The Rio Grande Foundation’s New Mexico Watchdog, though it stands on its own, is part of a national network of Watchdog investigative reporting projects in other states. Jim Scarantino, who edits and reports for New Mexico Watchdog, is a former attorney. The Watchdogs in other states are run by veteran journalists, accountants, and policy analysts. For an idea of how large and impressive this effort is, read our “Watchdog Roundup.”
Awhile back I blogged about the ongoing fight in Congress over FedEx and UPS. Our friends over at Reason have put together this new video loosely based on the UPS whiteboard commercials to explain the situation.
As a state-level economic policy organization, the Rio Grande Foundation does not take a position on social issues like abortion. But With narrow passage of the House health care bill made possible by strict limits on taxpayer subsidies for abortion under the plan, the debate over abortion policy has moved front-and-center in the health care debate. Recently, in fact, a representative of a group calling itself “New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” wrote on the pages of the Albuquerque Journal that abortion should not impact passage of the legislation one way or the other. President Obama echoed this sentiment saying “This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.”
The problem, of course, is that when the federal government is paying for health care (including abortion), the legislation is inherently an abortion bill. It is, after all, one thing for an individual to not wish to pay for or subsidize abortions of others. This is largely the situation we have been living under to date. It is another thing for the government to force people who have serious moral concerns about abortion (or other medical procedures) to be forced to pay for that through their tax dollars. Their concerns are certainly justified and I can understand why abortion opponents demanded such an amendment before voting for the bill.
There may be a way to find a compromise here, but it is now the largest single stumbling block to health care reform and abortion opponents hold the cards.
Rarely do opinion pieces get it as wrong as this one which appeared in the ABQ Journal on Monday. Essentially, the folks at the CCA-New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility argued that because of the facility’s contributions to this community, which the writer notes include “employing almost 150 people and paying about $1 million in property taxes.” The ultimate point of the piece is to argue that the facility should not be closed and that Governor Richardson and the Legislature should preserve the facility.
While I would not contradict that the prison contributes to the local economy or even that the prison, one of New Mexico’s highly-efficient, privatized facilities is not cost-effective, the reasoning outlined in the piece simply doesn’t make sense.
Here are some simple arguments on the matter:
1) the money used to run the facility is not created out of thin air, it comes from tax dollars. Those are tax dollars that could be used in other ways were they left in peoples’ pockets;
2) If the facility is necessary to house violent criminals, then keep it open. In fact, keeping it open and protecting New Mexicans from violent criminals is one of the most basic functions of government. Other areas of the budget must be cut or eliminated immediately if this prison is necessary;
3) The Rio Grande Foundation has come up with several policy ideas that will make New Mexicans safer and reduce costs. Perhaps our friends in the prison system could implement dome of the ideas contained in this article.
The little stuff matters. Details count. NYPD proved it with their application of the Broken Windows Theory. I think that approach applies equally to how we hold government and politicians accountable. Combing through records showing how the Lt. Governor spent $225,000 is a good case study in application of this theory.
I expect to have one more report in this series. I will then provide a compilation of all the links for the convenience of anyone else who cares how Diane Denish chose to exercise complete discretion to spend tax dollars meant for economic stimulus.
Amazing how corporate welfare backfires. Remember the Kelo v. New London decision on eminent domain? The Supreme Court’s decision in that case essentially gave governments across the nation a green light to take any American’s property for any reason so long as the public received some benefit from the taking.
Now, having used (abused) the power of government to take the homes of dozens of long-time area residents, Pfizer has abandoned the development entirely, so the supposed economic benefits to the City of New London of abusing the property rights of its citizens have evaporated leaving empty plots of land. How appropriate.
Thankfully, policymakers here in New Mexico, at the behest of the Rio Grande Foundation and the Institute for Justice — the libertarian law firm that argued Kelo before the Supreme Court — New Mexico now has one of the strongest eminent domain laws in the nation, “A-” on the Castle Coalition’s 50 state ranking.
Ultimately, government officials all around the country — and here in New Mexico — need to learn the lesson that favoring one business or industry above all others is a bad strategy and doomed to ultimate failure. Whether the subsidy is taking private homes or tax dollars to fund Eclipse Aviation, the policies are both unfair and likely to fail.
A Denish worker paid with public funds was paid for what appears to be the Kerry train rally and visit to Albuquerque. There are questions about the invoices themselves, too. They appear to have been approved before the work was done. Read my latest report at New Mexico Watchdog.
Rep. Martin Heinrich voted in favor of the health care bill that narrowly passed the House over the weekend. He also wrote an opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal defending the bill and his decision to support it. He points to six principles that he wanted included in the legislation:
1) Stability for health consumers; in practice, this means “guaranteed issue,” a practice that drives up the costs of health insurance for the young and healthy, thus driving them out of the insurance pool, driving costs up for everyone (as only the unhealthy will buy insurance) and pushing peopole into the so-called “public option.”
2) Contain costs: This from the National Taxpayers Union “Several analyses have placed the real cost at as much as $1.5 trillion over the first ten years, or more than $2 trillion over a decade when the bill is fully phased in. The House legislation used innumerable gimmicks to artificially reduce its score, including splitting the so-called “doc fix” into another bill to hide a quarter-trillion dollars and not indexing the taxes in the bill for inflation, meaning they’ll run deficits in the future if they don’t “fix” those provisions like they have to do with the Alternative Minimum Tax.”
3) Patients can keep their doctor and health plan. We already know this to be false. For starters, I hold a health savings account that I love. That plan will cease to exist under the House-passed plan.
4) Improving the quality of private insurance and closing Medicare Donut Hole; Oh, and I’m sure this will all come in at no additional cost to taxpayers, right?
5) Coverage for all Americans; Illegal immigrants are major consumers of uncompensated care, but they are not included in the legislation. How much of the uncompensated care will really go away?
6) Public option; Operating without government subsidy, but for how long? Will Congress really let the government option die if it can’t compete? No, they’ll eventually prop it up and you simply can’t write this legislation in such a way as to stop this from happening once you create the public option.
The Rio Grande Foundation has announced two upcoming events. The first is an Albuquerque showing of “Not Evil Just Wrong.” The showing will take place on November 21 and we will be co-sponsoring the event with the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE) and the Albuquerque Tea Party. The showing will take place at the Albuquerque Museum which is located at 2000 Mountain Road NW at the edge of Old Town.
The movie will start at 6:00PM and lasts about 90 minutes with a short discussion to follow. Cost of the film is $8. Payment will be accepted at the door.
Also, on December 2nd, we will be hosting “Liberty in Concert.” The event is a reception followed by a
concert program by Jamie Story, Miss Texas 2004.
Story is an accomplished pianist, freedom fighter and President of the Grassroot Institute in Hawaii.
The event will take place at Hotel Albuquerque which is located at 800 Rio Grande Blvd. NW
Albuquerque, NM, in the Grand Piano Atrium
Admission is $35, RSVP Required to: (505) 301-9953 or libertyinconcert@riograndefoundation.org
Holiday Business Attire; The Reception begins at 6:00PM; The Concert Program begins at 7:30PM
In case you haven’t already heard, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a massive federal takeover of the nation’s health care system tomorrow. While Nancy Pelosi and many in the Democratic Party leadership have put forward a confident face saying that they have the 218 votes necessary to pass it, the truth is that the vote will be very close and that no one knows at this point whether the votes are there.
More information on the bills and contact information for your representatives can be found here. The bill being voted on is HR 3962. If you want to see my discussion with Rep. Martin Heinrich at his health care town hall, check that out here.
On New Mexico Watchdog. Read it all and related reports.
You can get instant news updates from our work over at New Mexico Watchdog (http://newmexico.watchdog.org) if you join our Facebook pages.
For Jim Scarantino sign up as a friend at Facebook by searching for James R. Scarantino.
For New Mexico Watchdog, search for New Mexico Watchdog and sign up as a fan.
Spread the word. We have a lot of important information to get out about how your money is being spent, but mostly, sadly misspent.
You can also get updates by following NMWatchdog on Twitter.
I’ve been away from the blogosphere (and New Mexico) for a few days because I’m attending the State Policy Network annual Conference in lovely Asheville, North Carolina. Needless to say, I’ve been busy, but learning alot.
Anyway, one thing I just found out about is this excellent, interactive website which helps people understand why some markets are so naturally so competitive (sodas and television sets) and some (military and police) are far less competitive and actually create a legitimate mission for government. While we at the Rio Grande Foundation push hard for increased emphasis on market as opposed to government forces, the site explains some of the potential benefits and difficulties of putting that into practice and some of the reasons politicians and policymakers will give for why markets are not applicable or as beneficial in certain instances.
Instead of rushing to cut services or raise taxes to find millions to plug budget holes, the Legislature might root around musty accounts held by boards, commissions, agencies and school districts. A recent report by Kansas Watchdog found billions–billions–in unencumbered or carryover accounts held by nearly 2,000 government agencies. These are funds not needed to meet bills or pay other obligations. The report took a long time and lots of effort. But when you find billions of dollars that could provide services and stimulate the economy instead of earn interest for bureaucrats, it could be worth the try.
It’s a very impressive effort by Kansas Watchdog, and maybe something that should be tried here. Particularly when educators and teachers unions want to raise taxes to meet “pressing needs” or “avoid damaging cuts” to education, we should learn from Kansas. Kansas Watchdog first got interested in unencumbered funds when it discovered over a billion dollars in unencumbered funds being held by “cash-strapped” school districts.
Back in August, the Albuquerque Journal broke a story saying that New Mexico’s real graduation rate for 2008 was 54 percent. Then the state revised the rate to 60 percent or so (although I could not find an exact statewide number).
Unfortunately, I’ve seen other studies like the “Diplomas Count” study which found that New Mexico’s graduation rate was 54.1 percent while the national rate was 70.6 percent. Seems like the Diplomas Count study is a lot more reflective of reality than the revised numbers. When will our government officials be honest about New Mexico’s education problem?
Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Our friends at the Institute for Justice are suing to remove that ban, thus expanding the availability of bone marrow donors. A video presentation on the lawsuit is available here.
The law in question in this particular case is The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 which treats compensating marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow could land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years.
For anyone who has even the most tenuous grasp on economics, it only makes sense that providing incentives for marrow donors would expand the potential pool of donors by encouraging people who otherwise might not do so to donate. Simple economics.
According to IJ’s analysis of the issue:
NOTA’s criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. The ban also violates substantive due process because it irrationally interferes with the right to participate in safe, accepted, lifesaving, and otherwise legal medical treatment.
I applaud IJ’s efforts and sincerely hope they succeed in breaking through yet another wall of medical socialism.
I understand the difference between “climate” and weather, but in my lifetime (34 years) which includes 21 years in Cincinnati and 9 in the DC area before moving to Albuquerque, I can’t recall significant snow falling before Halloween. Well, it is coming down hard today in Albuquerque. See picture below and realize that it is still coming down…hard:
Liberal New Mexico Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino writes a regular column for the Albuquerque Alibi. While we often disagree on policy, he wrote a column about the Mayoral race recently, “We Were Mugged” that had me disagreeing with some of his analysis of why Republican RJ Berry won. I’m not sure if Ortiz y Pino just wanted to cast doubt on the process, if he’s pushing for changes, or if it was just a case of sour grapes, but Democrats were not “mugged.”
You can read my fact-based response here.
We at the Rio Grande Foundation have long been critics of the massive subsidies — 25 cents on the dollar — not to mention $15 million interest free loans. But imagine my surprise when I saw that one of the two most important roads in New Mexico (I-40) was shut down for 6.5 hours yesterday. In their story on the shutdown, the Journal said the road was shut down for 3 hours, but the article also states “The film shut down Interstate 40 Eastbound just outside of Laguna Pueblo from 7pm to 1:30am.” Do the math.
Anyway, it seems mighty inconsiderate for citizens to be inconvenienced in such a way, not to mention the cost in terms of time and actual monetary losses experienced by trucking companies and others who need to move people and goods from A to B. I’d bet this runs into the millions. Oh, and how about emergencies? My wife is pregnant and someone could have had a medical issue necessitating transport. Are we really going to shut down major transportation arteries for every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to shoot a movie?
Rather than shutting down heavily-used and economically-important Interstate highways, perhaps our Governor and his beloved film industry would consider combining boondoggles. From the looks of things, the RailRunner would be a good place to do some filming, especially if empty rail cars are needed.
No wonder the Rail Runner is running huge operating deficits. Personal observations (and photographs) back up the numbers showing lots of red ink. Read “The Red Ink Express,” our recent report on the Rail Runner’s shortfalls.
While not receiving as many front page headlines as it did this summer and fall, the health care debate continues to rage in Washington. Recently, for starters, numbers showing the modest profits of health insurers became widespread in the media. This is a good thing, because the more educated the American people become on health care, the more likely they are to be concerned about government as a panacea for health care.
Of course, there are still those out there for whom government is the cure-all. Terry Schleder and Emil Shaw recently wrote an article on health care on behalf of the New Mexico Alliance for Retired Americans. Judging from their article which can be accessed here, the organization (or at least the perspective of the authors) is well to the left of AARP and just to the right of Mao.
Their arguments are summarized as follows:
1) Medicare is great (ignore those trillion dollar unfunded liabilities);
2) Health care is a human right (regardless of who is forced to provide it to us);
3) “Quasi-privatized” Medicaid and “parasitic” Medicare Advantage programs are evil (this despite the fact that as government programs, both are far from resembling anything oriented towards the free market);
So, that’s the basic left-wing point of view here in New Mexico. Never mind the concept of unlimited wants and limited resources. The health care fairy (government) knows what is best and will provide everything for everyone. No tradeoffs required except getting rid of those nasty businesses involved in health care.
On that note, check out NTU’s recent letter to MoveOn demanding a “public option” for all areas of the economy, not just health care.
In case you haven’t already seen it, the Rio Grande Foundation has launched a new site called New Mexico Watchdog. While the Rio Grande Foundation’s investigative reporter Jim Scarantino handles much of the day-to-day work associated with the project, we encourage others to provide tips and help us uncover new areas of wasteful and corrupt government.
A few weeks ago, the Albuquerque Business Journal carried a story by Winthrop Quigley with a lot of hand-wringing from policymakers over how to keep New Mexico’s “best and brightest” at home. Of course, the real issue should not be keeping highly educated New Mexico’s at home, rather the issue, if there is one, should be continuing to attract the most educated and economically-productive workers to the state. It matters not where they come from. Unfortunately, policymakers are missing the forest for the trees, so I responded with the following letter which appeared on Monday:
Take a tip from Texas
The UNM researchers and elected officials have it exactly wrong when they say, as Sen. Tim Keller did, that “we can’t expect to build a rich, diverse, growing economy when 60 percent of our work force leaves our state.” (“N.M. faces struggle to keep best and brightest at home”)
The importance of a strong educational system cannot be understated and reforms to our K-12 system and university systems are desperately needed but, contrary to Keller’s assertion, the way to improve our work force is to create a stronger economy in New Mexico. After all, bright people, whether they are from New Mexico or Ohio or Beijing will move to the places that have the most favorable economic climates and thus the most jobs available to them.
Texas is a good example of this. According to the Department of Labor, in 2008 Texas created 59 percent of all the new jobs in the country and the state’s unemployment rate remains about 2 percent lower than the national average. It is no surprise that Texas lacks a personal income tax and ranks highly in most studies relating to business friendliness.
New Mexico, while it has cut its income tax from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent in recent years, is not as business-friendly and our regulatory climate makes things difficult for entrepreneurs. Rather than spending money to bribe educated New Mexicans to stay home, legislators should abandon efforts to raise taxes to fill the budget deficit and focus on removing barriers to job creation in New Mexico. That is the way to keep the “best and brightest” at home.
Americans love their pets. Americans also love the environment and want to be green. While recycling and treading lightly on the land are not bad things, the hard-core environmentalists want to go much further than that. In fact, according to a new book called “Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living,” if Americans really want to be green, they need to get rid of Fido and Mr. Whiskers. Get your copy here.
According to the book, “The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year.” Cat owners are not off the hook either as “cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf.”
The good thing is that the truth about what environmentalists really want from us in terms of lifestyle changes is finally being made public. The bad news is that while cute and smart, I don’t think my Siberian Husky Jack will be very tasty:
