I’m calling for a “buycott.” Not a “boycott,” but a “buycott.” If you read the Business section of today’s Albuquerque Journal, you may have an idea what I’m talking about. You have probably seen the “shame on” banners around town in front of certain businesses. It turns out that an out-of-town union, the Los Angeles-based Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters is behind the “shame on” banners, but they wouldn’t even tell the Journal’s Rivkela Brodsky why exactly they are attempting to give these businesses a black eye.

So, I hope you’ll join me in this “buycott” by actively helping these businesses whenever possible. Patronize them and when you do, tell their employees or a manger if you can find them that you are actively counteracting the union thuggery. An active “buycott” will show these union thugs that they are not welcome in Albuquerque, but we need your help. The unions are not picketing 24/7 and they only picket once in a while — after all, they are hiring minimum wage, non-union workers to do their dirty work.

So, I hope you’ll help me compile a list of businesses that have been targeted by this out-of-state carpenter’s union. If you see these “shame on” banners around town, send us an email at: info@riograndefoundation.org and we’ll post a list of targeted businesses on our websites errorsofenchantment.com and newmexicoliberty.com. Thanks for your help!

I just loved Rusty Schmit’s article on the Environmental Improvement Board’s supposed “need” to cap carbon emissions. According to Schmitt, who happens to run a solar company based in Albuquerque, reducing carbon emissions to 25% before 1990 levels would have an undeniably positive impact on New Mexico’s economy. He cites a study from the liberal “Center for American Progress” to back up his claims.

I read through the CAP study and found nothing convincing to back up Schmit’s claim. Basically, it was a rehashing of optimistic national job growth estimates, most of which have been put together by supporters of wind and solar. What I’d like to know is this: “If the EIB cap of 25% below 1990 levels will be so good for the economy, then why the heck are we stopping at 25% below 1990 levels?” Why not really boost job growth by eliminating carbon usage entirely?

The fact is that carbon-based energy sources, coal, oil, and natural gas, to name just a few, are far more cost-efficient and, because they are cheaper and more reliable, they will raise our living standards far more effectively than a radical shift to “renewables.” There is simply no way for the special interests to refute the fact that doing something for 50% of the cost — and that is being generous to the renewable folks who will have to reach into far less optimal solar and wind sources to build necessary capacity — is worse for the economy than doubling costs.

Of course, when your business depends on government subsidies and intervention in the economy, you can do amazing tricks of logic.

Join me tonight at the Albuquerque Convention Center (details below) for a candidate “Meet and Greet” sponsored by the Albuquerque TEA Party. Meet many of our local, state and national candidates personally. Ask them questions. Find out their positions on issues of limited government here in New Mexico and America.

The Rio Grande Foundation will have a table and I’ll be there to meet attendees. Stop by and pick up a “Free Markets” bumper sticker or tee shirt.

There will be tea (of course) and snacks with a cash bar for those who prefer stronger beverages than tea.

At this time, the following candidates have confirmed their presence tonight:

Allen Weh/Governor
Janice Arnold-Jones/Governor
Susana Martinez/Governor

Kent Cravens/Lt. Governor

Jon Barela/Congress – Dist. 1
Adam Kokesh/Congress – Dist. 3
Tom Mullins/Congress – Dist. 3

Spiro Vassilopoulos/Commissioner of Public Lands
Bob Cornelius/Commissioner of Public Lands
Jim Jackson/Commissioner of Public Lands

Wayne Johnson/Bernilillo Co. Commission – Dist. 5
Pat Morlen/Sandoval Co. Commission – Dist. 1

William Kurth/Bernalillo Co. Sheriff

Errol Chavez/State Auditor

Justin Horwitz/State Rep. – District 15
Clyde Wheeler/State Rep. – District 12
Tom Molitor/State Rep. – District 23
Conrad Jame/State Rep. – District 24
Tonia Harris/State Rep. – District 60

KIVA 1550 AM plans to attend and will interview supporters and candidates. The interviews will be broadcast through the following week.

I look forward to seeing you tonight!

$20.00 per person (can be paid at the door)
7:00, Doors open at 6:00
Albuquerque Convention Center
Ballroom “C,” West Building
401 2nd Street NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Our arch-nemesis, Carter Bundy of AFSCME dismisses our work on New Mexico’s government over-employment problem by saying that large, sparsely populated states naturally have bigger government bureaucracies (as does New Mexico). Our study can be found here and the relevant chart is on page 3. I heard Carter say this on the radio today, so he’s not letting it drop.

First and foremost, Bundy, in his article above, uses incorrect data. His top ten list is from 1970, the left hand column (again, on page 3), not the right hand column which is 2008 data. Utah is not in the top 10 in government employment, nor is Idaho, South Dakota, or Montana. In fact, Carter’s argument that big (in square miles) and small in population states — aside from Alaska which is totally unique because of its massive oil revenues — doesn’t hold water. It may have in 1970, but that is a long time ago. For a full list of states by population density, check this page out.

Now among the top ten in state and local employment are West Virginia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. Sure, these are decent-sized states, but not the largest, nor the least densely populated. Anyway, New Mexico has a problem — the second-largest government workforce by population size in the entire nation.

You may have read a few weeks ago in the Albuquerque Journal that Mayor Berry is again considering the construction of a taxpayer-financed “events center”/convention center expansion downtown. While I have made the case against this project repeatedly in the past — the target has certainly shifted — I’ll give the Mayor credit for listening to what average citizens have to say.

Go to this link and take a few moments to submit your comments pro or con. I certainly don’t think this should be a top priority for Albuquerque taxpayers, particularly in light of the long-term decline of the convention business and the $50 million deficit facing the City. So, take a few minutes to make your thoughts known.

Like the train has money to burn.  How about blowing the annual salary of a teaching assistant on an overnighter to Raton, just to show off?  Latest report on the Great New Mexico Train Robbery at New Mexico Watchdog.org

Haven’t talked much health care around here recently. That’s in part because things in Washington have slowed down dramatically recently. It’s also because the debate has devolved from one based on ideas to being nothing more than a power struggle with Obama and the Democrats attempting to push something, anything through Congress — even if they have to resort to “Republican” ideas.

Unfortunately, as long as the Republicans and Democrats keep trying to “solve” health care in Washington, they’ll continue to fail. After all, the Republicans have not exactly achieved a stellar track record on health care reform in recent years. The focus, as this recent article from The Politico notes, needs to be on those laboratories of democracy, the states.

Certainly, there are federal issues like Medicare and Medicaid and the tax treatment of care that need to be addressed, but true solutions to our health care problems are not “one-size-fits-all” and they won’t come from Washington. This is one idea that could and should be bi-partisan and would actually improve American health care.

Yesterday, I was at the Willie Ortiz Building in Santa Fe to deliver my comments to the Environmental Improvement Board. While meeting in the lobby with our investigative journalist, Jim Scarantino, we both simultaneously noticed this sign:

Rarely are government bureaucrats so honest! Unfortunately, as the Rio Grande Foundation has repeatedly pointed out, government truly is the “Career of First Choice” for all too many New Mexicans. Instead of addressing this over-employment problem during the current, special legislative session, it looks more and more likely that tax hikes are on the way. Only angry New Mexicans can inform their “representatives” in Santa Fe that the private sector, not government, should be the “career of first choice” for New Mexicans.

As the Legislature moves into a special session with tax hikes on the horizon, I point out in today’s Albuquerque Journal that the political winds have done a 180 degree turn from the leftward lurch of 2008. Only the New Mexico House and the Governor’s office are up for election, but I do believe that there is a strong anti-incumbent undercurrent among conservatives and independents alike. Support for tax hikes during the special session is going to have consequences in November.

Thankfully, Albuquerque has not gone as far down the transit path as Denver, but this story (from the Economist) about their over-promised, under-delivered transit system certainly sounds familiar.

It is no secret that the Rail Runner has sucked massive amounts of taxpayer money away from New Mexico’s roads and highways. But, the point remains that — regardless of whether we ride the Rail Runner or not — we do all benefit from New Mexico’s road system.

So, as policymakers face a massive budget deficit in the special session, it would seem that Ruben Baca of the New Mexico Petroleum Marketers Association has a point in arguing that “potential tax revenue could be generated through taxation of gasoline purchased on Native American lands.” While I have certainly purchased my share of gas on tribal lands between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, much of the uncollected tax revenues seem to go to tribal authorities, not consumers who purchase gas. Since gas taxes are one of the only taxes that resembles anything like a “user-fee” in New Mexico, closing this tax loophole would be a logical source of revenue.

Of course, this is not to say that we support higher taxes. But at this point, it seems like legislators are hell-bent on raising taxes during the special session. At this point it is just a matter of plucking the goose with the least amount of hissing.

If at all possible, I hope you can make it to Santa Fe on Monday to register your comments with the Environmental Improvement Board. Information on the hearing can be found here. Jim Scarantino, our investigative journalist, has been doing a great deal of groundbreaking work on the makeup and political conflicts at the Environmental Improvement Board over at his site.

Once you are done with the EIB meeting, I hope you’ll attend our District 3 Congressional candidate forum between Adam Kokesh and Tom Mullins which is being held from 6pm to 8pm at the Santa Fe Community College.

Oh, and of course you can come up for the first day of the special legislative session and tell your representatives and senators that tax hikes are unnecessary.

Additional details on the EIB meeting can be found here:

* TIME: The EIB will convene its all-day meeting at 10 a.m. Monday, but it will hear comments in opposition to the NEE petition beginning at 2 p.m. Comments in support will be heard from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (If your schedule only permits you to comment in the morning, the EIB most likely will accommodate you)
* LOCATION: The meeting will take place in the State Personnel Office Auditorium, Willie Ortiz Building, 2600 Cerrillos Road.
* PROCESS: Comments will be limited to 3 minutes. Comments will likely be heard on a first-come, first-served basis based on a sign-up sheet that should be available at the comment session. Those who wish to comment are advised to arrive as early as possible.
* FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE: If you find you have a long time to wait for your turn to comment, feel free to utilize the ACI Convenience Room at the nearby Courtyard by Marriott, 3347 Cerrillos Road, about one mile south west of the Willie Ortiz Building. Enjoy comfortable seating, complimentary refreshments and free Internet access. The convenience room will be open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

In case you missed it, I took a few thousand words to explain the benefits of free markets to the Alibi generally left-wing readership last week. Not surprisingly — even the lefties at the Alibi understand that controversy spurs interest/attracts readers and thus improves advertising sales — I generated a pretty strong response.

You can read this week’s letters here.

It would be impossible to answer all the points raised in the letters, but here’s a few thoughts. Love Canal was caused by the government, not the market. DDT saves lives and doesn’t inflict great harm on the environment. The regulations now pending before the Environmental Improvement Board are being implemented in an anti-Democratic and incredibly economically-harmful manner. Read the Washington Post to find out more about Wal Mart as a progressive success story.

This a a pretty unusual situation.  One of the AG’s closest advisors doubles as president of a law firm that sues the state, cities, municipalities, appears before administrative agencies, and lobbies the Legislature.  The Environmental Improvement Board is proceeding to hear a petition to cap CO2 emissions statewide.  The petitioner is represented by the very same law firm that the AG’s Senior Counsel heads.  And it’s the AG who told the EIB they could proceed to hear the petition.  Stuart Bluestone is the attorney in question.  The law firm is the New Mexico Environmental Law Center.  Here’s the New Mexico Watchdog report, our latest in a close look at conflicts of interest on the EIB.

This week’s “Independent Forum” from the New Mexico Independent asks whether New Mexicans should care whether their political leaders go behind closed doors to come to a budget agreement. Needless to say, I’m not a big fan of such dealings, but Jim Baca doesn’t particularly care. What do you think? Read the responses and offer your own thoughts here.

The Albuquerque Journal had a very interesting article on Monday relating to the City’s efforts to attract convention center business. The picture is not pretty, but rather than deterring proponents of a new “events center” (read convention center expansion) the folks who would benefit from more convention center business want to spend hundreds of millions of your taxpayer dollars, supposedly to attract more conventions.

But, as this study from the Brookings Institute points out, the Convention Center business nationwide is declining rapidly. This reality is actually reflected clearly in the Journal article. Says Dale Lockett of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, “How do you be a value destination when non-value destinations become value destinations? It’s a downward spiral. This seems to be a long-term loss.”

Well, duh Dale, this reduction in demand (note that this is a national, not local trend) is a clear sign that the industry is continuing to face big problems. It is not economically-viable.

Lockett goes on in the article: “Many of those competitors (other cities in the convention business) are willing to pretty much do anything to win business…each destination marketing organization has an obligation to try to lessen the impact of the recession to our own properties any way we can.” Gee, this sounds like a great industry to invest hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in. Would Bill Gates or Steve Jobs make such an investment? Heck no! They are looking for the business of the future, not wasting (other people’s) money on a costly, dying industry.

It is obvious that convention centers nationwide have been expensive money pits. Albuquerque need not fall into the same trap.

It turns out that Scott Brown’s election has not killed Obama’s plans for health care reform. Instead, despite flagging personal and health care poll numbers, Obama plans to use the “reconciliation” process to push his plan through the Senate with only 51 votes.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new or improved about Obama’s plan. As John Goodman points out, Obama has not jettisoned any of the most egregious aspects of the Senate’s plan, but instead has added some additional bad ideas to the mix. These include:

* The White House plans to impose the Medicare payroll tax (2.9%) on capital income! (Interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rent which is not otherwise “passive.”)
* The White House wants a national health insurance price-fixing body to approve rate hikes! (Despite evidence that state price-fixing leads to more uninsured, not less.)

As Americans for Tax Reform points out, Obama’s plan represents a $629 billion tax hike. Obama claims that his “new” plan has added Republican ideas to the mix (if that is the case, I haven’t seen them or any hints of free market reforms), but I certainly don’t see any free market ideas in the latest iteration of ObamaCare.

A few weeks ago in the Albuquerque Journal’s business section, Winthrop Quigley discussed the sad case of Charter Bank’s seizure by the Office of Thrift Supervision — the federal bank regulator. While Quigley’s article was by and large on target and generated a tremendous response, I felt that it was important to clarify that what happened to Charter was not a result of “free markets.” I elaborated on this issue in a letter to the Business Journal that was published today.

The full letter can be found below:

It is no surprise that Winthrop Quigley received such a strong reaction from readers to his coverage of the closing of Charter Bank. After all, people have an intuitive revulsion to unfair policies. Few policies are more transparently unfair than those foisted on the banking industry by the federal government which have bailed out some “too big to fail” banks with billions of our taxpayer dollars, resulted in massive bonuses for corporate fat cats, and yet have driven smaller community banks like Charter out of business for relatively minor transgressions.

The fact is that while not always as obvious as the case of Charter, this is par for the course for the federal government. If you have the money to buy high-powered lobbyists, the government will come to your rescue. If you don’t, you are out of luck.

What average citizens need to understand is this: The current situation is corporate socialism, not capitalism! Banks were among the most tightly regulated industries even before this economic crisis. Factor in federal manipulation of the money supply, the creation and financing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and dozens of other interventions in the financial sector, and any semblance of capitalism are lost.

Charter may have made mistakes — humans are not perfect — but in the end the bank is a victim of unfair federal intervention and the nation’s rapid shift toward corporate socialism.

Jim Scarantino and Steve McAllister review the RailRunner’s red ink and its consequences for our state.  Read the latest report at New Mexico Watchdog here.

During the 2010 legislative session, New Mexico’s public employees succeeded in preserving their big numbers, high salaries, and fat pensions. Unfortunately, the problem is not limited to New Mexico. As the USA Today recently pointed out “Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.”

This is because government employees are very organized and politically-powerful. Hopefully average Americans will wake up and realize that their interests are not in line with those of most government workers. Until that fact becomes widely acknowledged, government will continue to grow at the expense of the private sector.

A little-publicized bill discussed during the recently-completed legislative session involved the deregulation of Qwest’s basic retail services. Senate Bill 37 was introduced by Sen. Cisneros and would have eliminated Public Regulatory Commission jurisdiction over the regulated telecommunications provider’s rates and terms for basic land-line services if it found “effective competition” in more than 50 percent of the provider’s market area, or if it has lost more than 33 percent of its land lines since 2001.

Sounds reasonable enough, right? After all, people — even living in rural areas — have many different phone services to choose from. Cell phones and cable providers are just two options, but when it comes right down to it, why should the PRC tell Qwest how much they can charge their customers? People who choose to live in far-flung, difficult to server rural areas should bear the extra costs associated with serving them, right?

Unfortunately, Sen. Lovejoy, PRC Commissioner Jason Marks, and apparently, several unregulated telecommunications providers, opposed the effort and the bill died. Sen. Cisneros has threatened to, rather than deregulating Qwest, attempt to bring these other telecommunications providers under regulatory control of the PRC. Hopefully, this is just a threat meant to neutralize the misguided opposition lobbying of these providers. New Mexico policymakers, wherever the market makes it possible, should be attempting to strip the PRC of its regulatory powers. This is because markets are far more efficient in terms of setting prices and “regulating” the marketplace than any politically-controlled regulatory agency.

Don’t give up Sen. Cisneros!

The 2010 legislative session ended yesterday with the House having completely avoided the Tax Lightning issue. According to Dan Boyd of the Albuquerque Journal, The Senate passed four separate bills to address “tax lightning,” including reasonable efforts by Sen. Neville and Sen. Eichenberg. Text of Eichenberg’s bill which would extend the 3% cap to all properties can be found here. Neville’s bill can be found here.

Unfortunately, as I’ve noted before, the New Mexico House seems to be inherently unwilling to make the tough decisions necessary to solve the problems facing New Mexicans. Notably, the entire House is up for election this November.

Hopefully Governor Richardson will put “tax lightning” on call for the special session. Tell him what you think.

While many are disappointed with the lack of a budget agreement during the 30-day legislative session — and I’m disappointed that both Houses and Richardson seem all too willing to raise taxes — the good news is that open government saw a few big successes this session. Of note is that the House of Representatives is now putting votes up on its website.

Bigger still in terms of empowering citizens and concerned taxpayers is the passage in both houses of SB 95 which would create a “Sunshine Portal” for more open government. Pending the Governor’s signature (you can influence that by contacting him), a “Sunshine Portal” will be created. This will include the names of all exempt employees, their title, and salary on a public, easily viewed on-line website.

SB 195, the Sunshine Portal Transparency Act was sponsored by Senator Sander Rue.

Positions and salaries of all other state employees, but not their names, would be released if SB 195 becomes law.

Other items included on the site are:

• state cash balances by account or fund;
• monthly summaries of the state’s investment accounts under the control of the State Investment Council;
• annual operating budgets for each state agency with monthly expenditures by category;
• state agency contracts with a total value of more than $20,000, naming both the recipients and purposes of the contracts;

This website will give average citizens additional tools to see that their money is being spent as efficiently as possible.

Pick up a copy of The Alibi this week (it is free after all). I have the cover story in the paper and I use the platform to reach out to liberals and those on the left in general, many of whom I believe to be good-hearted, well-intentioned people who would be much more effective in using free markets and individual liberty to achieve their goals. This would be so much more effective than the coercive power of government.

If you don’t live in The Alibi’s distribution area or simply want to read the article online, the link can be found here.