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.
Having already interviewed mayoral candidates Richard Romero and RJ Berry, Jim Scarantino and Paul Gessing will be interviewing their 3rd and final candidate for Albuquerque Mayor, the incumbent, Martin Chavez, this Saturday on Speaking Freely. The show airs from 9am to 10am on AM 1550 KIVA, Albuquerque’s New Talk Radio.
We will be sure to ask the Mayor about the streetcar, arena, red light cameras, and other issues as well. Call us at 505-265-1550. If you can’t tune in, or if you’d like to listen to the Romero or Berry interviews, you can check out the show podcast on the Rio Grande Foundation’s website.
On Monday, the Albuquerque Journal reported that policymakers are considering cutting Medicaid in order to shore up New Mexico’s budget deficit. All I can say is that it is about time. New Mexico’s Medicaid program has been in dire need of reform for many years now. In fact, Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute — he is going to be taking the free market position in our upcoming health care debate on Monday — visited New Mexico a few years back and discussed several reasons to reform Medicaid. Also, Drs. Harry Messenheimer and Kenneth Brown discussed potential Medicaid cost savings in a policy paper published back in 2003.
Lastly, Stephen Moses who runs the Center for Long Term Care Reform has put together a document entitled “How to Save Medicaid $20 Billion Per Year AND Improve the Program in the Process.” The document should form the basis for reforming Medicaid as it relates to long term care. As moses points out:
· Medicaid LTC recipients consume a disproportionate share of total program
expenditures. For example, consider people eligible for Medicaid AND Medicare.
· Such “dual eligibles” account for 42 percent of Medicaid spending, although they
comprise only 16 percent of Medicaid recipients.
· Dual eligibles are heavy users of long-term care and acute care services not covered by
Medicare. And Medicaid pays for their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing too.
The point is that Medicaid is a ripe target for cost savings and reform. Hopefully legislators will look at some of these “big ideas” rather than just working around the edges. Who says that you can’t enact successful health care reforms at the state level?
Robert Samuelson is one of the best syndicated columnists in America. He leaves partisan politics alone and uses arguments based on economics to make his points. A recent column in particular attracted my attention because Samuelson made several points that I have been making about high-speed rail. The article appeared in the Albuquerque Journal and can be found here.
Samuelson writes the following about President Obama’s taxpayer “investment” in high-speed rail:
There’s only one catch (regarding Obama’s plan for high speed rail): The vision is a mirage. The costs of high-speed rail would be huge, and the public benefits meager.
President Obama’s network may never be built. It’s doubtful private investors will advance the money, and once government officials acknowledge the full costs, they’ll retreat. In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office cited a range of construction costs, from $22 million a mile to $132 million a mile. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser figures $50 million a mile might be a plausible average. A 250-mile system would cost $12.5 billion and 10 systems, $125 billion.
Concluded Samuelson, “The mythology of high-speed rail is not just misinformed; it’s antisocial. Governments at all levels are already overburdened.” I couldn’t agree more. Of course, Samuelson has some critics, but what they fail to mention is that roads are so useful that they would still be built and widely used in the absence of government (toll roads would be ubiquitous) whereas passenger rail depends heavily on government subsidies from non-rail users in order to keep chugging along.
Randal O’Toole blogs further here.
Check it out and let me know what you think:
)
(Albuquerque)— With the Obama Administration’s health care proposal changing on a near-daily basis and Congressional town hall meetings stirring up controversy like never before, citizens need to be involved now, more than ever, in the health care debate.
To that end, the Rio Grande Foundation will be hosting a health care debate between Cato Institute Director of Health Policy Studies, Michael Cannon and AFSCME’s Carter Bundy; on August 31, 2009 from 6pm to 8pm at the Albuquerque Museum which is located at 2000 Mountain Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104.
Cost of the event is $10 payable by cash or check at the door. Light snacks and beverages will be available. Space is limited and this is sure to be a popular event given the pressing nature of the topic, so let us know you’re coming by emailing us at: rsvp@riograndefoundation.org.
Cannon and Bundy will discuss the current state of the health care debate in Washington, explain how it impacts New Mexicans, and offer thoughts on recent legislative changes and reforms he would like to see Congress make to the US health care system. Said Rio Grand Foundation President Paul Gessing, “We are very excited to be hosting these health care experts at a time when Congress is ready to debate and make a final push for greater government intervention.”
Said Gessing, “We will provide a respectful and fair forum. Media outlets are welcome to cover the event as well as long as appropriate arrangements are made ahead of time.”
Cannon has recently been in heavy rotation as a guest on television and radio talk shows and he has worked closely with Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) on free market health care legislation that would weaken the grip health insurance companies have over customers in particular states.
Bundy has written and spoken extensively on health care issues on a variety of New Mexico media outlets, most prominently at the website www.NMPolitics.net.
I was invited by Rep. Martin Heinrich (along with two doctors) to be a panelist at the Congressman’s health care town hall on Saturday. First and foremost, I give Heinrich credit not only for inviting someone with a different perspective to take part in the town hall, but for inviting someone like myself who will provide a competent, principled defense of free market health care instead of an executive from a health insurance company of drug company who would merely provide a self-interested opposition to Obamacare, but not a principled argument and no alternative vision.
The town hall room was completely full with 600 folks attending (a slight advantage for the single-payer folks, approximately 60-40 split between supporters and opponents). Another 300 people watched the proceedings on site in a separate room on closed-circuit television.
Surprisingly enough to me, Heinrich did not stack the rest of the panel with supporters of Obamacare. Rather, one of the physicians, John Vigil, wound up agreeing with me more often than not. He concluded the meeting with a strong statement against the third-party payer model for health care. I was of course critical of Obamacare and the left’s real favorite option, single-payer. I had dozens of positive messages from conservative and free market advocates in my email inbox over the weekend. The folks at ABQRally.com have a good re-cap of the event as well. Then, there are the lefty blogs including two from Daily Kos here and here.
The postings at Daily Kos are so amusing that I quote them at length below:
Then there was the conservative lobbyist….
The lobbyist is from one of the most conservative alleged “research institues” in New Mexico. I was absolutely disappointed pissed off that he put Paul Gessing on a panel discussing health care reform. Gessing brought nothing to the table except to rile up those in attendance who were shills for the Heritage Foundation.
He wasn’t a doctor, he wasn’t a nurse, he wasn’t even a health insurance administrator. He was a lobbyist who regurgitating the same talking points I had heard in line, and, while sitting in the auditorium.
Why was Gessing asked to be on the panel? What legitimacy did he bring to the debate? I have heard Heinrich wanted some “balance.” Bad choice. Lobbyists don’t bring balance. They only bring talking points from those that pay them. If balance was needed then put an insurance executive on the panel.
I’ll borrow a question from a blogger friend of mine,
was Heinrich punked?
I wonder.
Why are we continuing to pander to these people? The health care reform we all want, whether it be a single payer system or a strong public option, won’t be accomplished this way. And when Progressive candidates have conservative industry hacks/shills/lobbyists answering questions at a Town Hall meeting, how will we respond?
Hopefully we won’t respond by sitting on our thumbs and biting our lower lips. I saw way too much of that yesterday.
Lots of anger there. Of course, they didn’t take time to find out that Rio Grande Foundation does not lobby. If the left thinks I “punk’d” Heinrich, then I take that as a compliment, but I was invited to take part in the event and I’m sure he was abundantly aware of my positions on the issues.
Some of the comments on the Daily Kos postings are quite amusing as well:
While I agree that Martin Heinrich had some strong points, his choice of Paul Gessing (a local Libertarian tea bagger who represents insurance industry desires) to be on a panel about health care reform was idiotic. Gessing had no business on that panel. He is a shill. I went to hear answers from experts in the field, not from a well known tea bagger.
Anyway, it was a great day. I’m working to get video of the event so we can upload it to the website. Check back often.
With everything going on these days relating to health care and town hall meetings, it is easy to forget that millions of American children are heading back to school over the next few weeks. Recently, liberal Senator and regular Alibi columnist Jerry Ortiz y Pino wrote a column in which he advocated for change in New Mexico’s abysmal education system.
One excellent point Ortiz y Pino made was:
I think at its heart, the problem with our schools graduating only half the kids who enter them is that we are operating out of the wrong model. We are thinking about the schools as the place where society builds its future members, a sort of factory where they are assembled, tested and stamped “ready.” (Although no factory that discarded half of the products on its assembly line could stay in business very long.)
He then goes on to outline four ideas for reform that, quite frankly, seem to be thin gruel indeed considering the state of the system. Ortiz y Pino’s ideas are:
• Stop suspending students. Instead, require in-school suspension, after-school tutoring and week-end remediation.
• Greatly expand vocational and trade opportunities, relying heavily on the state’s network of community colleges for concurrent enrollment while students are still in high school.
• Every elementary and middle school should have after-school programming for every student.
• We need many more charter or alternative schools for high school students who are not doing well in class or who have already dropped out. Small communities with attention given to differing learning styles—accompanied by supportive services to deal with family and community barriers to learning—have proven effective in helping kids graduate.
I wrote a letter (cut and pasted below) to the Alibi in which I applauded Ortiz y Pino for advocating reform, but encouraged more dramatic and systemic education reforms.
Jerry Ortiz y Pino makes some good points in his article “The Dropout Factor” [Re: July 30-Aug. 5]. The problem is that his solutions are far too limited in scope to actually solve the massive problem of having a statewide dropout rate approaching 50 percent.
Rather than tinkering around the edges of a failed system, we need dramatic changes. Ideas might include a system of tax credits to allow taxpayers to donate a portion of their New Mexico tax liability to provide scholarships for low-income and needy children, a voucher program targeted at “special needs” and foster children who are particularly vulnerable to dropping out, and an emphasis on reduced school sizes. In general, our schools also need to focus a greater percentage of their resources on the classroom rather than wasting it on bureaucracy (New Mexico has one of the most bloated education bureaucracies in the nation).
Charter and alternative schools have been a big hit with parents and students, but New Mexico needs to go further, beyond the government-run school model, in order to improve educational outcomes. And if we try these innovative reforms and nothing changes? We can always return to the failed status quo.
Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation
Interestingly enough, while Ortiz y Pino is one of the most liberal legislators in Santa Fe, he has apparently caused a great deal of consternation among the Albuquerque Teachers Federation.
I really haven’t blogged about the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program in which federal taxpayers give purchasers of certain automobiles from $3,500 to $4,500. The program is based on such transparently bad economics that it really didn’t merit any mention. Of course, politicians, those who take money from one group of people and give it to others, have justified the program based on its popularity. Dropping money our of airplanes would be popular as well, at least if you are one of the lucky people standing on the street as the planes fly over.
But, as is so often the case with government, what they say and what they do are two different things. This report from Maryland explains that fewer than 2 percent of claims for reimbursement in Maryland have been paid by the feds. Of course, government officials are blaming dealers for “submitting incomplete claims, which in turn cause delays.”
It is no surprise that car dealers, most of whom until recently were not experts in filling out government paperwork might not dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s required by the bureaucrats. I’m not sure how this situation will play out, but it seems quite likely that many dealers will lose out on thousands or even millions of dollars while the government reimburses other people who take advantage of the system.
The real story is that this is the way government works all the time. It’s not just health care, but “cap-and-trade,” Social Security, Medicare, and nearly all programs administered by the federal government that are not found in the US Constitution.
We have just confirmed that Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing will be included as a member of Rep. Martin Heinrich’s health care panel at his upcoming town hall meeting this Saturday, August 22, 2009. The event will be held from 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. at the UNM Continuing Education Building which is located at 1634 University Blvd. NE, in Albuquerque. If you plan to attend, it is highly recommended that you arrive early as space will be limited and those who support an increased role for government in our health care system will be out in force. In fact, some are concerned that supporters of the government takeover are being told the event starts at 2:30 rather than 3:00 in order to get more of them to show up.
Nonetheless, this is bound to be one of the most important health care related events in Albuquerque in some time.
Gessing will represent the Rio Grande Foundation on the panel and will be a voice for market-based health care reforms. He’ll also show how government is not the solution to all of our health care problems. While he’ll undoubtedly be outnumbered, his inclusion on the panel at all is a clear sign that proponents of additional government intervention in American health care are starting to realize that other opinions must be recognized in this important public policy debate. See you there this Saturday!
If you’ve driven around town recently, you have probably seen the campaign signs for Mayor Marty that have popped up like so many weeds after a monsoon storm. The signs which tout the Mayor’s “Leadership, Vision, and Results” are mostly located in open fields and other “public property” locations. But, as I was driving downtown the other day I noticed a sign in a rather unusual place, especially for an incumbent Mayor. I saw a sign in front of a boarded up hotel, the “Silver Moon Lodge” which is just west of downtown on Central.
Certainly, a boarded up hotel would seem like poor location for an advertisement for the economic policies of the incumbent administration (I’m sure the Silver Moon Lodge would be doing just dandy if taxpayers were forced to expand the downtown convention/events center as the Mayor has previously proposed). Worse, and I didn’t notice this until I stopped to take pictures, the Mayor’s sign has been tagged. One photo of the sign and the hotel sign is below, but photos are also here and here.
Lastly, the Mayor has not filled out the Rio Grande Foundation’s candidate survey. He is the only candidate running for Mayor not to have done so.
On this week’s episode of “Speaking Freely (available here),” I interview Sen. Mark Boitano regarding New Mexico’s budget shortfall, the upcoming special session, and “tax lightning” as it relates to property taxes.
In today’s Albuquerque Journal business section Dale Lockett of the Convention and Visitors Bureau and Charlie Gray of the Inkeepers Association continue their push for a downtown arena and convention center expansion.
Said Lockett, “The overall lower occupancy numbers also reveal increased competition for convention and meetings business. We’re going to be challenged until the need for an (much larger) event center is realized. “The competition has a better product for convention centers. The impact is more than just dollars and cents, it’s who’s coming in. It’s business people, it’s buyers.”
Charlie Gray, executive director of the Greater Albuquerque Innkeepers Association, said a lack of availability at Downtown hotels hurts Convention Center bookings. He said there are about 400 to 450 rooms available between Downtown hotels on any given night — not enough to house a large convention in one area. If there was more availability Downtown, the ACVB would have the tools to work with.”
Do these guys not read the numbers relating to their own industry? Are they not aware of the 41 percent decline in bookings related to convention center events in 2009 relative to 2008 here in Albuquerque? This is hardly an argument for pouring additional taxpayer money into a bigger convention center and additional hotel space associated with the convention center.
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. Check out this study from the Brookings Institute (by no means a right-wing think tank). 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!
“Tax Lightning” is a situation in New Mexico dealing with property taxes in which someone who buys a new home experiences a dramatic increase in property tax burdens because the property they are purchasing is no longer covered under the state’s 3 percent annual assessment increase. This situation was overturned yesterday by a judge who said that such unequal treatment was illegal. Read Albuquerque Journal article here .
The judge’s decision is definitely a double-edged sword. On one hand, taxpayers who stay in their homes for longer periods of time definitely benefit from the 3% tax cap which has now been ruled to violate New Mexico’s Constitution. So, doing away with the cap could increase all of our property taxes. On the other hand, if the Legislature places a 3% cap on all property, this could be a very good thing for New Mexico taxpayers. On the other hand, New Mexico faces a $300 million budget shortfall. Are legislators really going to forgo another source of revenue at a time of constrained budgets? Only time will tell.
If you want to know more about the demise of “tax lightning,” tune in to the Rio Grande Foundation’s radio show “Speaking Freely” from 9am to 10am tomorrow (Saturday). We’ll be discussing the issues with New Mexico’s foremost legislative expert on “tax lightning,” Senator Mark Boitano.
John Mackey the CEO of Whole Foods is one of my favorite businessmen. His company may cater to the left (and others who like organic/free range food who are not necessarily on the left or politically-motivated at all), some of whom are really angry at him although they can’t refute his arguments, but he is an unabashed free market-believer. In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Mackey outlined a great solution to America’s health care problem that is based, not on bigger government and higher taxes, but instead upon individual freedom and choice.
Mackey’s reform ideas, many of which have been supported by the Rio Grande Foundation, are outlined below:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
A note to Republicans, while opposing Obamacare is a start — at least they are no longer actively expanding the federal role in health care as they did under President Bush — you need to adopt these as your legislative priorities. Sure, legislative being pushed by Rep. John Shadegg and Sen. Jim DeMint would allow for insurance companies to compete across state lines.
In case you have been hiding under a rock or left the country for vacation recently, you are probably aware that Congress has heard an earful from the American people on the issue of health care and President Obama’s move to vastly expand government control over Americans’ health care. In light of these outbursts, Members of Congress are being very careful about how they handle their town hall meetings.
Rep. Martin Heinrich is not alone. He has one town hall scheduled on health care. The event is scheduled for Saturday, August 22, 2009, 3:00 to 4:30 p.m and will be held at the UNM Continuing Education Building which is located at 1634 University Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87131. From talking to his staff, the idea is to have a panel of experts on hand to explain Obamacare.
Since we at the Rio Grande Foundation have done a great deal of work in the field of health care, we offered our services to appear on the panel and provide an alternative perspective. Unfortunately, we were told that although the panel for the 22nd was not full, our services were not needed (don’t expect to hear anyone who doesn’t think Obamacare is a good idea or that government should not see a much larger role in Americans’ health care decisions).
So, I followed up with Heinrich’s office offering to host a discussion of the topic in which free market voices are added to the discussion. Our letter is block-quoted below and we’ll definitely keep you posted if anything develops (I’m not holding my breath).
August 10, 2009
The Honorable Martin Heinrich
United States House of Representatives
20 First Plaza, Suite 603
Albuquerque, NM 87102Re: Health Care Debate
Dear Representative Heinrich:
In the interest of giving the First Congressional District the full and open debate it deserves on the President’s proposals to change our national healthcare insurance and delivery systems, the Rio Grande Foundation is pleased to offer to convene for you a panel of experts and concerned citizens who favor free market approaches to the issue.
We understand your health care town hall meeting on August 22, 2009, will include a panel of experts who favor the President’s plan, but will not include any critics or proponents of free market alternatives (including representatives of the free-market oriented Rio Grande Foundation which is based in your home district in Albuquerque). We believe the citizens of your district deserve more than that, and that is why we make this offer.
We would be glad to schedule this panel discussion any time convenient to you. We look forward to working with your staff to arrange this educational event, and advance the public debate on an issue so important to your constituents.
We hope you will accept this invitation.
Sincerely,
Paul Gessing,
President
The Rio Grande Foundation hosted David Boaz in Albuquerque a few weeks ago and Bob Clark had us both on the air. The interview is now available online.
