Soon, Albuquerque voters will be asked whether or not to permanently extend the 1/4 cent transportation tax that has been in place for 10 years and is set to expire. I discussed the reasons why this might not be such a good idea in an opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal.

For starters, a 1/4 cent gross receipts tax hike is not the same as the equivalent sales tax;
Voters are being asked to make this tax permanent. Why not another 10 years at most?
41 percent of the revenues will be allocated to transit and bikes, far in excess of their actual market share when it comes to moving people around town. Why the over-investment in those modes?

The problem with government regulating every facet of the US economy is that invariably, politicians are swayed by the electoral or campaign-donation-making power of the various interests at play, not the merits of the arguments on either side. This scenario is currently being played out in a struggle between shipping giants FedEx and UPS.

George Will had an excellent piece about the situation several weeks ago. Basically, UPS wants to hamstring its main competitor FedEx by forcing it to adhere to stricter labor laws that give more power to the labor unions. This despite the fact that in the early 1990s, Fedex actually attempted to convince Congress to give UPS the ability to operate under the same rules under which FedEx operates.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has already passed the “bailout” of Big Brown. It is up to the Senate to stop this unwise and unnecessary legislation. In fact, rather than forcing more labor regulations on UPS, Congress would be providing the US economy a real stimulus if it reduced the ability of labor unions to tie up not only these, but other businesses attempting to get by in today’s economy.

Oh, and while we’re on the issue of shipping companies, as my friend Paul Jacob writes, now is the time to privatize the US Post Office as well!

The following is a list of the top five fibs contained in President Obama’s health care speech last night. Link is available here.

1. Middle class tax hikes: “The middle class will realize greater [health] security, not higher taxes.”

This would be a big departure from the House bill and the Baucus draft. The House bill has four tax increases on families making less than $250,000. President Obama himself endorsed another when he called for an individual mandate with a tax penalty. Earlier this week, he again floated the idea of a “soda tax.” The Baucus draft, like the House bill, contains a new tax on over-the-counter medicines purchased with an FSA or HSA

2. Individual mandate tax: “Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.”

What the President is not saying is that the “stick” forcing individuals to do this will be a tax increase. In the House bill, the tax penalty would be 2.5 percent of income. Under the Baucus draft, the tax would range from $750 to $3800, based on family size and income. Either way, it’s a new tax.

3. Deficit-neutral is not tax-neutral: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now, or in the future. Period.”

All “deficit-neutral” means is that taxes will go up at least as much as spending goes up. Under any version of government healthcare, taxes needed to make the plans deficit-neutral would easily exceed $200 billion per year once the plans are fully phased in, according to CBO estimates.

4. Tax code makes healthcare more expensive: “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.”

One of the reasons healthcare inflation is 8 percent a year, while regular inflation is 3 percent a year, is because of the tax code. The tax code prevents most individuals from buying health insurance with pre-tax dollars. Only when insurance is obtained through one’s job or the government is there a tax benefit. There’s also almost no tax benefit to paying for medical expenses out of pocket. These combine to make people think that someone else—not they—are paying for their health care, which drives up the cost.

5. Tax cuts don’t “cost” money: “The plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years…less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.”

To make an obvious point, taxes are not the government’s money. They are money taken by force of law from the American people. To cut taxes doesn’t “cost” any family anything. In fact, it saves them money. When taxes are raised to increase government spending, that does cost money for families.

Today, on 09-09-09, the Rio Grande Foundation launched a new club called “The Nine Club.” While we understand that blogging is relatively cheap based on the technologies that are now currently available, but that is only one small part of what we do. Check out The 9 Club as unique and fun way to get more involved in supporting the many efforts on behalf of individual liberty and personal responsibility that are undertaken by the Rio Grande Foundation on a regular basis. The 9 Club can be found here. Check it out!

This week, Jim and I discussed the science and policy of global warming including cap-and-trade and carbon taxes with John Fleck, science reporter with the Albuquerque Journal. The show can be found here.

The Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico Prosperity Project, and CARE invite you to a presentation and discussion: The Impact of Climate Change Legislation on the Economy of New Mexico and the Southwest with guest speaker Dr. Margo Thorning Senior VP and Chief Economist at the American Council for Capital Formation.

The event will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2009 from 5:45PM to 7:00PM in the Taos Room at the Marriott Pyramid Hotel in Albuquerque, NM.

The $15 price of admission includes discussion, complimentary appetizers, and a no-host bar. RSVP: rdozierottennmp2@comcast.net or call 505-856-7244.

Dr. Thorning will present trends in global energy use and carbon emissions and look at the macroeconomic impact of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation with respect to GDP, employment, energy prices and annual wages. In addition, Dr. Thorning will suggest a number of practical strategies for reducing global greenhouse growth.

About Dr. Thorning: Margo Thorning is senior vice president and chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and director of research for its public policy think tank. Dr. Thorning also serves as the managing director of the International Council for Capital Formation, a new think tank incorporated in Brussels. The ICCF is an affiliate of the ACCF. Dr. Thorning is an internationally recognized expert on tax, environmental, and competitiveness issues. She writes and lectures on tax and economic policy, is frequently quoted in publications such as the Financial Times, Suddeutsche Zeitung, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal, and has appeared internationally on public affairs news programs.

Too often when describing the size and scope of the United States government, we use massive numbers that are not relevant to regular people in their daily lives. The Center for Individual Freedom has produced an excellent video (below) to illustrate the problem and how government-run medical reforms now moving through Congress would affect average families.

While the health care debate has been focused on President Obama and Congress for the last several months, each state still has a great deal to say about health care spending within its borders. Nowhere is this more the case than in Medicaid. As I point out in my new opinion piece, “Trimming the New Mexico Budget,” New Mexico could reduce its budget deficit and improve its Medicaid system by targeting the long term care program within Medicaid for significant savings and giving low income recipients greater control over the resources given them under Medicaid.

Albuquerque Dr. Barry Krakow hits the nail on the head in his excellent opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal. And I’m not saying this just because he mentions my advocacy for such “consumerist” behavior in the health care sector at Rep. Martin Heinrich’s health care town hall meeting.

Writes Krakow in a passage that sums up his argument:

Some of us, including doctors who provide these services, may forget health care is a service with a cost, a profit margin and a price to pay. Politicians and others imagine insurance as a right or benefit owed to citizens. Only politicians can enact such legislation, but the fact remains — health care is first and always a service.

Unlike health-care services, the real world marketplace suffers no confusion about costs, profits and sale prices. You pay for food at a grocery that stocks the food you want and can afford; you don’t ask the cashier “what’s my copay?” or “will my deductible cover it?”

September has already been a busy month here at the Rio Grande Foundation. Although I won’t personally be making my way to Washington, the Rio Grande Foundation has signed on in support of the 9/12 March on Washington. If you have the time and ability to take the anti-tax, pro-liberty message to Washington, you are encouraged to do so. More information is available about the 9/12 event here.

In case you missed it (or you attended and want to share it with your friends), footage of the recent health care debate between Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute and Carter Bundy of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees. In addition to the footage which can be found below, Cannon and Bundy debated again, but this time on air with 770 KKOB radio host Bob Clark moderating. The audio is not available yet, but check back in a few days.

In case you missed it, Jim and I interviewed Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez on “Speaking Freely” this past Saturday on AM 1550. The link is available here. Also, the Mayor has completed his candidate survey and that is now posted online here.

The surveys of the other mayoral and council candidates who completed them are available here. Early voting for the mayoral and council races starts soon. Get educated on the issues before you go to the polls!

A few weeks ago in the Albuquerque Journal business section, Dale Lockett of the Convention and Visitors Bureau and Charlie Gray of the Inkeepers Association made a push for a downtown arena and convention center expansion. Given what I knew to be the economic reality of the convention business, I simply had to respond to their claims. My letter to the Business Journal was published today and I’ve pasted it below:

I can’t believe that Dale Lockett of the Convention and Visitors Bureau and Charlie Gray of the Inkeepers Association are still pushing for a downtown arena and convention center expansion. Were they not aware of the 41 percent decline in bookings related to convention center events in 2009 relative to 2008? This is hardly an argument for pouring additional taxpayer money into a bigger convention center and additional hotel space associated with the convention center.

Albuquerque taxpayers (and businesses) should consider themselves lucky that they haven’t gone overboard in the economically-devastated convention industry like some other cities. Take Atlanta for starters, that city’s Georgia World Congress Center recently reported a $1.3 million loss. Then there is Las Vegas, another big convention town, where many of the big casinos are reporting revenue losses of 30 percent over last year.

All across America the convention industry has been in a sustained decline for the better part of a decade. If some entrepreneur felt that the trend was going to change suddenly and wanted to invest their own money in such a venture in downtown Albuquerque, I’d be all for it. Surely, however, the dying convention industry is not worthy of a bailout courtesy of Albuquerque taxpayers!

This is an excellent commentary by Paul Driessen on “Cash for Clunkers” and other programs the politicians are considering to build on the alleged “success” of the idiotic “Cash for Clunkers” program. Feel free to distribute with attribution to Mr. Driessen

First cars, next power plants. Wasting natural resources to promote eco ideologies.

It’s finally been euthanized (or so they say). But in the minds of politicians and rent-seekers, the cash-for-clunkers program was so successful that it deserved billions in taxpayer money.

Pols got to strut their green credentials. Car makers got to sell cars, via yet another subsidy. Consumers got free cash from hapless taxpayers, for new cars many otherwise wouldn’t have bought.

It was all so socially responsible and win-win – except for those poor taxpayers, who got saddled with still more debt. The other big loser of course is the antiquated notion that public policies should be based on sound science and economics.

An ice-cold bucket of reality is in order – before the next clunker idea comes along. Here are a few of the more obvious problems with pulling the plug on grandma cars.

The “high-polluting” cars that taxpayers are paying to get off the road already have 95% fewer emissions than 1970-era models. So the pollution reductions are almost nonexistent.

The gas savings are modest at best, across the US automotive fleet – and will be more than offset by the latest round of oil and gas lock-ups that Congress and the White House are already engineering. So more oil imports are on the way, regardless.

Far worse, every “clunker” has to be rendered totally inoperable. Sodium silicate gets poured into engines to freeze their components, then they’re crushed into bundles of scrap.

That means some 750,000 perfectly good cars never make it to used car lots. People who can’t afford the average $24,000 new car price have to buy a new car anyway. Used car dealers and buyers have dwindling numbers of cars to bargain for. Repair shops lose business.

Even worse, trashing all these cars is a monumental waste of precious resources – and all the energy and effort it took to extract metallic ores, hydrocarbons and other raw materials from the Earth, process and refine them, create alloys and plastics, and turn them into engines, chasses, windows, tires and interiors.

Every step in that process took enormous amounts of energy – and emitted vast quantities of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and real pollutants. There is absolutely no way that these emissions and energy will ever be recouped by any savings the replacement cars might conceivably generate.

It’s like spending $720,000 for photovoltaic solar panels on the roof of the Denver Nature and Science Museum. The panels would certainly reduce conventional electricity bills. But it would take 110 years to save enough on those bills to pay for the panels – and the panels would only last 25 years.

Denver installed the panels for one reason, observes Independence Institute investigative journalist Todd Shepherd. Federal taxpayers provided a fat subsidy – enabling President Obama to have a great photo-op on the museum roof and shill for solar power, with the Rocky Mountains resplendent in the distance.

So much for that win-win scenario. The next clunker boondoggle is already on the launch pad, courtesy of T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner. As they opined in the Wall Street Journal recently, they want to repeat the automotive “success” on a massive scale – replacing “clunker” electrical generating plants with government-mandated gas-fired versions.

The existing plants burn coal, which America has in great abundance, and which keeps electricity reliable and affordable – so that people can heat and cool their homes, industries can manufacture and transport products, companies can employ workers, hospitals can treat patients, schools can train future innovators, and America can ensure continued opportunity and prosperity.

Modern coal-fired power plants already scrub out the vast majority of real pollutants that their aged predecessors emitted, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz. What they don’t remove is carbon dioxide.

Pickens, Turner, Gore, Hansen and Obama insist that CO2 is causing “potentially devastating climate changes.” Thousands of scientists disagree, and satellite data clearly demonstrate that global temperatures have been stable or even decreasing since 1998, even as carbon dioxide levels have risen steadily. Storms, droughts, floods and other events are in accord with historic variations, and show no statistically significant upswings, note climate experts William Gray, David Legates and Richard Keen.

But inconvenient facts and observations are irrelevant to climate alarmists. They apparently believe that assuming, asserting, decreeing and modeling climate disasters proves a crisis is nigh – and we must make painful energy, economic and lifestyle sacrifices to prevent it.

In other words, force America to eliminate existing generators and switch to power plants running on natural gas that Boone Pickens, Chesapeake Energy and a few others own in abundance – and to wind and solar power that General Electric, Vesta and other “ethical” companies will happily provide, if taxpayers fork over billions more in subsidies.

Making money by selling natural gas, building turbines and panels, and trading carbon credits on new commodities, hedge fund and derivatives markets is an irrelevant coincidence, we’re supposed to believe.

These “socially responsible” rent seekers and their friends in Congress and the White House are masters at increasing and mandating demand for natural gas – for transportation, homes, industries and power generation. Unfortunately, the friends aren’t so attentive to the supply side of the equation. They excel at locking up America’s onshore and offshore energy prospects, and imposing burdensome new regulations on lands that aren’t off limits – making it increasingly difficult to find and produce gas.

This increases demand, shrinks supplies, drives up prices, and increases profits for the lucky few who do own abundant gas supplies. Once again, consumers and taxpayers get taken for a ride.

Once again, it’s even worse from an economic, ecological and resource conservation perspective. We are being asked to destroy dozens or hundreds of perfectly good coal-fired power plants – or retrofit them under expensive carbon capture and storage mandates – simply because some special interests assume, assert, decree and model global warming disasters.

Tearing the plants down would be a monumental waste of the resources, energy, effort and emissions it took to build them. CCS technology would require billions of dollars, 25% of a power plant’s generating capacity, major increases in fuel consumption and electricity prices, thousands of miles of CO2 pipelines and massive underground storage chambers, to reduce global CO2 by an imperceptible amount.

America today is increasingly governed by lawyers, ideologues, social engineers and rent seekers. Congress has nary a real engineer, and precious few members with any business background or ability to figure out basic cradle-to-grave energy, resource, economic and pollution equations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi views natural gas as an “alternative to fossil fuels.”

With these folks at the helm, it may be time for wise investors to look toward China and India, where reducing poverty and improving living standards guide public policy – not Hollywood movies about Climate Armageddon. Wise voters and taxpayers will join the Tea Party movement, and elect some honest brainpower, before Congress wreaks more havoc on energy, jobs and civil rights.

______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death.

Economist Milton Friedman, in his book “Capitalism and Freedom” argued passionately about the economic harms associated with professional licensing. Friedman’s basic point was that “The biggest advocates for licenses in an industry are, usually, the people in the industry, wishing to keep out potential competitors.” Unfortunately, with all the focus on the “public option,” mandates, and insurance companies, not much is being said about licensing issues.

That is why this article by Shikha Dalmia or Reason Foundation about the harms inflicted on the modern medical system by the American Medical Association (AMA) is very important. Specifically, writes Dalmia:

Doctors–and many Republicans–constantly carp about the costs of “defensive medicine” because it forces providers to perform unnecessary procedures and tests to insulate them from potential lawsuits. But excessive physician salaries contribute nearly three times more to wasteful health care spending than the $20 billion or so that defensive medicine does. “While the U.S. malpractice system is extraordinary,” the study notes, “it is only a small contributor to the higher cost of health care in the United States.” Meanwhile, other studies have found that doctors’ salaries contribute more to soaring medical costs than the $40 billion or so that the uninsured cost in uncompensated care–the president’s bete noir.

Add another issue to the list of problems with American health care for which a free market solution is demanded, but unlikely due to pressure from special interests.

New Mexico lost nearly $40 million of its $55 million investment in Antares Investment Partners, a Greenwich, CT real estate investment trust. But Marc Correra, a Richardson ally, came out a lot better. As a third-party placement agent for the deal, he participated in $600,000 in fees.

The Greenwich Time concluded its investigation of Antares this past Sunday. In a section entitled “Land of Disenchantment,” the paper covered the State Investment Council’s experience with this shady operation:

The New Mexico State Investment Council, responsible for managing the state’s permanent trust funds, endowments, public education and general fund money, took a big hit because of toxic assets linked to Antares.

In 2005, New Mexico invested $55 million in a limited liability company, NorthStar SIC Holdings, that NorthStar infused into various real estate developments in its portfolio, including Antares, said Charles Wollmann, a spokesman for the State Investment Council.

“I do believe that investment went south,” Wollmann said.

New Mexico received a devastating $16 million capital return on its initial investment, which had seen its net asset value tank to $12.8 million as of the end of the first quarter of 2009, the most recent performance report available from the state.

“That’s not one that we’re happy with,” Wollmann said.

A message seeking comment from NorthStar was left Tuesday with an investor relations spokesman at the firm’s Manhattan office.

Wollmann said he was prevented from discussing New Mexico’s sour investment in NorthStar and Antares because litigation may be forthcoming. The state, he said, has “written-down” its Antares loss.

Marc Correra was the placement agent for the Northstar investment, which according to the SIC’s records (courtesy Heath Haussamen) actually amounted to nearly $90.25 million. Correra’s fees amounted to $576,917. A source in state government says the entire investment is now worthless.

Correra participated in $2 million in fees at third-party placement agent in another $90 million investment that “went south.” That is the investment, now worthless, in Vanderbilt Financial Trust. Story on that here from Trip Jennings at NM Independent.

Correra has been a generous contributor to Democrats. He gave $28,500 to Obama’s victory fund and the maximum personal contribution each to Tom Udall, Harry Teague and Ben Ray Lujan. In fact, it appears his contributions to Udall exceeded the legal limit by $1,250.

Sen. Ted Kennedy was no friend of free markets and limited government, but as John Berlau of the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute notes, there was a brief time during the 1970s when Kennedy rightly saw free markets and “progressive” policies as one and the same. One wishes that this brief time period would have lasted longer.

Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine views Kennedy’s legacy as (hopefully) the end of an era of bigger government and greater centralization. And, while I agree with Nick’s thinking that greater numbers of Americans are growing frustrated with centralization and the straight jacket it creates, I don’t know if our political system is capable of re-embracing the Constitutional principles of federalism that the founders designed to protect against the encroachment of powerful central government.

Having already interviewed mayoral candidates Richard Romero and RJ Berry, Jim Scarantino and Paul Gessing will be interviewing their 3rd and final candidate for Albuquerque Mayor, the incumbent, Martin Chavez, this Saturday on Speaking Freely. The show airs from 9am to 10am on AM 1550 KIVA, Albuquerque’s New Talk Radio.

We will be sure to ask the Mayor about the streetcar, arena, red light cameras, and other issues as well. Call us at 505-265-1550. If you can’t tune in, or if you’d like to listen to the Romero or Berry interviews, you can check out the show podcast on the Rio Grande Foundation’s website.

On Monday, the Albuquerque Journal reported that policymakers are considering cutting Medicaid in order to shore up New Mexico’s budget deficit. All I can say is that it is about time. New Mexico’s Medicaid program has been in dire need of reform for many years now. In fact, Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute — he is going to be taking the free market position in our upcoming health care debate on Monday — visited New Mexico a few years back and discussed several reasons to reform Medicaid. Also, Drs. Harry Messenheimer and Kenneth Brown discussed potential Medicaid cost savings in a policy paper published back in 2003.

Lastly, Stephen Moses who runs the Center for Long Term Care Reform has put together a document entitled “How to Save Medicaid $20 Billion Per Year AND Improve the Program in the Process.” The document should form the basis for reforming Medicaid as it relates to long term care. As moses points out:

· Medicaid LTC recipients consume a disproportionate share of total program
expenditures. For example, consider people eligible for Medicaid AND Medicare.

· Such “dual eligibles” account for 42 percent of Medicaid spending, although they
comprise only 16 percent of Medicaid recipients.

· Dual eligibles are heavy users of long-term care and acute care services not covered by
Medicare. And Medicaid pays for their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing too.

The point is that Medicaid is a ripe target for cost savings and reform. Hopefully legislators will look at some of these “big ideas” rather than just working around the edges. Who says that you can’t enact successful health care reforms at the state level?

Robert Samuelson is one of the best syndicated columnists in America. He leaves partisan politics alone and uses arguments based on economics to make his points. A recent column in particular attracted my attention because Samuelson made several points that I have been making about high-speed rail. The article appeared in the Albuquerque Journal and can be found here.

Samuelson writes the following about President Obama’s taxpayer “investment” in high-speed rail:

There’s only one catch (regarding Obama’s plan for high speed rail): The vision is a mirage. The costs of high-speed rail would be huge, and the public benefits meager.

President Obama’s network may never be built. It’s doubtful private investors will advance the money, and once government officials acknowledge the full costs, they’ll retreat. In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office cited a range of construction costs, from $22 million a mile to $132 million a mile. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser figures $50 million a mile might be a plausible average. A 250-mile system would cost $12.5 billion and 10 systems, $125 billion.

Concluded Samuelson, “The mythology of high-speed rail is not just misinformed; it’s antisocial. Governments at all levels are already overburdened.” I couldn’t agree more. Of course, Samuelson has some critics, but what they fail to mention is that roads are so useful that they would still be built and widely used in the absence of government (toll roads would be ubiquitous) whereas passenger rail depends heavily on government subsidies from non-rail users in order to keep chugging along.

Randal O’Toole blogs further here.

Check it out and let me know what you think:

)

(Albuquerque)— With the Obama Administration’s health care proposal changing on a near-daily basis and Congressional town hall meetings stirring up controversy like never before, citizens need to be involved now, more than ever, in the health care debate.

To that end, the Rio Grande Foundation will be hosting a health care debate between Cato Institute Director of Health Policy Studies, Michael Cannon and AFSCME’s Carter Bundy; on August 31, 2009 from 6pm to 8pm at the Albuquerque Museum which is located at 2000 Mountain Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104.

Cost of the event is $10 payable by cash or check at the door. Light snacks and beverages will be available. Space is limited and this is sure to be a popular event given the pressing nature of the topic, so let us know you’re coming by emailing us at: rsvp@riograndefoundation.org.

Cannon and Bundy will discuss the current state of the health care debate in Washington, explain how it impacts New Mexicans, and offer thoughts on recent legislative changes and reforms he would like to see Congress make to the US health care system. Said Rio Grand Foundation President Paul Gessing, “We are very excited to be hosting these health care experts at a time when Congress is ready to debate and make a final push for greater government intervention.”

Said Gessing, “We will provide a respectful and fair forum. Media outlets are welcome to cover the event as well as long as appropriate arrangements are made ahead of time.”

Cannon has recently been in heavy rotation as a guest on television and radio talk shows and he has worked closely with Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) on free market health care legislation that would weaken the grip health insurance companies have over customers in particular states.

Bundy has written and spoken extensively on health care issues on a variety of New Mexico media outlets, most prominently at the website www.NMPolitics.net.

I was invited by Rep. Martin Heinrich (along with two doctors) to be a panelist at the Congressman’s health care town hall on Saturday. First and foremost, I give Heinrich credit not only for inviting someone with a different perspective to take part in the town hall, but for inviting someone like myself who will provide a competent, principled defense of free market health care instead of an executive from a health insurance company of drug company who would merely provide a self-interested opposition to Obamacare, but not a principled argument and no alternative vision.

The town hall room was completely full with 600 folks attending (a slight advantage for the single-payer folks, approximately 60-40 split between supporters and opponents). Another 300 people watched the proceedings on site in a separate room on closed-circuit television.

Surprisingly enough to me, Heinrich did not stack the rest of the panel with supporters of Obamacare. Rather, one of the physicians, John Vigil, wound up agreeing with me more often than not. He concluded the meeting with a strong statement against the third-party payer model for health care. I was of course critical of Obamacare and the left’s real favorite option, single-payer. I had dozens of positive messages from conservative and free market advocates in my email inbox over the weekend. The folks at ABQRally.com have a good re-cap of the event as well. Then, there are the lefty blogs including two from Daily Kos here and here.

The postings at Daily Kos are so amusing that I quote them at length below:

Then there was the conservative lobbyist….

The lobbyist is from one of the most conservative alleged “research institues” in New Mexico. I was absolutely disappointed pissed off that he put Paul Gessing on a panel discussing health care reform. Gessing brought nothing to the table except to rile up those in attendance who were shills for the Heritage Foundation.

He wasn’t a doctor, he wasn’t a nurse, he wasn’t even a health insurance administrator. He was a lobbyist who regurgitating the same talking points I had heard in line, and, while sitting in the auditorium.

Why was Gessing asked to be on the panel? What legitimacy did he bring to the debate? I have heard Heinrich wanted some “balance.” Bad choice. Lobbyists don’t bring balance. They only bring talking points from those that pay them. If balance was needed then put an insurance executive on the panel.

I’ll borrow a question from a blogger friend of mine,

was Heinrich punked?

I wonder.

Why are we continuing to pander to these people? The health care reform we all want, whether it be a single payer system or a strong public option, won’t be accomplished this way. And when Progressive candidates have conservative industry hacks/shills/lobbyists answering questions at a Town Hall meeting, how will we respond?

Hopefully we won’t respond by sitting on our thumbs and biting our lower lips. I saw way too much of that yesterday.

Lots of anger there. Of course, they didn’t take time to find out that Rio Grande Foundation does not lobby. If the left thinks I “punk’d” Heinrich, then I take that as a compliment, but I was invited to take part in the event and I’m sure he was abundantly aware of my positions on the issues.

Some of the comments on the Daily Kos postings are quite amusing as well:

While I agree that Martin Heinrich had some strong points, his choice of Paul Gessing (a local Libertarian tea bagger who represents insurance industry desires) to be on a panel about health care reform was idiotic. Gessing had no business on that panel. He is a shill. I went to hear answers from experts in the field, not from a well known tea bagger.

Anyway, it was a great day. I’m working to get video of the event so we can upload it to the website. Check back often.

With everything going on these days relating to health care and town hall meetings, it is easy to forget that millions of American children are heading back to school over the next few weeks. Recently, liberal Senator and regular Alibi columnist Jerry Ortiz y Pino wrote a column in which he advocated for change in New Mexico’s abysmal education system.

One excellent point Ortiz y Pino made was:

I think at its heart, the problem with our schools graduating only half the kids who enter them is that we are operating out of the wrong model. We are thinking about the schools as the place where society builds its future members, a sort of factory where they are assembled, tested and stamped “ready.” (Although no factory that discarded half of the products on its assembly line could stay in business very long.)

He then goes on to outline four ideas for reform that, quite frankly, seem to be thin gruel indeed considering the state of the system. Ortiz y Pino’s ideas are:

• Stop suspending students. Instead, require in-school suspension, after-school tutoring and week-end remediation.

• Greatly expand vocational and trade opportunities, relying heavily on the state’s network of community colleges for concurrent enrollment while students are still in high school.

• Every elementary and middle school should have after-school programming for every student.

• We need many more charter or alternative schools for high school students who are not doing well in class or who have already dropped out. Small communities with attention given to differing learning styles—accompanied by supportive services to deal with family and community barriers to learning—have proven effective in helping kids graduate.

I wrote a letter (cut and pasted below) to the Alibi in which I applauded Ortiz y Pino for advocating reform, but encouraged more dramatic and systemic education reforms.

Jerry Ortiz y Pino makes some good points in his article “The Dropout Factor” [Re: July 30-Aug. 5]. The problem is that his solutions are far too limited in scope to actually solve the massive problem of having a statewide dropout rate approaching 50 percent.

Rather than tinkering around the edges of a failed system, we need dramatic changes. Ideas might include a system of tax credits to allow taxpayers to donate a portion of their New Mexico tax liability to provide scholarships for low-income and needy children, a voucher program targeted at “special needs” and foster children who are particularly vulnerable to dropping out, and an emphasis on reduced school sizes. In general, our schools also need to focus a greater percentage of their resources on the classroom rather than wasting it on bureaucracy (New Mexico has one of the most bloated education bureaucracies in the nation).

Charter and alternative schools have been a big hit with parents and students, but New Mexico needs to go further, beyond the government-run school model, in order to improve educational outcomes. And if we try these innovative reforms and nothing changes? We can always return to the failed status quo.

Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation

Interestingly enough, while Ortiz y Pino is one of the most liberal legislators in Santa Fe, he has apparently caused a great deal of consternation among the Albuquerque Teachers Federation.