This week’s podcast of “Speaking Freely” is now posted. Take a listen by clicking here. I spoke to Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute about the “cap and trade” bill which can be found here. Organizations like the National Taxpayers Union are rallying Americans to oppose this $2 trillion+ boondoggle.
In addition to the Ebell interview, I discuss the Albuquerque tea party and their efforts during President Obama’s recent visit to Rio Rancho.

I am an avid Pittsburgh Steeler fan. If you know me personally, you are probably know that already. This made this story about the team’s visit to the White House especially interesting. The blogger calls Harrison “sort of a fool” for not visiting Obama with the rest of the team. For his part, Harrison has been bi-partisan in his President spurning as he didn’t join the team when it visited President Bush the last time the Steelers won the Super Bowl.
It’s nothing personal against Obama or Bush. In fact, Harrison points out:

If you want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers, invite us when we don’t win the Super Bowl. As far as I’m concerned, he [Obama] would’ve invited Arizona if they had won.

The fact is that politicians of all stripes like to surround themselves with winners to make them look good. Obama and Bush are no different. Sure, there are lots of people who would kill to meet Obama, but if hanging out with politicos isn’t your thing, and it doesn’t seem to be Harrison’s, then why bother? So, I support Harrison for having the strength of character to say “no” to a President (and not just any President). It would be great if more of us avoided the hero/celebrity worship so prevalent in our culture, especially when it comes to politicians.

This video is quite funny:
It reminds me of the great Simpson’s number “The Garbage Man Can.”:

Hopefully Americans wake up and realize that government simply can’t and shouldn’t do everything for us.

It looks more and more likely every day that Obama will make a serious push this summer and fall for his government-managed health care “reforms.” Recently, I blogged on health care as a pro-life issue. The powerpoint discussion I used during the presentation is now posted online.

Federal legislation that would place draconian restrictions on all areas of the U.S. economy through the adoption of “cap-and-trade” legislation is now moving through Congress. The Waxman-Markey legislation would impose a new “cap” on carbon-dioxide emissions. By 2020, the cap would be set at 17 percent below 2005 levels.
I recently wrote about this and other anti-energy policies now being pushed nationally and in New Mexico. Furthermore, this Saturday morning from 9am to 10am on AM 1550, I will discuss the issues surrounding global warming and cap-and-trade with Myron Ebell, an expert on energy and global warming policy at the Washington, DC-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the leading organizations that has consistently been critical of efforts to regulate economic activities related to the supposed problem of global warming.

Even though I couldn’t get on to the campus of Rio Rancho High to interview people about Obama’s talk (video of the town hall can be accessed here), I did have an opportunity later on in the day to lead a panel discussion on Obama’s talk, specifically relating to his proposals for imposing federal regulations on the credit card industry. You can listen to the audio along with the rest of our “Speaking Freely” shows here.
Not surprisingly, many consumers would like to pay lower interest rates on credit card debt, but such regulations could also wind up making it more difficult for responsible consumers to obtain such cards. Besides, if you don’t want a credit card, you don’t have to get one.

Earlier this morning, I and a few colleagues from the Tea Party movement went over to Rio Rancho High School armed with a video camera in order to do some “man on the street” interviews with those attending President Obama’s speech and those who were protesting. The interviews were to be posted online at Pajamas Media.
Unfortunately, even though my camera man and I had no intentions of going into the talk, the police told us we needed tickets in order to even step foot on campus. This included the sidewalk in front of the high school. That made it pretty difficult to get access to people attending the event for interviews. Making the situation worse is the fact that the only parking available anywhere near the event was in a neighborhood that the police told us would be on “lock down” until 11am. That would have made it impossible to get over to AM 1550 for my post-speech discussion of Obama’s talk, so we had to leave.
Nonetheless, AM 1550 is going to simulcast Obama’s speech which is slated to start around 10am. Immediately following the talk, I’ll be appearing on a panel to discuss the talk on the station. You can listen to AM 1550 online here.

Yesterday I had a letter in the Albuquerque Journal on our recent analysis of the conflicting New Mexico film industry studies. Then I saw this little missive from film industry hack (he’s the business agent for the local film industry union) Jon Hendry.
Hendry sure is an arrogant fellow. First he hits the Journal. Thankfully, the newspapers are not getting 25% back for every dollar they spend in New Mexico as is his industry, but if they were, you can bet the Journal would be doing just fine. Then he explains that Ernst & Young has a lot of employees (so what) and uses this as a supposed argument to discredit the Arrowhead Center. He certainly seems to have something against Arrowhead, but he never makes a specific argument, he just throws mud. And then he finally attempts to “trash” me. No links, no real arguments, just a bunch of b.s.
If Jon Hendry is the best the IATSE 480 local can do, what does that say about the sad state of union leadership in this country? If you’re going to take the time to write a several paragraph blog posting, at least give me some facts to chew on, not just a bunch of ad-hominem and disrespect for anyone who disagrees with your perspective. Mr. Hendry, if you want to engage on the issue, I encourage you to give it your best shot here on this blog.

In case you missed it this weekend, Jim Scarantino and I interviewed Albuquerque City Councilor Michael Cadigan this weekend on “Speaking Freely.” As usual, the podcast of this show is now posted on our website here.

Recently, we at the Rio Grande Foundation released a study analyzing each of New Mexico’s various film studies and their real economic impact. A letter to the editor on this report has published in this morning’s Albuquerque Journal. Also, Jim Scarantino was interviewed by columnist Robert Nott for the Santa Fe New Mexican’s “Pasatiempo” section. Check that interview out here.

I am told that the House Energy and Commerce Committee (chaired by Henry Waxman) is busily trying to get momentum to pass Waxman-Markey global warming legislation (still in draft form) through the committee (possibly even bypassing their own normal subcommittee process). This is obviously a tremendously important issue to all Americans, but especially here in New Mexico, a state that relies heavily on the 23,000 jobs created in the oil and gas industries (not to mention other natural resource intensive industries).
Paul Chesser, a colleague of mine in the State Policy Network movement has blogged about the Waxman-Markey bill over at American Spectator. The basic point Chesser makes is that Waxman-Markey would cost billions of dollars in energy taxes and lost economic growth with virtually no impact on the climate one way or the other.

Tomorrow morning from 9am to 10am, Jim and I will be interviewing Councilor Michael Cadigan on “Speaking Freely” on AM 1550. Cadigan had originally planned to run for Mayor and was not going to run for re-election to Albuquerque City Council. Recently, he decided to re-enter the Council race. Cadigan is also a strong critic of Mayor Martin Chavez.
This is the first “Speaking Freely” discussion we’ll be having with the candidates for Mayor and City Council in Albuquerque. Tune in and call in live (even online) or check out the podcast at our website.

Not surprisingly, New Mexico Sen. Comrade Ortiz y Pino is not a big fan of the Tea Party Movement. He shared his views of what he calls the “tea baggers” here in The Alibi. I responded to his negativity with my own take on the tea party efforts and why Ortiz y Pino is flat out wrong. You can see my response here (2nd letter on the page).

A friend of mine who considers himself to be an environmentalist just bought a new pickup truck — I believe it is a Chevy Silverado — not exactly a small truck. He’s not in the construction trade and as far as I know he doesn’t haul stuff very often (I question why he bought a pickup in the first place).
But, he tells me, this truck is environmentally-friendly because it accepts ethanol. Well, unfortunately for my environmentalist friend (and others purported to be concerned about global warming), the latest study of the topic shows that ethanol actually increases the gases that supposedly cause global warming.
The study concluded that:

Farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly “plow up more forest or grasslands,” releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.

So, it looks like ethanol really is not an environmentally-friendly alternative to gasoline. I look forward to Congress eliminating it from our fuel supply soon….but ethanol really never was about global warming or even “energy independence,” rather ethanol is a massive giveaway to the corn and food processing industries.

Robert Samuelson pretty much nails it in this column. This column although originally run in the Washington Post, appeared recently in the Albuquerque Journal While Obama claims to be attempting to grow our economy and increase the availability of jobs, he is attempting to quash the development of those jobs if it means upsetting his Luddite friends in the environmental movement.
In summarizing the situation, Samuelson writes:

Encouraging more U.S. (oil and gas) production would also aid economic recovery, because the promise of “green jobs” is wildly exaggerated. Consider: In 2008, the oil and gas industries employed 1.8 million people. Jobs in the solar and wind industries are reckoned (by their trade associations) to be 35,000 and 85,000, respectively. Now do the arithmetic: A 5 percent rise in oil jobs (90,000) approaches a doubling for wind and solar (120,000). Modest movements, up or down, in oil will swamp “green” jobs.

I hesitated and delayed for weeks. I don’t fancy myself to be on the cutting edge when it comes to technology…in fact, I consider myself to be a “late adapter” when it comes to most technology. But, other free market advocates have been very persuasive in convincing me of the benefits of Twitter. So, in case you are interested in following what I (and the Rio Grande Foundation) are up to, sign up to follow me at my Twitter profile page.
If you’re not sure about whether to make the plunge or not, find out more about Twitter here.

Since April 15 and the outpouring of taxpayer anger that manifested itself in the form of the tea party movement, a great deal has been made about what they mean. I discussed this issue with a couple of liberal skeptics on the Venus Transit Authority radio show on KRSN AM 1490 which is based in Los Alamos. Listen to the discussion below.
<a href="

“>

If you’ve been reading this blog over the last week, you are probably aware that the guys from “Motorhome Diaries” were in town over the weekend. I sat down and discussed the Rio Grande Foundation’s successes and the overall state of liberty in New Mexico. Check out the interview below:

It seems that Governor Richardson and the City of Santa Fe are dead set on saving the bankrupt College of Santa Fe. Richardson has pledged $11 million for the school — don’t you love how politicians, particularly the executive branch, can arbitrarily throw massive amounts of money around regardless of what the Legislature does or what might be best for the average citizen? The Governor is not alone. The City of Santa Fe is moving forward with a plan to purchase the College through a massive (and I might add, risky) issuance of bonds.
Of course, it would seem that perhaps the College’s failure might be due to inadequate demand for its services or a lack of perceived value for the price from potential customers (see the Big 3 for further details), but unlike the private sector which self-regulates by squeezing out inferior and unnecessary products, government has every incentive in the world to provide a taxpayer-funded bailout.
While the current economic situation would be painful enough by itself, it is government policies that are extending the pain to taxpayers and others who were largely blameless. Hopefully Governor Richardson and the City of Santa Fe allow the College of Santa Fe to play its part in the cycle of “creative destruction,” but if history is any guide, New Mexico taxpayers will soon be paying once again for someone else’s mistakes.

No, this is not a sales pitch for anything — except my writing I suppose. The Examiner is a website that aggregates locally-focused content and allows users to choose the content that interests them. There are “left-liberal”, “libertarian,” and “immigration” Examiners so that you can look for the content on local topics of interest that you want. I am the Albuquerque “conservative” Examiner.
Some of you may even consider yourself an expert on particular issues may want to consider writing as an Examiner on a particular topic for the site. Check here to find potential openings. They do pay, but only if people actually read what you write. Anyway, it is yet another way to access local content and I’m sure the site will only grow and improve over time.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have been harshly critical of both the Albuquerque Streetcar and the Rail Runner. It is not because we have an irrational hatred for trains, rather it is the burdens these projects place on taxpayers. After all, while roads and airlines are largely self-sufficient (and I’d be happy to see government cut them free to become even more-so) trains are incredibly expensive.
President Obama’s plan to spend at least $5 billion to subsidize a high-speed rail network is the latest example of a politician who has fallen in love with the lure of taxpayer-subsidies for passenger rail. Like the RailRunner (but on a larger and more expensive scale because it is supposed to operate at higher speeds) Obama’s plan will prove to be a wasteful and costly boondoggle.
Obama’s high-speed rail plan is actually nothing new. In fact, back in 2001 when I worked for the National Taxpayers Union, I critiqued a plan put forth by then-Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, (a Republican) Don Young to spend $71 billion to build a nationwide high speed rail network.
Thankfully, Obama’s plan is scaled back relative to Young’s, but the massive $787 billion “stimulus” passed earlier this year actually put the plan into motion.

With New Mexico’s State Investment Council (SIC) mired in scandal and under attack from the Rio Grande Foundation, the media, and others concerned about rampant mis-steps and improprieties, Governor Bill Richardson has taken a first step by firing a private equity adviser under scrutiny in a kickback probe of New York state’s pension fund. This is a good start and a victory for the Rio Grande Foundation, but firing one investment is not going to solve the systemic problems inherent in the SIC.
Sen. Steve Neville’s legislation (SB 460) that would have expanded the SIC and taken it from under the thumb of the Governor was, not surprisingly, vetoed by Governor Richardson. Of course, expanding the SIC will have some positive impact, but restricting the Council’s discretion to invest for job creation is also an important change that could be made. Ultimately, rather than letting government bureaucrats control massive pools of money, we need to ask ourselves whether these resources would be better managed by individual New Mexicans making decisions in the broader economy.

Despite the drumbeat out of Washington from the media and special interests, a recent poll conducted by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, shows that Americans don’t trust the federal government to improve America’s health care system. An article about the poll results can be accessed here.
The most important finding is that 57% of Americans have little or no faith in “a panel of experts appointed by the federal government to make recommendations on which tests and treatments insurance should pay for.” Given all the focus on the federal government as that solution to our problems, it is heartening to know that Americans are not blindly following those who would lead them down the primrose path towards socialized medicine.
In fact, many of the worst health care problems we face nationally and in New Mexico are the direct result of current government policies. Does anyone really think that the government which manages the Post Office, failing schools, and so many other areas of the economy that are not achieving their potential.

Ever wondered whether New Mexico’s film subsidies have a positive or negative impact on the state economy? We’ve certainly had a hunch for a long time that such targeted and generous economic incentives are unwise and not economically beneficial.
Well, now we know…and we were right. First, there was the Arrowhead Center Study which found that the subsidies provided a return of only $.14 on the dollar. Then there was the Governor’s study by Ernst & Young which found returns of $1.50 on the dollar.
Now, there is a third study by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) that was buried. As our investigative journalist, Jim Scarantino discusses in his new report “A Modern Spaghetti Western: Shooting Holes in the Ernst & Young Study of Film Industry Subsidies,” the LFC found numerous problems with the Ernst & Young Study.
Among the major problems:

* Instead of looking at payroll data, Ernst & Young utilized information collected from on-line and telephone surveys of the film industry – surveys coincidentally commissioned by a defensive Film Office. Furthermore, that information was collected at a time when the film industry was aware of the growing skepticism about the generous film subsidies they were receiving.
* Then Ernst & Young did something not seen in any other film industry study. They added in the income of millionaire movie stars, producers and directors, some of whom make 100 times or more the income of a film crew member. As a result, the average New Mexico film industry job income jumped to $91,396! That figure is also higher than reported in any other film industry study – higher than studies conducted in Louisiana, Arizona, Seattle, Florida, even New York City.
* Lastly, Ernst & Young excluded the cost to taxpayers of making interest-free loans to Hollywood. At a simple annual interest rate of 5% on a $15 million loan (the largest given out under the program), taxpayers are giving up $750,000 in interest annually. On a six-year loan, the loss to taxpayers exceeds $13 million. Yet, Ernst & Young completely excluded this enormous expense from its calculations of the cost to New Mexico of the film industry subsidies.

The fact is that New Mexico’s film industry is not a money-maker for taxpayers and with $60 million being spent annually to attract the industry, legislators need to cap or reduce the generosity of these subsidies. Using the leftover money to cut taxes on all New Mexico businesses would be a nice way to use the money to increase economic growth.