In case you didn’t already know it, Portland-based transportation and government planning expert John Charles will be coming to Albuquerque and Santa Fe for events on Tuesday and Wednesday. If you are interested in hearing Mr. Charles discuss the issues and talking to him on the radio, listen to “Speaking Freely” from 9am to 10am on AM 1550.
Hopefully you can make one of the events with Mr. Charles this week, but check out the radio program as well.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, I was rather perplexed to see the headline ‘Light Rail’ on rubber about the latest efforts by our friends at MRCOG to put more Albuquerque-area residents into transit while removing them from their cars. My first thought was “They just won’t leave this trolley issue alone!”
Then I read the story and found out that what is really being discussed is something called Bus Rapid Transit. Done right, bus rapid transit can be a much more cost-effective way to move people than rail systems such as the Mayor’s streetcar or even the Rail Runner. In fact, I suggested bus rapid transit as an alternative to the Rail Runner, but Lawrence Rael downplayed it as a solution.
The fact is that we already have a form of bus rapid transit in Albuquerque — the Rapid Ride bus. Before we close off any road lanes to use them for buses only, careful studies need to be done about potential ridership, a cost-benefit analysis, and whether simply allowing the buses to alter red light timing might be more effective. Nonetheless, at least it is a step in the right direction.

It is gratifying to see politicians continuing to embrace fiscal responsibility when they run for office, even while the politicians that occupy office behave in just the opposite fashion. One exhibit of this is Albuquerque Mayoral candidate Richard Romero’s article in today’s Albuquerque Journal. In the article he touts his fiscal responsibility with nuggets like: “All current operational budgets should be based on realistic revenue estimates and not influenced by an incumbent’s wish list of high-profile projects that we can’t afford,” and “Future operating costs should not exceed gross receipts tax revenues.” These are sentiments with which I think we can all agree and I hope that no matter who is elected to City Council and as Mayor, I hope they stick with them. All too often, candidates campaign on fiscal restraint only to govern as big-spenders.
I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of Richard Romero’s fiscal track record and whether his statements should be taken as indicators that he will not push the taxpayer-financed streetcar and arena projects, but it is gratifying to see that fiscal restraint is going to be front and center in the 2009 Albuquerque Mayor’s Race.

I hope you had an enjoyable Memorial Day weekend. We’re back to work here at the Rio Grande Foundation and I happened to check the Washington Post website to find this story by Sebastian Mallaby. He writes about the ramped-up efforts on the part of the Chinese to find a way to stop relying on the dollar. I’ve written previously about the debt we’re leaving our children.
This debt is of course of concern to our economic future, but, as Mallaby writes, “If the greenback declines, China’s government stands to lose a fortune.” Having so much money tied up with the drunken sailors in Congress and the White House cannot be a comfortable situation (I know I’m not comfortable with it), so the Chinese have been looking for ways to get out from underneath the dollar without harming the investment they already have made in the currency.
I don’t know if the Chinese can square that circle, but if they simply decide to stop digging the hold that they’re in by not buying any more dollars, we’ll be in serious trouble.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have believed it for a long time, and it only makes sense: giving parents and students greater control over education decisions improves results. Of course, if you’ve been following the debate, you may also be aware that the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are dismantling choice programs. The problem being that regardless of results, teachers unions, a powerful voting and fundraising ally, can’t stand school choice.
We need educational choice in New Mexico and nationwide. Regardless of political party affiliation, improving educational outcomes and creating more diverse opportunities for students should lead to choice-based reforms.

Back in early March, the Albuquerque Journal published a glowing editorial about New Mexico’s supercomputer. I responded to this with a blog posting saying, in essence, that the jobs produced by the computer were minimal and that taxpayers are still getting ripped off.
How quickly times change! On Sunday, the Journal changed its tune completely with this front-page, above-the-fold story which detailed how the computer is “living on state handouts” and explaining that “$115 million will be required over a seven-year period for recurring and nonrecurring costs.” Yesterday, the Journal continued its full-court-press against the supercomputer with this editorial which argued that the state needs to “do better” when it comes to this deal or we might have to “pull the plug.”
For the record, we first criticized the supercomputer back in 2007 and included it among the porky items in our 2008 Piglet Book. Too bad no one consulted us before embarking upon this boondoggle.

The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article about the negative impact of high marginal tax rates yesterday. The article discussed misguided efforts by politicians in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon to increase income tax rates on the highest earners within their respective borders. While politicians facing massive, spending-induced budget deficits are certainly eager to get their mitts on “excess” earnings of the “rich,” the track record of these politicians in doing so without destroying wealth is rather spotty.
As the authors point out:

From 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. Over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

So, the truth is that the taxing and spending policies of America’s most poorly run and rapacious states are simply pushing productive activity to more fiscally-responsible states like Texas. In fact, the authors point out, “Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined.”
To the credit of New Mexico politicians, income taxes were not increased during the last legislative session although such a move was considered as part of the education tax hike effort that subsequently passed the House in another form. Despite his failings in other areas, Governor Richardson should be applauded for his role in reducing New Mexico’s top income tax rate from 8.2 to 4.9 percent.

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="

“>