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?

This week’s question over at the New Mexico Independent Forum is one of the more difficult ones I’ve faced as a panelist on that forum. The issue that we’re all dealing with is the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. You can read my response here. Of course, the liberal panelists view the oil and gas industries as unmitigated evil-doers, bent on plundering the environment for as much loot as they can pocket.

The truth is that oil and gas are essential to the US economy and we all benefit from them — even the left-wing enviros –but the unfortunate fact is that deep water drilling is obviously not perfect technology.

The other issue surrounding the oil spill that it is somehow a vindication of “big government.” While use of the military to help clean up the oil spill in the Gulf is certainly a worthy role for government, it hardly justifies the rapid growth of the federal government.

In case you missed the Channel 13 news at 10pm, here is an excellent story for which I was interviewed. The story details the very generous government perk received by City employees who leave the bureaucracy for whatever reason and have built up a great deal of sick and vacation time.

A few important aspects of the story include:

1) According to Christine Trujillo the AFL-CIO, City employees “donate a lot of time and energy to their jobs;”
2) No one in the private sector receives such a generous payout (if they receive anything) for their unused sick or vacation time;
3) Government workers in New Mexico, including City workers, are paid as well or better than their peers in the private sector. Check out our study here. According to our data which is taken from federal numbers, state and local government workers in New Mexico earn 11.5 percent more than those in the private sector in terms of total compensation for their work.

What kind of an outfit presenting a $500 million letter of credit has its “corporate offices” in a UPS store on the west side of Sin City?  The kind of outfit that is part of the team behind the effort to get Rio Rancho to issue half a billion in industrial revenue bonds to launch solar start-up Green2v.  Eclipse Aviation on steroids?  There are some mighty strange things in this story we report at New Mexico Watchdog.

If you follow the work of the Rio Grande Foundation closely, you might be amazed at the amount of work we do and the impact we’re having on public policy debates in New Mexico. In particular, this involves getting the pro-liberty, limited government message out in a place (New Mexico) that is in desperate need of it. Far be it from me to toot our own horn, but I don’t think there is another organization anywhere near our size that has as dramatic an impact on public policy debates. Just ask the paranoid liberals over at Albuquerque Journal Watch who said this recently “The Rio Grande Foundation’s unannounced reign over the Albuquerque Journal’s op-ed page continues unabated.”

Why is that? Well, I’d like to take all the credit or at least share it between myself and other employees, but it isn’t just us. Think tanks are really great vehicles for policy change. Read more about why that is true in this excellent article. Oh, and if you support our work and want to help us, please consider making a donation here.

Free trade works. If you don’t believe it, John Stossel’s most recent show explained its benefits nicely.

In fact, one of the greatest (under-appreciated) achievements of the US Constitution was that it set up a free trade area in the US that now contains a total of 50 states. Unfortunately, in Construction, as I read in today’s Albuquerque Journal, there is a web of preferences (barriers to free trade) that has been erected in order to improve the prospects of supposedly New Mexico-based construction companies in receiving public construction projects in the state. Other states have similar laws.

The reason for all the coverage in today’s paper is that New Mexico’s law is too easy to circumvent and that out-of-state construction companies are winnning projects and taking business away from New Mexico-firms. Sen. Tim Keller wants to strengthen New Mexico’s laws to more strongly favor New Mexico companies.

I don’t get it. In-state favoritism is bad policy and New Mexico, rather than attempting to further favor in-state contractors, should work with other states to abolish these bad laws. After all, it is ultimately taxpayers that lose out from this kind of trade war. If an out-of-state company can do the job better and/or cheaper (thus winning the firm the project), we’d be foolish not to hire them to do the job. As for New Mexico-based construction workers, it would seem that even out-of-state companies doing projects here would want to hire local workers rather than bearing the costs of importing out-of-state workers.

Some, talking heads, especially on the left, have been calling the bailout of General Motors a bailout “success story.” Said, Bill Press on the occasion of GM supposedly paying back its federal loan, “Time for all the nay-sayers to admit they were wrong. Say it loud and clear: No doubt about it, the auto industry bail-out worked!”

But is that the real story? Of course not! As Shikha Dalmia of Reason explains in her excellent Forbes column, the amount given to GM by the Obama Administration is far greater than GM and its advocates recognize and the company is still a very long way from paying this debt back.

Of course, there is the small moral issue of forcibly taking my money and giving it to a private business, but that is so commonplace these days…

The Rio Grande Foundation is working with America Speaks , a non-partisan organization that attempts to spur dialogue on the most important issues of the day. You are cordially invited to participate in an unprecedented National Town Meeting to discuss our budget and our economy

On Saturday, June 26, 2010, thousands of Americans across the country will join together in a National Town Meeting to discuss the fiscal future of our country. Albuquerque is one of the six primary locations across the country where participants will be connected via satellite video, webcast and interactive technologies. Additional smaller gatherings and discussions will take place simultaneously in other cities across the nation and those locations too will be connected to the primary sites via webcast and interactive technologies.

In Albuquerque we will begin this historic Town Meeting at 9:30 am and the meeting will run to 4:00 pm.

We will meet at the Albuquerque Convention Center, 401 2nd Street NW, Ballroom A

We invite you to join the discussion.

Register now
To participate, you must register.

There is no fee to register and lunch and snacks will be provided free. Where possible, childcare, transportation assistance and translation services will be provided. The Albuquerque Convention Center is ADA accessible.

To register
Log on to: http://usabudgetdiscussion.org Click on “Participate” found at the top of the page.
On your right, in the vertical menu, under “Join the Discussion” click on Albuquerque. This will open up the Registration form. Complete and submit the Registration form.

You can also register by calling toll-free at 866-755-6263
Space is limited so register now !

Your voice will be heard !
Participants in the Town Meeting will reflect the political, socio-economic, and ethnic diversity of the United States. After June 26, AmericaSpeaks will present the priorities that emerge from the National Town Meeting to Congress and President Obama, as well as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and the Bi-Partisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force. The results that emerge from the discussion will have credibility with policy makers because they will reflect the authentic views of a large, informed, and representative group of Americans. The discussion will not be manipulated by any side or point of view, and will give the American public a real chance to find common ground.

For additional information, visit the America Speaks website at: http://usabudgetdiscussion.org or email Mikki Anaya, Albuquerque Site Manager at: manaya@americspeaks.org

Who is AmericaSpeaks? AmericaSpeaks is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with the mission to reinvigorate American democracy by engaging citizens in the public decision-making that most impacts their lives. Over the past 15 years, we have engaged more than 150,000 people across the country on some of the most pressing issues facing our communities and our nation, including the rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, economic development in Northeast Ohio, and creating municipal budget priorities for Washington, DC. We have done so through innovative meetings that integrate authentic deliberation with new kinds of technology.

AmericaSpeaks takes pride in its reputation as an honest and neutral advocate for public participation. We play a unique role in the policymaking process by serving as a non-partisan convener of forums that provide the public with an opportunity to make decisions about important issues without fear of manipulation or bias. Our ability to help citizens and elected officials come together around tough public issues is dependent on our commitment to maintaining this neutral role. We have not and will never take a position on the outcomes of the national discussion.

Carter Bundy with the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), recently attacked the Rio Grande Foundation on NMPolitics.net. The gist of his argument was that we at the Rio Grande Foundation are not seriously engaged in solving New Mexico’s public policy issues and that we are just “out to get” government workers because of the problems that have occurred in the private sector.

Well, there is a lot of meat on that bone, so to speak. Government workers have a lot at stake in terms of growing government. I respond to Bundy and make a number of points of my own. Check it out over at NMPolitics.net. And, if you like what you read, please leave a comment!

I just love how advocates for massively-subsidized transit will obfuscate reality and throw up smokescreens in order to defend their favorite boondoggles. A case in point is the article in today’s Albuquerque Journal by Ike Benton and Chris Blewett. The article is downright silly in so many of its statements in response to Mark Mathis’s recent, excellent column on stopping the Rail Runner that it almost doesn’t deserve a response, but the issue is sufficiently controversial, that I’ll respond below. In the meantime, if you want to find out more about the ways in which transit advocates attempt to sell these projects, regardless of their impact on taxpayers, attend our meeting with transportation expert Randal O’Toole on Thursday, May 6.

First and foremost, regardless of the exact costs of construction, both sides agree that the Rail Runner cost in excess of $400 million to build. 100% of this money comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. This is a huge expense that Benton and Blewett do not honestly account for. After all, a highway lane would be paid for by gas taxes (a user-fee paid by motorists);

Then, Benton and Blewett make the argument that the “real” congestion problem is not BETWEEN Albuquerque and Santa Fe, but WITHIN the two cities. Fair enough. So, why would we build a commuter rail train (the RailRunner) between the two cities? After all, the Rail Runner only has only three stops within each city. The train runs for more than 100 miles between Belen and Bernalillo. Why didn’t we spend the money — far less would be necessary — on bus rapid transit or something that will actually target our “real” congestion issues?

Then, there is the issue of other cities and their rail boondoggles. Benton and Blewett imply that it is inevitable that cities embark on these projects at some point in the future. The fact is that the rail projects in these other cities are every bit as wasteful and unnecessary as the Rail Runner. Unfortunately, there is a transit lobbying interest that holds a great deal of sway in pushing these projects forward. If you want to find out more about this transit lobby (and arm yourself with ways to stop it), I cannot stress how important Randal O’Toole’s presentation is.

This week’s question at the New Mexico Independent Forum centered around Blue Cross Blue Shield New Mexico and its recent efforts to raise rates on individual policies relatively dramatically (in excess of 20% this year). As a policyholder with Blue Cross, I am impacted directly by this, but unlike government from which we all should demand close to 100% transparency, I don’t think hearings are the best way to decide whether an insurance company can or should raise prices.

The real issue at hand here is the need for federal market-based health care reforms and some at the state level here in New Mexico as well. In a competitive, market-based health care market (like car insurance), there would be no need for an elaborate, inefficient, and costly hearing system. Unfortunately, that is not what we have and ObamaCare is not a step in the right direction.

Over the weekend the Kerry/Graham/Lieberman Climate Change Legislation—commonly known as Cap and Trade—was postponed. It was scheduled to be introduced, but it has been delayed (at least briefly). Supporters were expecting it pass by June or July. Reports now predict that it may not get on the legislative calendar this year.

An article out of Rueters closed with this: “If Congress fails to approve climate legislation this year, it could try again in 2011. If all efforts collapse in Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said it would begin regulating greenhouse gases for the first time, an outcome business and environmental groups wish to avoid. They prefer legislation tailored to their needs.”

With this in mind, now is the opportune time for opposition to U.S. EPA’s plans to be heard. Our friends over at the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy are looking for business owners, trade associations, and corporations who are willing to sign the letter below which will be sent to Senators Udall and Bingaman. To participate, we need a scan of your signature, a jpg of your logo and how you want to be listed (such as: Marita K. Noon, Executive Director, Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy).

If you receive this invitation to participate, but are not a business owner, a trade association representative, or corporate spokesperson, please forward this to anyone you know who fits this profile.

We need to strike while the iron is hot. Ideally, we will get this letter out by the end of this week. If you have questions about the U.S. EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act, please contact Marita at Marita@responsiblenergy.org or 505.239.8998.

Here is the letter:

(List of businesses and groups) collectively write to urge you to support the Murkowski resolution prohibiting the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Your support of this resolution will help save New Mexico’s businesses, jobs, and families.

As you are aware, the U.S. EPA announced last December its intention to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA. U. S. EPA made this announcement despite ongoing efforts on Capitol Hill to address climate change and energy issues.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has introduced a resolution to prevent the U. S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gases because, she believes, Congress is a more appropriate forum for addressing such major issues that have economy-wide impacts. We agree that this is a matter for Congress, not the U. S. EPA.

While we (the above businesses and organizations) may have a variety of different viewpoints on climate change and energy issues, we all agree that U. S. EPA regulations would be all cap and no trade. This approach would be inflexible and cost prohibitive, thereby hurting New Mexico businesses, workers and families.

The Murkowski resolution is expected to come up for a Senate vote within the next few weeks. We are asking you to declare your support for the Murkowski resolution as soon as possible. The future of New Mexico may depend on this vote.

Please let us know if you need more information or if we can help you otherwise with respect to this vital matter.

The Lt. Governor has no real power. She sits on boards, presides over the Senate, votes in cases of a tie, etc.  But she has a small staff, and no executive powers to direct any part of state government.  Yet, she flew around the state for brief meetings, photo ops and parades.  Sometimes her only passenger in a jet with two pilots (costing us over $1,200 per hour) was her husband.  What’s interesting is the comparison between our Lt. Gov. and the Governor of the entire state of Texas.  That state has five times the land mass of New Mexico, a lot more people and a whole lot more photo opps awaiting.  But Perry uses state aircraft “sparingly” according to a report by Texas Watchdog.  In the period of time they examined, he used state jets only five times, not including eight trips to responed to the Hurricane Ike crisis.  Denish, by comparison, used state planes 26 times, and her use spiked before elections.  We hash it out over at New Mexico Watchdog.

A new study called “Taxifornia,” by the free-market Pacific Research Institute studies state tax burdens and mechanisms for tax collection nationwide. As you might be able to assume from the study’s title, California does not perform especially well. In fact, according to the study, California’s state and local spending as a share of gross state product is fourth-highest in the nation (New York, South Carolina, and Alaska score worse).

What does this all mean for us in New Mexico? Well, we happen to be fifth worst in terms of spending, only slightly worse than California. Where’s Texas? Not surprisingly, Texas’ tax burden is third-lowest in America with only South Dakota and Delaware lower.

Given this data, it is no surprise that California is quickly becoming America’s equivalent of Greece. It is also not surprising that Texas’s economy is one of the healthiest in the nation.

Needless to say, New Mexico policymakers have long relied on federal spending to make our economy run. Given the need to cut federal spending, it would be great if we decided to change directions by taking a cue from economically-robust Texas rather than failing California.

If you haven’t been following the debate over Albuquerque’s budget, government employee unions are winning. The debate is over whether to cut the employee pay by about 3% as Mayor Berry has proposed or whether to raise taxes or embark on some other hare-brained schemes (like looking for precious metals in local landfills…why don’t they do this on their own time?) proposed by the unions.

Unfortunately, if public outcry is any indicator, the unions are the only ones paying attention. At the first budget hearing on Thursday, April 22, hundreds of city workers and union representatives packed the council chambers. The chambers were filled to capacity with overflow – probably over 400 people were there. 39 people signed up for public comment and most opposed the mayors proposal and expressed anger at any cuts. They encouraged a raise in taxes to “spread the burden to all city taxpayers.” Only one person out of 39 spoke on behalf of fiscal responsibility and protecting private citizens. This person was shouted out of the chambers by the crowd!

There were no tea party representatives and almost no voice for “limiting government, constraining government spending and taxation, and advancing a free market economy”. Unfortunately, I was out of town at one of two annual meetings I attend.

Albuquerque is the largest city in the state. When it comes to the cause that the tea party and all of us are working for I believe that this is the epicenter of our fight. If we (including the tea party) say we are in the fight, but are not fighting in this battle, then I believe we are not in the fight at all.

The next budget hearing is May 6th at 5:00 p.m at Council Chambers downtown. People can sign up for public comment if they arrive and sign up before 4:30 p.m. Hopefully the Albuquerque Tea Party and concerned citizens will make their voices heard before it is too late.

In case you missed it, our investigative journalist over at New Mexico Watchdog, Jim Scarantino, has done it again. This time he exposed the inappropriate use of state vehicles at the New Mexico Department of Corrections. Channel 7 picked up the story and ran with it.

University of New Mexico’s president David Schmidly responded to my comment in the Albuquerque Journal, in which I pointed out that while Central New Mexico Community College has found cost-savings per student, University of New Mexico has increased costs per student. While the response is appreciated, UNM’s president has not responded to the substance of my complaint. I dissect his response below.

Efficiency is the key to the future of higher education. Our institutions must work diligently to make their operations more efficient, thereby bolstering the resources dedicated to student success.

Schmidly sounds like an economist here. But, “efficiency” is a toothless concept if we do not define it in terms of inputs and outputs. Efficiency has a both a numerator and a denominator. My op-ed talks about dollars per student. We could talk more specifically about dollars per English major, or even more specifically about dollars per C-average student in freshman English. We could further control for the quality of incoming students: How much does it cost UNM to train a C-average student with a middling SAT score into an average university writer? We don’t have data to make such detailed comparisons, but this is the direction we should proceed in. Alternative metrics are also welcome, so long as they can actually measure something.

The need for additional efficiencies does not increase or diminish in times of economic boom or bust. Rather it should always be the guiding motivation for all of our public institutions.

In fact, the need for additional efficiencies is greater than ever. The university is part of an economic system in which a decreasing amount of economic output means, ceteris paribus, less revenue for the state government. The state is the majority funder of higher education, thus its economic problems also belong to the state universities. Since post-secondary institutions purport to be generators of economic growth, economic trouble forces the question: Does higher ed generate returns sufficient to justify its costs?

The University of New Mexico has identified $6 million in cost-containment measures in developing its fiscal 2011 budget. The Strategic Advisory Team that I charged with finding efficient and cost-effective ways to conduct university operations will continue its work, as additional and more creative efficiencies must be found to help balance future budgets.

This is wonderful news. I would welcome a discussion with UNM (and other state universities) about the particulars of the cost savings they have found. It is worth asking what these areas of savings are and if we can generalize any conclusions from UNM’s experience.  It is helpful to know how to evaluate which programs are worthwhile, and which are not. This goes back to the question of metrics which is rooted in a theory of what education is attempting to accomplish, and what role it plays in the state’s economy.

Though the premise of targeting inefficiency found in a recent opinion piece from the Rio Grande Foundation showed promise, we find the content disturbing in its oversimplification. Building an argument based on the comparison of a community college and a flagship research university makes no sense, as the operations in mission and scope are too different to even allow comparison.

In fact, my argument is not based on a comparison of a community college and a research university. My Albuquerque Journal op-ed is a derivative product of a larger policy study that asks why some NM schools’ costs have gone up while others have gone down. To say that there is no possible comparison is to completely avoid the challenge.  Asking why the costs are different is an invitation to explain why this difference exists, which should lead to a discourse about what higher education is (and ought to be) pursuing.

Yet we find media stories seeking to do this as though the two were interchangeable. Outstanding community colleges like Central New Mexico prepare their students with skills to enter the workforce or to continue their education at a four-year institution. They offer affordability, accessibility and flexibility.
Research universities like UNM go beyond preparation to provide opportunities to pursue advanced degrees in specialized fields with faculty recognized nationally and internationally in their fields. They provide professional degrees in areas like architecture, law, pharmacy and medicine. They offer research libraries, Division I athletics, housing, museums, a comprehensive health sciences center and a teaching hospital. With all that, UNM remains affordable and accessible when compared to its peers.

So, this brings us closer to a fair comparison. But, what of those services that are comparable? Will UNM’s president join me in a call for complete transparency? I would propose a department-by-department comparison between state universities and with national peers.  How does UNM compare to CNM in subjects they both teach? Further, what does it actually cost UNM to produce architects, lawyers, pharmacists, and medical doctors?

CNM and UNM have different missions but we share the same goal — preparing our students to be contributing citizens, providers for themselves and their families, and the scholars who will lead us further into the 21st century.
We must never forget the true costs of failing to invest in the education of our children, failing to give them the opportunity to reach their highest potential, failing to search for the cures and solutions to our most pressing challenges.
It is through partnerships such as the one modeled by CNM and UNM that the real efficiencies and success of higher education will be realized.

All of this is lovely, positive talk. In order to translate good thoughts into reality requires seriously talking about how the cost structure of higher ed works and what is driving some schools to increase costs while others appear to be saving money.

Someone once said, “A goal without a plan is just a dream.” Similarly, rhetoric without accountability is just cheap talk.

Higher ed in New Mexico can be more cost effective. UNM’s efforts towards dialogue and reform efforts are appreciated and admirable. But, we have much work to do.

Good to see that we at the Rio Grande Foundation are not the only ones concerned with the costs associated with the Rail Runner. Mark Mathis penned an enlightening and humorous op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal demanding that our political leaders put a stop to the boondoggle.

Find out more about national views on the Rail Runner at our May 6th event with Randal O’Toole.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation usually tackle state and local spending here in New Mexico, but the Los Alamos labs are a major federal investment in the Land of Enchantment. I recently teamed with the folks over at the left-leaning Los Alamos Study Group to discuss some massively expensive spending projects that have been proposed for the Los Alamos labs.

Check out the article from the Los Alamos Monitor here.

The Contract From America is excellent, you can sign on here. Read the full Contract below. It is far stronger than the Contract with America.

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.
Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.
Limited Government

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.
Economic Freedom

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

1. Protect the Constitution
Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget
Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending
Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork
Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes
Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

Are you concerned that your kids are being bombarded with pro-green propaganda in their school? If so, check out Balanced Education for Everyone. The organization is helping parents fight the bureaucracy and stop Al Gore and his extremist propaganda from providing one-sided fear-mongering to impressionable children.

If you want to find out more and actually get involved, especially if you have children in school, drop us a line at info@riograndefoundation.org and we’ll help you work with Balanced Education for Everyone.

New Mexico has made some dramatic strides in making government more accessible to citizens and taxpayers. I congratulate deserving political leaders for their efforts and outline some ways in which further improvement could be achieve in this recent article.