University of New Mexico economics professor Micha Gisser has some straight-forward solutions for the nation’s health care problems. Simply put, increased reliance on market forces will bring costs down and improve quality. The article which appeared earlier this week in the Albuquerque Journal is available here.

Since 2003, Governor Bill Richardson has been usurping the constitional power of the Legislature to determine how funds are spent from the state treasury. Because the Legislature failed to act quickly enough, he asserted control over $61 million of unallocated federal funds received under the 2003 Jobs Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Without legislative authorizaton, he gave his office $370,000. He gave $225,000 to the Lt. Governor for “various projects” and $500,000 to the Natural Resources Trustee for “environmental studies.” The Rail Runner got a cool $2 million. Local governments and projects of his choosing received millions.

Under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, the treasury has received $53.6 million in unallocated funds. The Legislature asserted its constituional power over these funds byalmost unanimous vote. Richardson pocket-vetoed the legislation.

A recent ruling from the South Carolina Supreme Court, however, upheld the legislature’s ultimate power to appropriate these sorts of federal funds. If it cannot overturn the Governor’s veto, litigation may be the only way for the Legislature to avoid abdicating its power over spending to an aggressive Governor.

The full report is available here.

Recently, I sat down with Channel 13 to discuss the 1/4 cent transportation tax that is on Albuquerque ballots in this fall’s municipal election (taking place now). Footage of the story is available here. Also, the Mayor’s streetcar proposal landed on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal again this week due to a disagreement between Mayor Chavez and RJ Berry over whether to call the project a “trolley” or “modern streetcar.”

Regardless of what you call it, the position expressed by Chavez in the article and on his Rio Grande Foundation candidate survey that “the streetcar is not on the ballot in this election” is absurd on its face. After all, a government takeover of America’s health care system was not on the ballot this past fall, but most of us understood that voters who supported Obama for President were endorsing that. Similarly, a vote for Martin Chavez is an implicit endorsement of his proposals including the trolley/streetcar and arena.

This coming Friday and Saturday will see the start of what will hopefully be an annual conference. The even, which is being held in Albuquerque is called “New Mexico Turnaround Conference.” The schedule which is not completely filled in yet, can be found here. I will be on a panel, and if that is not enough reason to attend (ha, ha), so will nationally-syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, and representatives of the Heritage Foundation.

Topics discussed at the conference will include: Education; Energy; Healthcare; Political Corruption; Voter Fraud; The States Use of it’s Resources and the State’s Impact on the Economy; The Purposes of Government as Envisioned by the Founders; and the Threat from the Left.

To RSVP or for questions, please contact Renee Rosales at
(505) 242-2050 or adelantenow@ymail.com or register online at:
www.nmturnaround.com/conference.htm

The conference will be held at:
Hotel Albuquerque at Old Town
800 Rio Grande Blvd. NW
Albuquerque, NM 87104

Early voting starts today and runs through October 2nd. Details on locations etc. are available here. Remember, one vote, especially in a low-turnout election like this one, can have a far greater impact than voting in national elections (I recommend you do both). There is a 1/4-cent tax cut on the ballot that would significantly help Albuquerque taxpayers and businesses in the current, tough economic climate.

Secondly, I found the Mayor’s double-talk on the streetcar/trolley system in today’s ABQ Journal that he has been such a staunch supporter of to be quite interesting. He is distancing himself from the project due to the election while at the same time he likes to talk about how all of our neighbors and other cities are building similar systems. Sure, the streetcar is not on the ballot, but Mayor Marty is and he’s made it clear that he wants one. There is no real guarantee that the project will go to the voters, so voters should consider Marty’s support for the trolley in making their decision.

If you want to find out more about the mayoral candidates, the Albuquerque Alibi is sponsoring a debate tonight that’s free and open to the public. Details follow:

“The Line” host Gene Grant, KUNM’s News Director Jim Williams, New Mexico Independent Editor Gwyneth Doland and I will moderate. We’ll pose your burning questions about your city to the candidates.

Audience members will be given notecards and can submit their queries at the start of the throwdown. Or, film a question, upload it to YouTube and send the link to abqmayoraldebate@gmail.com. (Extra points if your backdrop relates to the subject of your question.)

R.J. Berry, Martin Chavez, Richard Romero
Submit video questions for candidates to abqmayoraldebate@gmail.com
See what people are already asking at youtube.com/user/DebateHosts
Wednesday, Sept. 16
National Hispanic Cultural Center
1710 Fourth Street NW
Doors open at 6 p.m., debate at 7 p.m.
Seating is first-come, first-served. About 300 available.
Hear it live on KUNM 89.9 FM
Watch it and live-blog it at alibi.com and newmexicoindependent.com
See it Friday, Sept. 18, on KNME-5

After the mayoral debate, join Alibi and local politicos for discourse, libations and complimentary canapés. Municipal DJs play eclectic Americana and rare groove as citizens of Albuquerque snack and mingle.
Downtown at Blackbird Buvette (509 Central), Wednesday, Sept. 16, from 8:30 p.m. 21+

On Speaking Freely this past Saturday (listen here), Jim and I covered both the national tea party taking place in Washington and the tea party in Santa Fe. Then, we discussed the US Constitution with New Mexico Rep. Dennis Roch who has introduced a resolution re-asserting our rights under the 10th amendment.

Dr. Brian Jellison, a neuroradiologist from Santa Fe had an interesting critique of Obamacare and the Congressional authors of health care reform. In the article, which appeared in the Albuquerque Journal, Jellison critiqued the backgrounds of Reps. John Dingell, Charlie Rangel, and Henry Waxman and their lack of health care credentials. He goes on to make some very good points about the plan moving through Congress and the lack of incentives built into it, but I want to address the issue of doctors and health policy first. On this front I have some disagreements with Dr. Jellison.

Certainly, the opinions of professional experts whether they be doctors, educators, or truck drivers, should be taken into account, but the fact is that all of these areas, be it health care, education, or transportation are no longer left to the professionals because of massive government intervention. Regardless of one’s professional pedigree, politics now predominates much of our daily lives. It doesn’t take a doctor to understand that government needs to get out of health care (and many doctors, unfortunately, believe that government’s role should be expanded dramatically). In fact, most of our problems in health care, education, and transportation are the result of government policies, not professional incompetence.

Hopefully, Dr. Jellison and other free market doctors, rather than shrinking the size of the pro-market tent, will focus on the real problem, that is government policies, rather than focusing on the credentials of who is making the policies. After all, Howard Dean is a doctor.

Soon, Albuquerque voters will be asked whether or not to permanently extend the 1/4 cent transportation tax that has been in place for 10 years and is set to expire. I discussed the reasons why this might not be such a good idea in an opinion piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal.

For starters, a 1/4 cent gross receipts tax hike is not the same as the equivalent sales tax;
Voters are being asked to make this tax permanent. Why not another 10 years at most?
41 percent of the revenues will be allocated to transit and bikes, far in excess of their actual market share when it comes to moving people around town. Why the over-investment in those modes?

The problem with government regulating every facet of the US economy is that invariably, politicians are swayed by the electoral or campaign-donation-making power of the various interests at play, not the merits of the arguments on either side. This scenario is currently being played out in a struggle between shipping giants FedEx and UPS.

George Will had an excellent piece about the situation several weeks ago. Basically, UPS wants to hamstring its main competitor FedEx by forcing it to adhere to stricter labor laws that give more power to the labor unions. This despite the fact that in the early 1990s, Fedex actually attempted to convince Congress to give UPS the ability to operate under the same rules under which FedEx operates.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has already passed the “bailout” of Big Brown. It is up to the Senate to stop this unwise and unnecessary legislation. In fact, rather than forcing more labor regulations on UPS, Congress would be providing the US economy a real stimulus if it reduced the ability of labor unions to tie up not only these, but other businesses attempting to get by in today’s economy.

Oh, and while we’re on the issue of shipping companies, as my friend Paul Jacob writes, now is the time to privatize the US Post Office as well!

The following is a list of the top five fibs contained in President Obama’s health care speech last night. Link is available here.

1. Middle class tax hikes: “The middle class will realize greater [health] security, not higher taxes.”

This would be a big departure from the House bill and the Baucus draft. The House bill has four tax increases on families making less than $250,000. President Obama himself endorsed another when he called for an individual mandate with a tax penalty. Earlier this week, he again floated the idea of a “soda tax.” The Baucus draft, like the House bill, contains a new tax on over-the-counter medicines purchased with an FSA or HSA

2. Individual mandate tax: “Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.”

What the President is not saying is that the “stick” forcing individuals to do this will be a tax increase. In the House bill, the tax penalty would be 2.5 percent of income. Under the Baucus draft, the tax would range from $750 to $3800, based on family size and income. Either way, it’s a new tax.

3. Deficit-neutral is not tax-neutral: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now, or in the future. Period.”

All “deficit-neutral” means is that taxes will go up at least as much as spending goes up. Under any version of government healthcare, taxes needed to make the plans deficit-neutral would easily exceed $200 billion per year once the plans are fully phased in, according to CBO estimates.

4. Tax code makes healthcare more expensive: “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.”

One of the reasons healthcare inflation is 8 percent a year, while regular inflation is 3 percent a year, is because of the tax code. The tax code prevents most individuals from buying health insurance with pre-tax dollars. Only when insurance is obtained through one’s job or the government is there a tax benefit. There’s also almost no tax benefit to paying for medical expenses out of pocket. These combine to make people think that someone else—not they—are paying for their health care, which drives up the cost.

5. Tax cuts don’t “cost” money: “The plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years…less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.”

To make an obvious point, taxes are not the government’s money. They are money taken by force of law from the American people. To cut taxes doesn’t “cost” any family anything. In fact, it saves them money. When taxes are raised to increase government spending, that does cost money for families.

Today, on 09-09-09, the Rio Grande Foundation launched a new club called “The Nine Club.” While we understand that blogging is relatively cheap based on the technologies that are now currently available, but that is only one small part of what we do. Check out The 9 Club as unique and fun way to get more involved in supporting the many efforts on behalf of individual liberty and personal responsibility that are undertaken by the Rio Grande Foundation on a regular basis. The 9 Club can be found here. Check it out!

This week, Jim and I discussed the science and policy of global warming including cap-and-trade and carbon taxes with John Fleck, science reporter with the Albuquerque Journal. The show can be found here.

The Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico Prosperity Project, and CARE invite you to a presentation and discussion: The Impact of Climate Change Legislation on the Economy of New Mexico and the Southwest with guest speaker Dr. Margo Thorning Senior VP and Chief Economist at the American Council for Capital Formation.

The event will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2009 from 5:45PM to 7:00PM in the Taos Room at the Marriott Pyramid Hotel in Albuquerque, NM.

The $15 price of admission includes discussion, complimentary appetizers, and a no-host bar. RSVP: rdozierottennmp2@comcast.net or call 505-856-7244.

Dr. Thorning will present trends in global energy use and carbon emissions and look at the macroeconomic impact of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation with respect to GDP, employment, energy prices and annual wages. In addition, Dr. Thorning will suggest a number of practical strategies for reducing global greenhouse growth.

About Dr. Thorning: Margo Thorning is senior vice president and chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and director of research for its public policy think tank. Dr. Thorning also serves as the managing director of the International Council for Capital Formation, a new think tank incorporated in Brussels. The ICCF is an affiliate of the ACCF. Dr. Thorning is an internationally recognized expert on tax, environmental, and competitiveness issues. She writes and lectures on tax and economic policy, is frequently quoted in publications such as the Financial Times, Suddeutsche Zeitung, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal, and has appeared internationally on public affairs news programs.

Too often when describing the size and scope of the United States government, we use massive numbers that are not relevant to regular people in their daily lives. The Center for Individual Freedom has produced an excellent video (below) to illustrate the problem and how government-run medical reforms now moving through Congress would affect average families.

While the health care debate has been focused on President Obama and Congress for the last several months, each state still has a great deal to say about health care spending within its borders. Nowhere is this more the case than in Medicaid. As I point out in my new opinion piece, “Trimming the New Mexico Budget,” New Mexico could reduce its budget deficit and improve its Medicaid system by targeting the long term care program within Medicaid for significant savings and giving low income recipients greater control over the resources given them under Medicaid.

Albuquerque Dr. Barry Krakow hits the nail on the head in his excellent opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal. And I’m not saying this just because he mentions my advocacy for such “consumerist” behavior in the health care sector at Rep. Martin Heinrich’s health care town hall meeting.

Writes Krakow in a passage that sums up his argument:

Some of us, including doctors who provide these services, may forget health care is a service with a cost, a profit margin and a price to pay. Politicians and others imagine insurance as a right or benefit owed to citizens. Only politicians can enact such legislation, but the fact remains — health care is first and always a service.

Unlike health-care services, the real world marketplace suffers no confusion about costs, profits and sale prices. You pay for food at a grocery that stocks the food you want and can afford; you don’t ask the cashier “what’s my copay?” or “will my deductible cover it?”

September has already been a busy month here at the Rio Grande Foundation. Although I won’t personally be making my way to Washington, the Rio Grande Foundation has signed on in support of the 9/12 March on Washington. If you have the time and ability to take the anti-tax, pro-liberty message to Washington, you are encouraged to do so. More information is available about the 9/12 event here.

In case you missed it (or you attended and want to share it with your friends), footage of the recent health care debate between Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute and Carter Bundy of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees. In addition to the footage which can be found below, Cannon and Bundy debated again, but this time on air with 770 KKOB radio host Bob Clark moderating. The audio is not available yet, but check back in a few days.

In case you missed it, Jim and I interviewed Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez on “Speaking Freely” this past Saturday on AM 1550. The link is available here. Also, the Mayor has completed his candidate survey and that is now posted online here.

The surveys of the other mayoral and council candidates who completed them are available here. Early voting for the mayoral and council races starts soon. Get educated on the issues before you go to the polls!

A few weeks ago in the Albuquerque Journal business section, Dale Lockett of the Convention and Visitors Bureau and Charlie Gray of the Inkeepers Association made a push for a downtown arena and convention center expansion. Given what I knew to be the economic reality of the convention business, I simply had to respond to their claims. My letter to the Business Journal was published today and I’ve pasted it below:

I can’t believe that Dale Lockett of the Convention and Visitors Bureau and Charlie Gray of the Inkeepers Association are still pushing for a downtown arena and convention center expansion. Were they not aware of the 41 percent decline in bookings related to convention center events in 2009 relative to 2008? This is hardly an argument for pouring additional taxpayer money into a bigger convention center and additional hotel space associated with the convention center.

Albuquerque taxpayers (and businesses) should consider themselves lucky that they haven’t gone overboard in the economically-devastated convention industry like some other cities. Take Atlanta for starters, that city’s Georgia World Congress Center recently reported a $1.3 million loss. Then there is Las Vegas, another big convention town, where many of the big casinos are reporting revenue losses of 30 percent over last year.

All across America the convention industry has been in a sustained decline for the better part of a decade. If some entrepreneur felt that the trend was going to change suddenly and wanted to invest their own money in such a venture in downtown Albuquerque, I’d be all for it. Surely, however, the dying convention industry is not worthy of a bailout courtesy of Albuquerque taxpayers!

This is an excellent commentary by Paul Driessen on “Cash for Clunkers” and other programs the politicians are considering to build on the alleged “success” of the idiotic “Cash for Clunkers” program. Feel free to distribute with attribution to Mr. Driessen

First cars, next power plants. Wasting natural resources to promote eco ideologies.

It’s finally been euthanized (or so they say). But in the minds of politicians and rent-seekers, the cash-for-clunkers program was so successful that it deserved billions in taxpayer money.

Pols got to strut their green credentials. Car makers got to sell cars, via yet another subsidy. Consumers got free cash from hapless taxpayers, for new cars many otherwise wouldn’t have bought.

It was all so socially responsible and win-win – except for those poor taxpayers, who got saddled with still more debt. The other big loser of course is the antiquated notion that public policies should be based on sound science and economics.

An ice-cold bucket of reality is in order – before the next clunker idea comes along. Here are a few of the more obvious problems with pulling the plug on grandma cars.

The “high-polluting” cars that taxpayers are paying to get off the road already have 95% fewer emissions than 1970-era models. So the pollution reductions are almost nonexistent.

The gas savings are modest at best, across the US automotive fleet – and will be more than offset by the latest round of oil and gas lock-ups that Congress and the White House are already engineering. So more oil imports are on the way, regardless.

Far worse, every “clunker” has to be rendered totally inoperable. Sodium silicate gets poured into engines to freeze their components, then they’re crushed into bundles of scrap.

That means some 750,000 perfectly good cars never make it to used car lots. People who can’t afford the average $24,000 new car price have to buy a new car anyway. Used car dealers and buyers have dwindling numbers of cars to bargain for. Repair shops lose business.

Even worse, trashing all these cars is a monumental waste of precious resources – and all the energy and effort it took to extract metallic ores, hydrocarbons and other raw materials from the Earth, process and refine them, create alloys and plastics, and turn them into engines, chasses, windows, tires and interiors.

Every step in that process took enormous amounts of energy – and emitted vast quantities of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and real pollutants. There is absolutely no way that these emissions and energy will ever be recouped by any savings the replacement cars might conceivably generate.

It’s like spending $720,000 for photovoltaic solar panels on the roof of the Denver Nature and Science Museum. The panels would certainly reduce conventional electricity bills. But it would take 110 years to save enough on those bills to pay for the panels – and the panels would only last 25 years.

Denver installed the panels for one reason, observes Independence Institute investigative journalist Todd Shepherd. Federal taxpayers provided a fat subsidy – enabling President Obama to have a great photo-op on the museum roof and shill for solar power, with the Rocky Mountains resplendent in the distance.

So much for that win-win scenario. The next clunker boondoggle is already on the launch pad, courtesy of T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner. As they opined in the Wall Street Journal recently, they want to repeat the automotive “success” on a massive scale – replacing “clunker” electrical generating plants with government-mandated gas-fired versions.

The existing plants burn coal, which America has in great abundance, and which keeps electricity reliable and affordable – so that people can heat and cool their homes, industries can manufacture and transport products, companies can employ workers, hospitals can treat patients, schools can train future innovators, and America can ensure continued opportunity and prosperity.

Modern coal-fired power plants already scrub out the vast majority of real pollutants that their aged predecessors emitted, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz. What they don’t remove is carbon dioxide.

Pickens, Turner, Gore, Hansen and Obama insist that CO2 is causing “potentially devastating climate changes.” Thousands of scientists disagree, and satellite data clearly demonstrate that global temperatures have been stable or even decreasing since 1998, even as carbon dioxide levels have risen steadily. Storms, droughts, floods and other events are in accord with historic variations, and show no statistically significant upswings, note climate experts William Gray, David Legates and Richard Keen.

But inconvenient facts and observations are irrelevant to climate alarmists. They apparently believe that assuming, asserting, decreeing and modeling climate disasters proves a crisis is nigh – and we must make painful energy, economic and lifestyle sacrifices to prevent it.

In other words, force America to eliminate existing generators and switch to power plants running on natural gas that Boone Pickens, Chesapeake Energy and a few others own in abundance – and to wind and solar power that General Electric, Vesta and other “ethical” companies will happily provide, if taxpayers fork over billions more in subsidies.

Making money by selling natural gas, building turbines and panels, and trading carbon credits on new commodities, hedge fund and derivatives markets is an irrelevant coincidence, we’re supposed to believe.

These “socially responsible” rent seekers and their friends in Congress and the White House are masters at increasing and mandating demand for natural gas – for transportation, homes, industries and power generation. Unfortunately, the friends aren’t so attentive to the supply side of the equation. They excel at locking up America’s onshore and offshore energy prospects, and imposing burdensome new regulations on lands that aren’t off limits – making it increasingly difficult to find and produce gas.

This increases demand, shrinks supplies, drives up prices, and increases profits for the lucky few who do own abundant gas supplies. Once again, consumers and taxpayers get taken for a ride.

Once again, it’s even worse from an economic, ecological and resource conservation perspective. We are being asked to destroy dozens or hundreds of perfectly good coal-fired power plants – or retrofit them under expensive carbon capture and storage mandates – simply because some special interests assume, assert, decree and model global warming disasters.

Tearing the plants down would be a monumental waste of the resources, energy, effort and emissions it took to build them. CCS technology would require billions of dollars, 25% of a power plant’s generating capacity, major increases in fuel consumption and electricity prices, thousands of miles of CO2 pipelines and massive underground storage chambers, to reduce global CO2 by an imperceptible amount.

America today is increasingly governed by lawyers, ideologues, social engineers and rent seekers. Congress has nary a real engineer, and precious few members with any business background or ability to figure out basic cradle-to-grave energy, resource, economic and pollution equations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi views natural gas as an “alternative to fossil fuels.”

With these folks at the helm, it may be time for wise investors to look toward China and India, where reducing poverty and improving living standards guide public policy – not Hollywood movies about Climate Armageddon. Wise voters and taxpayers will join the Tea Party movement, and elect some honest brainpower, before Congress wreaks more havoc on energy, jobs and civil rights.

______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death.

Economist Milton Friedman, in his book “Capitalism and Freedom” argued passionately about the economic harms associated with professional licensing. Friedman’s basic point was that “The biggest advocates for licenses in an industry are, usually, the people in the industry, wishing to keep out potential competitors.” Unfortunately, with all the focus on the “public option,” mandates, and insurance companies, not much is being said about licensing issues.

That is why this article by Shikha Dalmia or Reason Foundation about the harms inflicted on the modern medical system by the American Medical Association (AMA) is very important. Specifically, writes Dalmia:

Doctors–and many Republicans–constantly carp about the costs of “defensive medicine” because it forces providers to perform unnecessary procedures and tests to insulate them from potential lawsuits. But excessive physician salaries contribute nearly three times more to wasteful health care spending than the $20 billion or so that defensive medicine does. “While the U.S. malpractice system is extraordinary,” the study notes, “it is only a small contributor to the higher cost of health care in the United States.” Meanwhile, other studies have found that doctors’ salaries contribute more to soaring medical costs than the $40 billion or so that the uninsured cost in uncompensated care–the president’s bete noir.

Add another issue to the list of problems with American health care for which a free market solution is demanded, but unlikely due to pressure from special interests.

New Mexico lost nearly $40 million of its $55 million investment in Antares Investment Partners, a Greenwich, CT real estate investment trust. But Marc Correra, a Richardson ally, came out a lot better. As a third-party placement agent for the deal, he participated in $600,000 in fees.

The Greenwich Time concluded its investigation of Antares this past Sunday. In a section entitled “Land of Disenchantment,” the paper covered the State Investment Council’s experience with this shady operation:

The New Mexico State Investment Council, responsible for managing the state’s permanent trust funds, endowments, public education and general fund money, took a big hit because of toxic assets linked to Antares.

In 2005, New Mexico invested $55 million in a limited liability company, NorthStar SIC Holdings, that NorthStar infused into various real estate developments in its portfolio, including Antares, said Charles Wollmann, a spokesman for the State Investment Council.

“I do believe that investment went south,” Wollmann said.

New Mexico received a devastating $16 million capital return on its initial investment, which had seen its net asset value tank to $12.8 million as of the end of the first quarter of 2009, the most recent performance report available from the state.

“That’s not one that we’re happy with,” Wollmann said.

A message seeking comment from NorthStar was left Tuesday with an investor relations spokesman at the firm’s Manhattan office.

Wollmann said he was prevented from discussing New Mexico’s sour investment in NorthStar and Antares because litigation may be forthcoming. The state, he said, has “written-down” its Antares loss.

Marc Correra was the placement agent for the Northstar investment, which according to the SIC’s records (courtesy Heath Haussamen) actually amounted to nearly $90.25 million. Correra’s fees amounted to $576,917. A source in state government says the entire investment is now worthless.

Correra participated in $2 million in fees at third-party placement agent in another $90 million investment that “went south.” That is the investment, now worthless, in Vanderbilt Financial Trust. Story on that here from Trip Jennings at NM Independent.

Correra has been a generous contributor to Democrats. He gave $28,500 to Obama’s victory fund and the maximum personal contribution each to Tom Udall, Harry Teague and Ben Ray Lujan. In fact, it appears his contributions to Udall exceeded the legal limit by $1,250.

Sen. Ted Kennedy was no friend of free markets and limited government, but as John Berlau of the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute notes, there was a brief time during the 1970s when Kennedy rightly saw free markets and “progressive” policies as one and the same. One wishes that this brief time period would have lasted longer.

Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine views Kennedy’s legacy as (hopefully) the end of an era of bigger government and greater centralization. And, while I agree with Nick’s thinking that greater numbers of Americans are growing frustrated with centralization and the straight jacket it creates, I don’t know if our political system is capable of re-embracing the Constitutional principles of federalism that the founders designed to protect against the encroachment of powerful central government.