The Rio Grande Foundation has long been New Mexico’s most prominent critic of the Rail Runner. Scholar Ken Brown wrote this critical piece way back in January of 2006. I have also written on and discussed the numerous problems with the train many times over the years including this recent blog posting telling the train’s supporters to put their money where their mouths are and step up to close the train’s $750,000 deficit.

Well, it seems like more and more people are getting it. For starters, check out Trever’s excellent cartoon in today’s ABQ Journal:

Also, Joe Monahan, who we don’t always agree with, but certainly seems to have the pulse of the New Mexico establishment, made an interesting point in a recent blog posting on the Rail Runner:

The political impact of the troubled Rail Runner on the Dem Light Guv campaign of Lawrence Rael has already been mentioned. Lawrence was head of MRCOG and is taking credit for the Rail Runner. Then there is presumed Dem Guv nominee Diane Denish. She may have some tough questions to answer about how she sees the future of this train. However, maybe not too many if the R’s nominate Allen Weh as their Guv nominee. When he was GOP chairman Weh was supportive of the Rail Runner.

The long-term future of the Rail Runner remains troubling because it was not modeled after the expensive European model of speed–lots of speed–like well over 100 mph. That is hurting the train as cars race past it from ABQ to Santa Fe. And then there’s the recession. Fewer state employees mean fewer Rail Runner riders and lower gross receipts tax revenue means less money to fund the train,

In case you missed it, a few weeks ago, RGF analyst Scott Moody and RGF president Paul Gessing appeared on Bob Clark’s show on AM 770 to discuss New Mexico’s bloated government employment and unsustainable pension systems. Listen to the show here.

Also, Gessing discussed New Mexico’s legislative session and the federal health care debacle with Mike Jaxson on 990 KSVP. Click here to listen to this 15 minute interview.

Our investigative journalist, Jim Scarantino, is really on a roll. Yesterday he published a report on Governor Richardson’s efforts to implement stringent carbon caps through an unelected body, the Environmental Improvement Board, which is full of his radical environmentalist appointees.

Now it looks like the folks at National Review Online, including publisher Jack Fowler, have noticed. In a blog posting put up today, Fowler called Scarantino’s article an “fascinating post” and quoted extensively. Kudos to Jim and if you want to support Jim’s ongoing efforts, help us out with a tax-deductible donation here.

I have taken a closer look at the Albuquerque Public Schools’ $616 million bond measure and have my questions/concerns. First and foremost, the election date is February 2nd, but early voting is taking place right now and continues from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., through Friday, Jan. 29, at the following locations:

* Bernalillo County Clerk’s Office Annex, 620 Lomas NW

* APS Building, 6400 Uptown Blvd. NE

* Alamosa Community Center, 6900 Gonzales Road SW

* Don Newton Multi-Generational Center (Taylor Ranch Community Center), 4900 Kachina St. NW.

Here are some significant issues that voters must carefully consider:

— Although proponents argue that property taxes will not go up as a result of this bond issue, the fact is that property taxes would fall significantly if this measure were to fail. Since Albuquerque taxpayers pay property taxes at a rate 25% higher than any of the top ten cities in New Mexico, one could certainly argue that it is time for a tax cut, especially in light of what I believe are some problems/wastes of resources in Albuquerque’s Public School system;

— New Mexico has a law on the books called “Davis-Bacon.” This law mandates that all government construction projects pay something called the “prevailing wage” which is essentially an inflated union wage. There is a federal Davis-Bacon law which applies to federal construction projects, but New Mexico is one of 25 or so states that enforce the prevailing wage at the state level as well.

These laws typically raise labor costs by 25% and total construction costs by 10%. On a project costing more than $100 million like the new Volcano Vista High School on the west side, we are talking about real cost savings if Davis-Bacon were repealed;

— Another unnecessary cost-driver – that is, something that makes project costs unnecessarily high – is the pursuit of LEED Certification. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Arguably, but not necessarily (for reasons I won’t go into here), building to LEED standards includes increased energy efficiency. But that is only part of the story.

Obtaining LEED certification is an arduous, paperwork-intensive process that costs a lot of money. Estimates are that it raises building costs by 10% or more. Ironically, the certification process is completely unnecessary. In fact, APS could build to LEED standards relatively cheaply without going through the time-consuming and intensive certification process.

— Lastly, APS could save money by transitioning to modular school design or at least limiting the number of school floor plans used. Although specific data on this was difficult to come by in my research, I do know that modular construction is not widely used in APS projects and architects are hired on an ad hoc basis to design schools. Clearly, significant cost savings could be realized in this area as well.

According to Michael Coleman of the Albuquerque Journal, former New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici has joined the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. The organization’s goal is to convince Congress and the president to rein in the national debt.

Interesting that Domenici would join such an initiative. I could see him leading an organization dedicated to spreading nuclear power or some other pro-energy cause, but Domenici’s record in Congress certainly doesn’t strike me as that of a deficit hawk:

For starters, in his final year in the Senate, he received a gentleman’s “C” from the National Taxpayers Union. That is not exactly the rating of a true fiscal conservative, but it is representatives of Domenici’s NTU ratings; Also, according to the NTUF, during the 109th Congress Domenici voted to increase federal spending by $465,395,000,000 during that Congress alone. Again, hardly fiscally-responsible.

Specific, costly policies supported by Domenici in recent years include votes for Bush’s massive $1.2 trillion prescription drug bill and support for the trillion dollar Iraq War. I’m sure there are more.

My point is not to trash Domenici and what seems to be a positive effort in retirement to tackle a serious problem. Rather, I just wish he’d acted on his concerns about America’s massive debt problem while he had the power to actually do something.

Great articles in the Albuquerque Journal today on the Rail Runner, the fact that event with $19 million in annual subsidies, that the train service needs to make up a $750,000 deficit, and the possibility that weekend service may have to be curtailed in order to cut costs.

Of course, there was the expected hue and cry from riders, merchants, and even the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce over the possibility that weekend service will have to be reduced. By implication, these groups believe that the rest of us should be asked to dig into our pockets even deeper to fund their train. But there’s another way…

How about charging weekend riders a little more to make up the difference? Perhaps members of the Albuquerque Chamber and merchants near the train station in Santa Fe who supposedly benefit so much from the train would be willing to help fill the $750 million gap? It would seem to me that those who benefit the most from the train should be willing to pay a little more for it, particularly since the rest of us are already covering $400 million in construction costs and $19 million annually in operating costs. If these groups are not willing to put up any more money to keep the trains running, then perhaps it is not really as beneficial as they say.

Fair is fair…cut service or let beneficiaries pay more. Don’t burden the rest of us with an even bigger bill.

Sweden, that supposedly socialist European nation, is beginning to seem downright free market compared to the US in some ways. First, there was the nation’s refusal to bail out the car company Saab when the US was busy bailing out GM and Chrysler.

Now, comes this very interesting which shows that Sweden’s K-12 educational model is very choice-based and culturally all-American. What do they do in Sweden? As the article notes:

The Swedish model is built on two pillars of choice: a voucher system at both the primary and secondary levels and varied high school tracks.

Let’s start with the voucher program. If a public school isn’t meeting a student’s needs, he or she can leave. Students have the option to switch to another public school or they can leave the public system altogether and opt for a private school, explained Fredric Skälstad, political adviser to the Swedish minister of education.

The government attaches money to each student, which then follows him wherever he goes. Students with special needs — such as those from non-Swedish-speaking backgrounds — receive extra money.

If a public school isn’t up to snuff, students leave. And they take their money with them.

Wow, sounds like a huge step forward for our socialist education model! Perhaps the New Mexico Legislature can learn something from Sweden by adopting choice this legislative session.

As the Rio Grande Foundation and our guest speakers like John Charles (from Portland, OR) have pointed out, transit, despite its green reputation, is not as energy efficient as its backers would like us to believe. This includes Governor Richardson’s beloved Rail Runner.

It is understandable, of course, that greens and other backers of transit don’t buy what we have to say. But, when I picked up a copy of the Albuquerque Alibi last week, I found a very interesting article from The Straight Dope. If you aren’t familiar with it, Straight Dope is a “mythbuster” column that attempts to get to the heart of reality on various topics. There is no conservative bias but the truth. Well, the column which can be found here and clearly backs up the assertion that mass transit simply does not save energy.

The author’s conclusion is in his own words here:

On the face of it, then, transit currently offers no energy advantage over cars except in the handful of cities with heavy rail — and not all of those. (Chicago’s an outlier.) Estimates of auto efficiency vary depending on how many passengers you assume they’re carrying, so I won’t say transit is an energy loser. Instead I’ll agree with O’Toole: from an energy perspective, transit vs. cars is pretty much a wash.

Good to see independent sources verifying our data!

A few days ago I blogged a column from the Albuquerque Journal outlining EIB member Gregory Green’s conflicts of interest relating to the proposed carbon emissions cap before the Board.

Where there is smoke, there is usually fire, so our investigative journalist Jim Scarantino took a closer look at the Environmental Improvement Board. What he found is a web of conflicts and personal pressures on Green that make it almost inconceivable that he’d vote against the carbon cap proposal.

Awhile back, I discussed the federal stimulus and the use of those stimulus dollars to purchase LED lights which are more energy efficient than traditional light bulbs used in traffic lights. The cost to taxpayers was $5 million and I figured that, since the deal was already done, I’d heard the last about the issue.

Well, government incompetence and the rush to spend money, supposedly to stimulate the economy, has a funny way of coming back at you. That’s why I was amused to see this article in the Albuquerque Journal which explains that the new energy efficient lights cause a safety problem because they get covered up by the flying snow. Turns out, the heat from traditional light bulbs is actually integral to their operation in the winter.

According to the story, in some areas, public works employees must go out and scrape ice and snow off traffic signals. They recently used an improvised tool made out of a pole and an automotive ice scraper. So, these supposedly “cost effective” and “energy efficient” light bulbs require well-paid government workers to drive their polluting vehicles all over town wiping snow off streetlights every time it snows…..gotta love government!

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 12 hours, you probably already know that Republican Scott Brown has won the Massachusetts special election and will take the Senate seat formerly held by liberal icon Ted Kennedy. This is most definitely good news for those of us who wish to stop or at least slow down the Obama Administration’s radical domestic agenda, particularly health care reform. That’s because of the political message inherent in the stunning defeat in a very blue state as well as the fact that Brown will provide the 41st vote, thus making it difficult for the Senate to pass legislation along party lines.

This is all extremely important and, if things continue in this way we may see further gains made by Republicans and fiscal conservatives nationwide. But what does it mean for Obama and his health care reform and cap and trade proposals? Simply put, I think it kills cap and trade because there is no way to put enough lipstick on that pig to make it politically attractive, but I think Obama, if he wises up, might have a chance to do something on health care. The key is “if he wises up” and this goes for the rest of his administration because he may very well be dealing with a Republican House of Representatives this time next year.

What path might Obama take forward on health care? Well, first and foremost he should look carefully at the ideas laid out by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. Another place to go would be the Cato Institute and this article on how the free market can help cure what ails health care.

Basically, rather than handing our entire health care system over to the insurance industry as the Senate bill would have done (that’s according to liberal columnist/economist Paul Krugman), Obama needs to work to restore decisions and responsibility to individuals through a variety of vouchers and the restoration of other incentives that give individuals a greater incentive to control health care costs. If Obama follows some kind of Clintonian “third way,” he may survive this mess, but if he continues down the current path, both he and America will be worse off for it.

I recently penned an expansion of my recent blog posting on temporary tax hikes for the Deming Headlight. Read the article here.

One point that I did not address in the blog posting on certain temporary tax hikes on junk food and soda taxes is the complexity issue. Here are a few excerpted paragraphs outlining the possible administrative nightmare that such taxes would unleash:

Soda and so-called “junk food” taxes are also highly regressive. Worse, they would create an administrative nightmare. After all, potato chips might be a junk food, but are the slightly healthier Sun Chips? How about the fat-free potato chips that have come on the market in recent years? Things can get really complicated and unfair.

Soda taxes also face the same fairness and administrative issues. After all, Gatorade and other sports drinks have a lot of calories and lemonade, orange juice, and chocolate milk actually have more calories for each cup than does regular Coke. Diet sodas on the other hand have zero calories. Which of these items will be taxed? More importantly, once the lobbying heats up and the various interests attempt to exempt their products from taxation, who will answer these questions and how much will it cost to fund a bureaucracy to do this?

According to Governor Richardson’s State of the State address, he’s opposing re-instatement of the grocery tax, so I believe that these narrowly targeted taxes will indeed be the primary targets for Richardson’s “revenue-raisers.”

Jim Scarantino and I have been asked to step in last-second to co-host the program this afternoon. Tune in and give us a call at 505-265-1550. We’ll be talking about the upcoming legislative session, your calls, and whatever else comes to mind. Tune in and give us a call!

Then get out and vote! Yes, while the tax lightning situation may take years to figure out, the fact is that there is an easy way for Albuquerque area taxpayers to cut their tax property tax bills almost immediately.

The Albuquerque Public Schools are asking for a $616 million in additional property taxes. The official election date is Feb. 2, 2010, but early voting for the election began at 8 a.m. on Friday, Jan. 8 and continues from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., through Friday, Jan. 29, at the following locations:

* Bernalillo County Clerk’s Office Annex, 620 Lomas NW

* APS Building, 6400 Uptown Blvd. NE

* Alamosa Community Center, 6900 Gonzales Road SW

* Don Newton Multi-Generational Center (Taylor Ranch Community Center), 4900 Kachina St. NW.

The ballot language will mislead voters by claiming that passage will “keep property taxes at current levels to fund school construction and renovation,” but the language of course omits the fact that Albuquerque homeowners pay by far the highest property tax rates in New Mexico and those rates have increased dramatically…and what results does APS have to show for it?

As if 25% reimbursements on expenses, interest free loans, and work force training subsidies were not enough, New Mexico is upping the ante in terms of film subsidies. I was quoted extensively in a cover story in today’s Albuquerque Journal outlining some of our concerns about this largesse. I’m pleased to say that film office spokesman Pahl Shipley even attacks the Rio Grande Foundation for not paying enough taxes!

I love unelected bodies like the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). Their undemocratic nature is problematic enough, but being appointed by the Governor, they serve as nothing more than a gig (undoubtedly a cushy, paid one) for Friends of Bill.

Now, it turns out that the head of the EIB, Gregory Green, is the chief lobbyist for the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. Does this obvious conflict and bias mean that he’ll recuse himself from the proceedings? Of course not! Instead, the Wildlife Federation will simply not participate in the petition process.

With Gay Dillingham, another ardent environmentalist and close FoB on the EIB, it is clear that the fix is in. The only way to stop the EIB from seriously harming New Mexico’s economy is the lawsuit recently filed to strip the EIB of its authority in this matter.

Albuquerque Mayor RJ Berry certainly faced a terrible situation when he took over the reins in December. The budget deficit is $50 million and the previous mayor had locked in $13 million worth of raises for the police and fire departments.

Now, at least in one instance, Mayor Berry is putting a stop to one sweetheart deal put in place by Mayor Marty. The deal was to pay the fire union president $81,000 per year (about $32,000 more than his rank merited). Even if the union sues, this is still a worthy battle for Albuquerque taxpayers because it is a sign that Mayor Berry means business and is not going to coddle government workers in a time of massive budget deficits.

As we at the Rio Grande Foundation have pointed out repeatedly, state and local governments throughout the state suffer from having bloated bureaucracies. Cutting back on this problem may not solve all of Albuquerque’s budget problems, but Berry is doing well by targeting the obviously unfair agreements (including the massive police and fire raises) for cuts.

In case you missed it, the Albuquerque Chamber and several other legislators and business groups have stepped up and are suing to stop the Environmental Improvement Board from placing draconian and ill-advised caps on carbon emissions in New Mexico. More on those caps (and how to fight back) here. This is good news.

Also, the public comment period has now been scheduled for Santa Fe on March 1. The public comments session will run from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on March 1, at Rio Grande Room of the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department, Toney Anaya Building, 2550 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Comments may be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Simply put, opponents cannot rely on the courts to stop this crazy train from heading down the tracks.

While I commend the Albuquerque Chamber for taking a stance on the issue, their statement that “if any caps are legislated, they should come at a federal level and be applied to all US businesses equally,” certainly isn’t as firm as it should be. After all, New Mexico businesses are not just competing with businesses in the other 49 states, but also with other nations. More importantly, a carbon cap is either good policy or its not, just come out and say it!

Another question on this is “where is ACI?” They are supposed to represent all New Mexico businesses, why isn’t the statewide chamber on this lawsuit?

Governor Richardson seems adamant in asserting that whatever tax hikes he pushes through during the 2010 legislative session will be “temporary.” Of course, this promise is ridiculous on its face because this is his final legislative session in office and he won’t be around to determine whether the hikes he enacts will be temporary or not. Pretty silly of him to make this promise or for anyone to believe him if he has a 0% chance of backing this up.

Of course, this is not where the silliness stops. According to the morning papers, Richardson is considering “sin” taxes on soda pop, cigarettes, and junk food. So, you are the next governor of New Mexico and, while the economy has improved a bit over the 2-3 years since these “temporary” tax hikes were enacted, you now have to stand up and “cut” taxes. How exactly are you going to sell these supposed tax breaks for tobacco, soda, and junk food?

The reality is that these will be permanent taxes because it will be politically impossible in the future to reduce taxes on products even though they disproportionately consumed by the poor cigarettes and soda. Rather than balancing New Mexico’s budget on the backs of the poor, Richardson (and the Albuquerque Chamber) should focus on cutting New Mexico’s bloated government bureaucracy and spurring economic growth.

If you read the Albuquerque Journal, then you know that their cartoonist, John Trever, is normally spot-on with his cartoons. One recent cartoon from Sunday’s paper in particular caught my eye. That’s because Trever’s cartoon showed the bloat in higher education. See cartoon below:

Of course, our own analyst, Scott Moody, has written extensively on New Mexico’s bloated government bureaucuracy and even pointed out in this study that higher education in particular is a bloated sector of government. See table one of this study.

Notably, Scott Moody who normally resides in New Hampshire is in town right now and will be speaking at a public forum on the issue of government employment, pay, and pensions Tuesday night. More information on that event can be found here. This issue is too important to overlook. I hope you’ll try to come out to learn how we can tackle this problem.

In case you did not pick up a copy of today’s Albuquerque Journal, I wrote in support of smaller schools as one means of improving New Mexico’s K-12 educational system. The proposal was originally put forth by Think New Mexico, another think tank here in New Mexico.

While we certainly don’t always agree with Fred Nathan and his organization all the time, the idea behind smaller schools is sound if policymakers commit to doing it without spending more money (a reasonable possibility). Now, to be fair, smaller schools are not my first choice when it comes to education reform. I’d rather have a total free market with only minimal government involvement in terms of helping the poor obtain educational opportunities. I’d also like to see tax credits or even vouchers.

Smaller schools by their very nature would allow for greater educational options for parents and students. Is it the ultimate solution to education reform? No, but we can’t continue to tolerate 50% graduation rates in New Mexico and smaller schools, if adopted, would likely improve our results.

The editorial page of the Washington Post is not normally my preferred place to go for free market analysis of health care and other major issues of the day, but Charles Lane, a member of the editorial board, seems to have a reasonable grasp on the realities of health care reform. His recent article, which appeared in the Albuquerque Journal starts out with a discussion of the supposed problem of “diagnostic creep.” In the words of Lane, diagnostic creep happens when society medicalizes imperfections that formerly were either not defined as disease or thought to be too minor and/or too intractable for treatment.

Sometimes, this is a real problem and it unnecessarily drives up costs. But, as Lane points out “diagnostic creep sounds bad, but it obviously can be very good” because it has helped people with a whole host of real medical issues.

Ultimately, as Lane points out, government boards that might be set up to determine whether certain procedures are necessary will result in a political firestorm or, if they are too lax, will not result in savings. Unfortunately, Lane does not make the next step and call for an end to the whole charade of government-directed health care, but he is certainly on the right track.

Rio Rancho has done some very silly things when it comes to development recently. Take the money hemorrhaging Santa Ana Star Center…please!

Now, the City is seriously considering using tax incentives known as TIDD’s to spur construction of a 12-14 screen cinema. While the need for a theater is debatable and the use of TIDD’s for this project is questionable, the real kicker for taxpayers is that, as the Journal story points out,

The resolution is contingent upon final approval from city staff and Southern Sandoval County Arroyo Flood Control Authority of a plan to realign an arroyo that bisects the property. Jimenez hopes the arroyo plan will be approved by mid-January. Work to realign and build a diversion channel for the arroyo is expected to cost about $11 million.

So, let me get this straight, taxpayers will have to subsidize this project to the tune of $11 million, not to mention the TIDDs, in order to build a movie theater and potentially (there is no guarantee here) some office space and hotels. This certainly seems like the kind of project that is destined to cause additional financial problems for Rio Rancho. Hopefully, Rio Rancho City Council decides that this $11 million realignment channel is “a bridge too far.”

Here is page two of the thousands of pages of paper documents that the Roswell Public Schools saw fit to provide the Rio Grande Foundation by way of information on their use of taxpayer money.