frequently as reasonably possible. By law, the assessed values of all homes are set equal to their estimated market values. The property-tax rate is by law defined as the ratio of the total required revenue to the aggregate estimated market values of all homes.

This sounds like a good system moving forward, but I’d like your comments.

In case you’ve been out of the country, you are probably already aware that the 2010 elections this November are very important to New Mexico’s future. Before we get to November, however, there is a primary on June 1 and early voting is going on right now.

In order to help decide who they want to vote for in November, the Rio Grande Foundation (along with KOB Channel 4) is holding a televised gubernatorial candidate debate to be attended by all five candidates.

This debate will be held on May 27th from 7:00 to 8:00PM and will be televised live on KOB Channel 4 from Rodey Hall on the campus of the University of New Mexico. We are extremely pleased that all five Republican candidates have accepted the invitation to participate.

As you might imagine, putting together an event of this size and importance costs money. Our expected outlay for this event will be just over $2,000. This amount will pay for an auditorium, staging, and a variety of other important things that go into this once-in-a-campaign opportunity.

Please support this history-in-the-making opportunity and help the Rio Grande Foundation by donating at least $20.00 by no later than Sunday, May 23rd. You can donate safely and securely online. And, as a thank you for your donation, we will have two tickets waiting for you at the door on debate night!

We hope you will support this event with a generous donation, even more than $20, and in return we will provide you with additional tickets to this once-in-a-lifetime event. And don’t forget, if you will not be able to attend the debate, you can still show your support by making a donation today!

You can mail your donation to Rio Grande Foundation, P.O. Box 40336, Albuquerque, NM 87196, or, as mentioned, online at our secure site. Or if you are more comfortable with “offline” communication, please give us a call us at 505-264-6090 and we will be happy to take your credit card information over the phone.

Please donate on or before May 23rd so we can be sure to reserve tickets for you! Tickets are limited and on a first-come, first-served basis, so we urge you to donate early and generously!

We, at the Rio Grande Foundation, are working hard to continue our efforts to make the public aware of who the candidates for Governor of New Mexico are and what they stand for.

That was the question this week at the Independent Forum. Martha Burk, thankfully not Richardson’s economic advisor, seems to think that only government can create jobs. Responses from the more rational panelists can also be found, including, not surprisingly, a rather lengthy response from yours truly (the final one).

I do wonder, however, where are the postings from the liberal lions like Carter Bundy or Jim Baca (former Albuquerque Mayor!!!), or Arthur Alpert? Surely they have some thoughts on how to create jobs (or are their views the same as Burk’s which is, expand government?)

As always, please add your own $.02 at the Forum.

I am NOT a scientist, but like just about every other American, I am concerned about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but from an environmental and a public policy perspective (check out the recent Independent Forum for more details). Up til now it has seemed like no real solutions to the spill are available.

So, it was nice to see this video which was sent to me by RGF supporter Jack Stamm of Santa Fe. Who knows? Certainly hay is cheap and biodegradable….

There was a lot going on last week when transportation expert Randal O’Toole spoke at a Rio Grande Foundation event in Albuquerque on May 6th. So, if you did not get to come out to hear what O’Toole had to say, here is the next best thing. O’Toole’s presentation is online at Youtube below:

His powerpoint presentation can be found online here.

During that state’s 2010 legislative session Arizona lawmakers enacted some of the most far-reaching K-12 education reforms in state history. The changes have received little attention from any Arizona media so far. But you can bet you’ll hear much more as the state implements the new laws.

I’m betting that Arizona students will benefit greatly from these reforms in terms of improved test scores and rising graduation rates. If New Mexico’s political leadership enacted the same reforms, perhaps the Land of Enchantment could see some improvement as well? As Dr. Matthew Ladner of the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute writes:

Ten years ago Florida implemented a set of education reforms that transformed their schools from among the worst performers on national tests to among the best. Several of the bills that Governor Brewer has signed into law are modeled on Florida’s success.

1) Arizona now will annually issue schools a letter grade of A, B, C, D, or F.

2) The state now will have a robust program for experts in math, science and other areas to teach their subjects without first getting a teaching certificate from a college of education.

3) Lawmakers have curtailed social promotion by holding back some third graders who have yet to learn the basics of reading.

4) Legislators expanded the sources available to launch new charter schools.

5) Lawmakers increased the size and transparency of the state scholarship tax credit program and changed to the date for claiming the tax credits from December 31 to April 15.

6) The Legislature also specified school districts cannot use “years on the job” as the only criteria when deciding which teachers to keep. The Arizona Department of Education will be required to develop teacher and principal evaluations that include how well students score on specific tests.

Each bill contains important policy changes that will improve education by holding educators accountable to parents and taxpayers. The “A” to “F” school labels and teacher evaluation reforms could revolutionize Arizona’s public schools if properly implemented.

This year, Arizona lawmakers demonstrated with action, not just words, that they will not accept Arizona permanently sitting near the bottom of student achievement rankings. We will not see overnight improvement, and much hard work lies ahead. We have, however, taken the first vital steps to turning our school performance crisis around.

For more on Florida’s successful education reforms, check out Ladner’s presentation comparing Florida and New Mexico here.

The Albuquerque Business Journal profiled me in today’s paper. You can find out more about me than you probably want to know.

One of the RGF’s supporters did mention something they would like to see, that is, me do some kind of public speaking either for RGF or for other organizations, about my transition from a left-wing liberal to a free market conservative. If this is something that you’d like to have me speak about at an RGF event, or at a function put on by your group, please leave a comment along these lines or shoot us an email at: info@riograndefoundation.org

Everyone comes from a different direction in terms of their political leanings. I was certainly not born a libertarian. If you want to find out more about what a libertarian is, check out John Stossel’s recent program on “What is a Libertarian?” You can also meet Deroy Murdock, our upcoming keynote speaker.

Sometimes a visual representation does it better than a pile of numbers on paper. Check out this poster which visually represents the federal budget. Notably, even this visual representation of the complex and ever-growing federal budget, now $1.5 trillion, is an enlightening and interesting look at just how Uncle Sam spends all those tax dollars we give them.

Whatever else may be said about the budget, there is no doubt that it is too big. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next decade, the national debt would increase more than $12 trillion if Obama gets his way. By the end of 2020, the total debt would be more than $20 trillion, or 90 percent of the country’s GDP. Indeed, in that year alone, just the interest payment to service the debt would cost taxpayers $925 billion.

Lost among all the debate in Washington over the stalled financial reform legislation has been any discussion about the major role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which I have previously commented on) in the banking collapse.

Now, according to the Wall Street Journal, it looks like there is a push by John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Judd Gregg (R-NH) is to put the mortgage giants on the table for reform. It is about time. After all, as the article points out “The duo are by far the biggest losers of the entire financial panic—bigger than AIG, Citigroup and the rest.”

McCain and Shelby are pushing to make several, long-overdue reforms part of any financial reform package:

The amendment mandates that the current government conservatorship of Fan and Fred will end within 30 months. In the meantime, the companies will have to reduce their mortgage portfolios by 10% each year. If the terrible twosome can’t stand on their own after conservatorship, they would then go into receivership and be liquidated.

If they can survive on their own, they would have three years before the expiration of their federal charters, during which time they would have new operating restrictions. Messrs. McCain, Shelby and Gregg would repeal the affordable housing goals previously legislated for Fan and Fred and which contributed to their terrible mortgage bets, and the companies would have to reduce the mortgage assets held on their books by nearly 50% within two years and raise their capital standards.

Fannie and Freddie would also have to start paying state and local sales taxes, lose their exemption from full registration at the Securities and Exchange Commission when they issue securities, and start paying fees to repay the taxpayer for the value of federal guarantees. The $400 billion limit on taxpayer assistance would be reinstated, and for as long as they are in federal conservatorship or receivership, they would have to be included in the federal budget.

This type of reform should be a significant part of any financial reform. Only time will tell if the Obama Administration is serious about preventing the next economic crisis or not.

You know you’re making an impact when someone feels the need to set up a website for the sole purpose of opposing you. After more than four years of working on behalf of personal liberty for the Rio Grande Foundation, I am pleased that the folks at RGF Watch have arrived on the scene for the sole purpose of telling their readers how evil and influential we are.

Of course, we’re not going anywhere, so I look forward to a lot of Watchdogging by the folks (or person) over at RGF Watch. It is good to keep people honest and point out places where their logic falls short. For example, yes, I’ve written about Texas favorably, but that’s because Texas is one of the most economically-free states (check page 4) in the nation. That has led Texas to have significantly-higher income levels than New Mexico.

Randal O’Toole’s ideas stand for themselves, read his most recent book and decide for yourself.

I could go on, but I won’t. I’ll let the folks at RGF Watch use their website to critique our work and we’ll have a fun, if not always friendly, debate.

I already have laid out my brief thoughts on the recent, substantial rate hikes on New Mexicans in the individual health insurance market. Because of the importance of the health care issue to the state and the nation, I decided to expound a bit more on the problem of rising health insurance costs and health care inflation more generally.

The article appeared today in the Deming Headlight. Check it out. I explain why President Obama’s health care plan is destined to fail.

As an aside, I recently received my health savings account statement. I now have more than $6,500 saved in the account after just four years in possession of the account. How much money have you saved through your insurance policy to put aside for YOUR future health care costs?