You may have missed it unless you work in health care…in fact, I can almost guarantee it, but the State of New Mexico held a “Input Meeting” on New Mexico’s Comprehensive Strategic Health Plan. Now, as an advocate of free markets and individual choice, the very concept of the government having a “comprehensive” plan for my health is distasteful and the idea that governments can even make decisions in a “strategic” fashion is a bad joke.
But, the meeting was held and I attended one of the panels on financing health care in Albuquerque. Not surprisingly, for a day-long meeting, nearly all of the attendees were either employed by government or work directly for a particular interest group. Average New Mexicans simply did not attend. More importantly — and perhaps as a result of the self-interested attendees — the primary topic of discussion was “what can government do for me?” Unfortunately, as long as the focus of health care reform is on government doing more rather than less, the problems in our health care “system” will worsen.
For a look at the framework on which discussion of the State’s so-called strategic plan was based, check out the word document found here.

According to a new study, New Mexico ranks number one (worst in the nation) in deaths from falls for seniors. New Mexico ranked highest with 99.26 deaths per 100,000 people over the age of 65. Wisconsin was second at 87.35 deaths per 100,000 people over age 65 and Vermont came in third with 81.46. Alaska ranked the lowest, with 15.95 deaths. Medical treatment costs for falls involving people over age 65 were more than $19 billion in 2000, and that figure is projected to increase to more than $40 billion by 2020.
While the problem of seniors falling is certainly real and obviously expensive, the ability to prevent it and potential preventative measures are unclear. Certainly, it would seem that seniors should be aware of the problem and take steps to prevent or prepare for it.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue recently signed legislation making High Deductible Health Plans paired (HDHP) with Health Savings Accounts (HSA) more affordable and available in that state.
An HDHP is a health insurance plan that offers consumers lower premiums and higher deductibles than a traditional health plan. HSAs allow consumers to set aside funds tax-free for future qualified medical health expenses.
The legislation exempts insurers from state premium taxes for the sale of high deductible health plans with a Health Savings Account, while allowing consumers to deduct from state income taxes an amount equal to premiums paid to a HSA plan. The new legislation will affect mostly the self-employed and small business employees by providing a $250 annual tax credit for small business employers that spend at least $250 annually to enroll their employers in an HSA plan.
If Governor Richardson and New Mexico’s legislators are really concerned about reducing the number of uninsured in the state and improving access to health care, they should consider similar legislation.

Recently, the Albuquerque Journal contained a story with the headline “NM Ranks High on Health Care.” Since I follow these issues closely and have a pretty good grasp on New Mexico’s very real health care problems, I immediately took a closer look. What gave New Mexico such a positive ranking on health care?
The answer, if you can call it that, is contained in a recently-released study by the Trust for America’s Health. According to this study, what New Mexico ranks high in is receiving funding from the federal Centers for Disease Control.
Of course, there is no correlation between CDC spending and health care outcomes, but as a Trust spokeswoman said, “New Mexico does well competing for federal health care dollars. Officials in New Mexico have been aggressive and successful in submitting grant requests.”
So, while the Trust study claims that more federal funding is needed for disease prevention programs, New Mexico is having great success in accessing more than its share. Maybe the next time the Trust studies health care spending, it will take a look at whether all this money actually achieves intended results.

If you missed the luncheon hosted by the Rio Grande Foundation and the New Mexico Prosperity Project last Wednesday, you missed out on a really outstanding event. The folks over at AWOL Civilization were kind enough to blog about the event here.

Mark you calendars now! The Rio Grande Foundation and CARE (the Citizen’s Alliance for Responsible Energy) are partnering to bring a powerful film event to New Mexico!
On May 20-22 we will be showing the movie Mine Your Own Business in New Mexico.
Albuquerque–May 20: State Bar of New Mexico, 5121 Masthead NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
Roswell–May 21: Roswell Museum and Art Center, 100 West 11th Street, Roswell, NM 88201
Farmington–May 22: Totah Theater, 315 W. Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Mine Your Own Business is a one-hour feature documentary that exposes the real agenda of many prominent environmental activists. It is an entertaining and informative exposé on how the environmental movement is ignoring the world’s poor and their dire need for economic development.
The film features interviews with some of the world’s poorest people and reflects on their individual goals for a better life. It is the first documentary to ask hard questions of the environmental movement and the right of all people to live prosperous and productive lives. Even if you think you understand the importance of economic development, this film will provide insight into the desperate state of the world’s poor – as no book or study can – and why we cannot deny them the dignity of development and economic achievement.
Read a review of the movie. Listen to an interview with the film’s producer. Watch the preview.
Each showing will be followed with a short presentation by Paul Driessen, author of the book Eco-Imperialism. Driessen will localize the movies message and answer questions from the audience.
Each event will be held in a “happy hour” type timeframe with refreshments (Beer and wine will be available at the Albuquerque and Roswell locations) from 5:00-5:30pm, showings at 5:30 and Paul Driessen’s presentations at 6:30. These events are open to the public free-of-charge and you are encouraged to bring everyone you know! (Event sponsorships are still available.)
RSVP today at: info@riograndefoundation.org

Santa Fe County Commissioner Jack Sullivan was fighting the majority, according to The New Mexican (Official fights planned tax hike, Apr. 29, 2008), when he proposed that Santa Fe County drop out of the Transit District, which includes Santa Fe, Taos, Los Alamos, and Rio Arriba counties. The Transit District is trying to impose a tax increase on residents to expand bus services in these counties.
The only problem is that the state legislature, through the Department of Transportation, is considering imposing its own tax for Rail Runner services. The Transit District doesn’t know where Rail Runner routes are going to connect yet. They have no clue where bus service might be needed most. A week ago the Transit District, even though it didn’t have the details of Rail Runner service, wanted to impose a tax increase anyway. Thankfully Jack Sullivan was able to persuade Santa Fe County Commissioners to hold off until they were able to talk to the state about plans for the train. Sullivan said, “Details about how Santa Fe’s approximately $4.5 million portion in tax revenue would be spent are vague.” It’s possible that the state would impose a tax for some of the same services the Transit District wanted to tax for.
Some officials didn’t think double taxation was a big deal. Transit Board director Josette Lucero said, “We’ve already gone back to the drawing board twice.” Santa Fe City Councilor Miguel Chavez said, “We’ve already reconsidered…it seems a little redundant.” County Commissioner Mike Anaya said, ‘Sullivan needs to take a longer view of the issue and not get bogged down worrying about which county pays for what.’ (The New Mexican, 4/29). Details are so messy when you are trying to pick peoples’ pockets!
Then, after the Commission’s April 29th meeting, at which Sullivan was able to convince commissioners to wait for more details from the state’s Department of Transportation before agreeing to the Transit District’s tax, Board director Lucero said, “I can totally understand their position…I agree that the parties needed to come together months ago.” Santa Fe Mayor David Cross said, “We’re just not ready. We don’t have a plan for public transit that includes the Rail Runner…I would like to see that addressed as part of the equation…” (The New Mexican, County agrees to put hold on tax increase, Apr. 30, 2008) The Transit Board director is only going to participate in a task force if they can come to a resolution within 30 days, after which Sullivan will reintroduce the idea of Santa Fe County dropping out of the Transit District.
Why isn’t possible double taxation a big deal for the Transit District? Why haven’t the counties and state been collaborating on transit? Why is the Transit Board director putting a timeline on researching the impacts of the tax? It’s obvious that some of these people aren’t concerned with wasting our money. Other than Sullivan, many of these officials seem to have no problem flushing our money down the toilet.

It never ceases to amaze me that David Roybal was a speech writer for Governor Richardson. His columns are often incoherent and never really seem to make a policy point one way or the other. Perhaps that is a strength when it comes to writing politicians’ speeches? If you never make a clear point, you never have to defend unpopular positions…Barack Obama is certainly learning that lesson!
Nevertheless, Roybal, writing in today’s Albuquerque Journal, implies that he’d like to see one of New Mexico’s congressional delegation obtain an earmark to pay for some of the costs associated with the Rail Runner. Among the supposed “benefits” of using the earmarking process is the fact that “an earmark escapes scrutiny that it would otherwise have to face as a stand-alone measure….worse, if the process shows a project to lack merit…it might be voted down.”
Roybal goes on to question whether the Rail Runner should be funded as an earmark and touches on the price of gasoline, but he never takes a particular position on the issue. The fact is that the Rail Runner is not a viable project from a transportation perspective, even with expensive gasoline, because it won’t go where people need to go at the times that they need to be there. Otherwise, someone in the private sector would have thought of it a long time ago.
Sad to say it, but New Mexico taxpayers should (and will probably have to) foot the bill for this boondoggle on their own.

Recently, I praised Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez for his relative budget restraint. While I stand behind that praise, the ongoing debacle involving the City’s efforts to buy 22 acres of land near Vista del Norte, ostensibly for a balloon-landing site (but really to keep Wal Mart from building a store there) undermines efforts to strengthen the City’s economy.
After all, if businesses are to locate here, they need to know that the carpet will not be pulled from underneath them for political reasons. The City, (specifically taxpayers) is now paying the price for abrogating property rights in the area that is now ABQ Uptown. Rather than buying the land, the City should encourage the developer to go ahead with plans to put a Wal Mart or whatever they want to do with it. If landing balloons is really an issue, perhaps the City can work with the developers to develop the land in a way that allows balloons to land in the area? We can’t simply stop growing as a City in order to be balloon-friendly.

In case you missed it — or you were not at our luncheon event with John Stossel yesterday — the Rio Grande Foundation’s Ken Brown appeared on the front page of yesterday’s USA Today discussing the propensity of the federal government to continue to hire and grow even as private employers cut back in a tough economy. While some “economists” view this as a good way to mitigate tough economic times, Brown more accurately points out that the problem is that governments are much slower to react to economic conditions than other actors in the economy.

John Stossel, who will be speaking tomorrow in Albuquerque at an RGF-sponsored event, questioned in a recent article the chicken little perspective being foisted on the American people by the media and their political leaders.
It is easy to see that the media benefits from hyperventilating about supposed crises we’re now facing — after all, a crisis is interesting and draws viewers. Who else benefits from a crisis? Politicians and big government, of course! Government is often looked to as the solution to supposed crisis (the Great Depression would be a great example) and bigger government means more power for government officials. Thank you Mr. Stossel, for giving us all a chill-pill.

Jim Scarantino wrote about the FairTax recently in The Alibi. While I did not really disagree with anything that Jim said, I think free market conservatives and libertarians are misplacing their energies by focusing on tax reform. The letter which was published in the most recent edition of The Alibi

I read Jim Scarantino’s article on “The Fair Tax” [Re: The Real Side, April 17-23] with great interest. I spent nearly eight years in Washington working on tax reform and advocating for taxpayers. Like Jim, I believe America’s tax system is broken. Unfortunately, the political will to seriously reform or abolish our income tax system is sorely lacking in Washington.
The problem is that each loophole and tax shelter now written into the Tax Code was put there because a powerful interest group successfully lobbied to put it there. The home-owners tax deduction is just one popular provision that, rightly or wrongly, will be extremely tough to eliminate in the name of tax simplification.
As if entrenched special interests were not enough of a problem with any fundamental tax reform, the Fair Tax faces the additional obstacle of being untested. On the other hand, more than 20 nations, especially rapidly growing states of the former Soviet Union, have adopted flat taxes. It might work, but making the leap will be a serious challenge.
Rather than focusing on reforming how we collect taxes, we instead need a philosophical shift away from the belief that government is a tool by which one person can live at the expense of others. Indeed, government can insure our lives, liberty and property, but redistributive government policies inevitably destroy wealth rather than produce it.
Simplifying the Tax Code is a good idea, but until we change our view of government, such reforms will remain a distant dream.
Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation
Albuquerque

According to Zsombor Peter of the Albuquerque Journal ($1M Spent on Truancy, With Little To Show for It, Apr. 22, 2008), the state government has recently released a report documenting that 67% of APS high school students are classified as habitually truant from class. The state high school average is 33%.
In his 2003 “state of the state” address, Governor Richardson “propos[ed] a $1 million appropriation for truancy prevention.” Through the Governor’s Statewide Truancy Prevention Program, the APS district was awarded the most out of any district in 2005, $40,000. It now appears that almost 7 out of 10 high school students miss more than 10 days of instruction out of the school year.
The state’s truancy prevention money is not being invested wisely in the Albuquerque Public Schools. There are obviously circumstances that contribute to a student’s absenteeism that the district is either overlooking or not effectively addressing.
We were all 16 at one time or another and most of us have skipped a class or two at some point in our lives, but the fact is that our public schools are not producing a product — even when it is offered for free and officers of the law attempt to force attendance — that most “consumers” deem worthy of their time. This truancy problem persists despite the abundant documentation of the importance of a high school diploma.
There may not be a silver bullet solution to the truancy problem, but we could start by tailoring our educational system to the needs of students rather than attempting to force students into a regimented and very institutional public school setting. Charter schools are a step forward, but this is yet another sign pointing to the need for school choice.

It is Earth Day and over at Eye on Albuquerque, the author has an excellent posting on the mixed significance of the environmental movement today. While it is certainly good to limit our ecological footprint, environmentalists seem more concerned about taking away our freedoms and putting the state in control of society’s resources.
The irony here is that the environmental movement has actually succeeded since it began in earnest back in 1970. The earth, especially in the United States, is better off than ever before. Rather than giving the government more control of our lives, the key to improving the planet is to help other countries grow as wealthy as we are.

While most economists understand the economic benefit of reducing or eliminating income taxes, not many states have real-world data to show how income tax cuts would impact their own economies. New Mexico, however, is one state with recent experience with significant income tax cuts. Between 2003 and 2008, New Mexico reduced its top personal income tax rate from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent. Not surprisingly, during that same time period, New Mexico’s average personal income level rose from 47th in the nation to 43rd after having been stuck at 47th in the nation for several years.
The Rio Grande Foundation’s new paper outlines a plan to eliminate the state’s personal income tax entirely within four years by simply holding spending growth to 4.5 percent annually. Since the 9 states lacking an income tax have personal incomes averaging $7,000 more per year than New Mexico, eliminating the personal income tax would conceivably push the state out of the tier of poor states and push it up to the middle of the pack.

In case you missed it, I had an opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal on Friday in support of Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez’s fiscally-restrained 2009 budget. While we have been critical of some of the Mayor’s priorities in the past, his willingness to cut spending and move forward with modest tax relief is welcome.
Albuquerque’s fiscal restraint is particularly striking when compared with the rapid growth of spending at the state level. Check out Albuquerque’s proposed budget here.

The issue of “corporate welfare” has taken on greater importance over the years on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. And, although it is hard to have corporate welfare in the absence of large corporations with giant lobbying budgets, a recent article by Barry Massey of the Associated Press illustrates an example right here in New Mexico.
In fact, an Albuquerque-based company called Blast-N-Clean received $162,500 to demonstrate its cleaning system to nearly a dozen cities and counties. Legislators earmarked money for the work although local governments didn’t ask for the pilot projects in some instances. As I point out in the article, this “Certainly sounds like this is something that should come out of the company’s own marketing budget, not the state budget.” I also argue (as I have done before) that we need to reform the capital outlay process. Better still, this money should be returned to taxpayers.
Nothing against Blast-N-Clean or any other company, but they should live or die based on the quality and innovative nature of their product, not their ability to suck money from taxpayers.

You may have read my blog posting yesterday which discussed Governor Richardson’s campaign debt and drew a connection between the fiscal irresponsibility of our politicians and the citizenry as a whole. It turns out that I was being a bit hard on the spending and borrowing habits of my fellow Americans. As Harry Messenheimer pointed out in a few emails, the fact is that American consumers are not in nearly as bad of shape as the mainstream media would like us to believe.
Debt as an aggregate figure is irrelevant. What really matters is real net wealth — and it is way up and continues to climb. Indebtedness is simply a number and it can simply mean that more people are buying houses. So, there you have it. Government debt is relevant and rising dramatically. Debt as a simple number is not a good measure of the average Americans’ real economic picture.

I’ve long believed that personal financial management and government fiscal policy are closely related. In other words, it is no coincidence that American families owe $14 trillion in debt and that the US government is $9.4 trillion (not to mention $40 trillion in un-funded government liabilities).
This overlap is also apparent among specific politicians. Take Bill Richardson for example. His Presidential campaign was unsuccessful, but because he spent more money than his campaign actually raised, he is now sending out desperate fundraising messages to his supporters asking him to pay off his $380,000 debt. At the same time, he’s only contributed $2,300 to his own bid for the White House. I didn’t give Bill any of my money, but even if I had done so, I’d be taken aback at his plea for more when he’s already dropped out. Does this tendency to stick others with the bill sound familiar, like perhaps New Mexico’s economy after Richardson leaves office and the Rail Runner starts sucking up tax dollars?
Winding up in debt and desperate for help does not bode well for Richardson’s political future or New Mexico’s economic outlook.
-Hat tip, Harry Messenheimer

According to the New Mexico Business Weekly, there is a new initiative afoot among some business groups to attract educated New Mexicans who have moved out of state, back to the state. Mark Lautman, director of economic development for the master-planned, mixed-use community of Mesa del Sol, is just one local leader who believes that the demand for labor will outstrip the supply in the next 25 years and get more out of our native population.
Initiatives being promoted by the business coalition include creating an online database where companies can post work force needs and job opportunities. A $400,000 grant from the US Department of Labor will pay for much of the program.
While this is by no means a massive expenditure of public money, it would seem that the program is going to do very little to alleviate the perceived “shortage” of highly skilled workers in the state. While there are no quick fixes when it comes to attracting talent, it would seem that two things could be done by policymakers:
1) Let workers keep more of their money by cutting taxes. States that lack an income tax — Washington, Florida, Texas, Nevada, and New Hampshire to name just a few of the nine — grow faster economically and have higher income levels than their peers. Further cutting New Mexico’s income tax rate (or eliminating the tax entirely) would attract high-end jobs and workers.
2) Produce more highly-educated workers. The fact that New Mexico needs to improve its education system is no secret. New Mexico’s drop-out rate hovers near 50 percent and by almost any measure, New Mexico’s educational system is among the worst in the nation. If we want to fill skilled jobs we need an education system that produces more of them.

As many New Mexicans know, the state’s main utility is currently fighting the state’s regulatory agency, the Public Regulation Commission, for a major rate increase. In today’s Alamogordo Daily News, I discuss the potential benefits of deregulating utilities in order to allow customers to determine for themselves where to buy their energy and what price they are willing to pay. Such competition driven by the ability and the need to set reasonable prices would also increase efficiency.

I have a great deal of respect for people who own and operate businesses in New Mexico. This a big-government state and the culture is not friendly to entrepreneurs. That said, a recent story (subscription required) from the Albuquerque Journal’s Business Outlook section outlining a new health care plan being developed by business groups including the New Mexico Restaurant Association and the Association of Commerce and Industry.
Unfortunately, rather than supporting market-based reforms such as those proposed earlier this year by the Rio Grande Foundation, this supposedly “pro-business” coalition instead is arguing that the gross receipts tax (as opposed to taxes levied on employers) should fund the expansion of government health care plans. While the business coalition does at least stress the fact that, as Beverly McClure of ACI notes “about half of the state’s uninsured already qualify for some kind of coverage or public program, and they still don’t sign up.” Nonetheless, if this coalition wanders down the path of higher taxation and bigger government, they are heading down the same path towards government-managed health care that Governor Richardson’s failed plan did.
Rather than bigger government, New Mexico businesses must rally behind ideas like eliminating the gross receipts tax on health care, allowing individuals to purchase coverage across state lines, and reforming Medicaid (to name just a few ideas). These reforms — unlike government programs — will cut costs and increase coverage.

Pete Domenici may be popular here in New Mexico in part because he brings the pork home for New Mexico, but he’s also a big reason why the Republican Party has lost its moorings on fiscal matters.
I received word of the following exchange from a staffer at the Heritage Foundation. This debate just occurred on the Senate floor between Senators Coburn and Domenici (link courtesy of Sen. DeMint’s office). It highlights the clash of cultures between true reformers (Coburn and DeMint) and business-as-usual career politicians (including Domenici, unfortunately) like nothing else since perhaps the Bridge to Nowhere debate. The final 45 seconds is especially noteworthy.
Earlier in the debate Sen. Domenici essentially asserted that the Junior Senator from Oklahoma shouldn’t attempt to supplant the collective wisdom of committee staff.
Transcript of Domenici remarks:

I DON’T THINK ONE SENATOR SHOULD SUPPLANT THAT. THOSE 23 MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE MAKE THEIR JUDGMENTS ON INFORMATION COMPILED BY A PROFESSIONAL STAFF WITH A COMBINED SERVICE OF RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS IN CONGRESS OF OVER 70 YEARS JUST ON THE REPUBLICAN STAFF SIDE ALONE. THEY SPEND GREAT DEAL OF TIME ON THESE BILLS. THEY KNOW MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. THEY — THEY GIVE THAT KNOWLEDGE TO US, THE 23 MEMBERS, AND WE VOTE.

Transcript of Coburn remarks:

THE HERITAGE THAT WE HAVE EMBRACED IN THIS COUNTRY IS ONE OF SACRIFICE. ONE GENERATION SACRIFICES SO THE NEXT HAS OPPORTUNITY. IF WE KEEP DOING THIS WITHOUT REGARD, WE DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH WE’RE SPENDING, WE DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH THE MONTHLY COSTS ARE, WE’RE NOT TAKING CARE OF THE PARKS THE WAY WE SHOULD BECAUSE WE HAVE A HODGEPODGE, A BARGE FLOATING DOWN A RIVER WITHOUT A TUG ON IT, WE’RE GOING TO MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. I WILL REMIND MY COLLEAGUES, THE TRUE ACCOUNTING OF THIS YEAR ESTIMATE IS $607 BILLION DEFICIT. THAT’S OVER $2,000 FOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THIS COUNTRY. EVERY CHILD THAT’S BORN TODAY IN THIS COUNTRY INHERITS AN OBLIGATION THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY THAT THEY GET NO BENEFIT FROM OF $400,000. AM I FRUSTRATING THE SENATORS FROM NEW MEXICO? YOU BET. ARE OUR CHILDREN WORTH IT? YOU BET. I’M NOT GOING TO STOP, I’M GOING TO STAND AND SAY WE’RE GOING TO THINK LONG TERM, WE ARE GOING TO START.PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS, WE ARE NOT GOING IT GIVE UP BECAUSE WE GET LECTURED TO BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING IT THE WAY WE’VE ALWAYS DONE IT. THE WAY WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT HAS US BANKRUPT.

IT’S TIME FOR A CHANGE.
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE: OUR CHILDREN ARE WORTH IT. WITH THAT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.
Description of Coburn amendments that are being voted on now.

America’s largest taxpayer group, the National Taxpayers Union, publishes an annual rating of Congress. As a former employee of NTU, I am intimately familiar with the ratings process and am pleased to say that their ratings are the best of any tax and fiscal policy organization in Washington.
The difference between NTU’s ratings and others is that NTU doesn’t pick and choose votes based on a political agenda. Instead, all votes are included and weighted based on their importance to taxpayers. The full report is available here.
When it comes to New Mexico’s delegation, Sen. Domenici received a mediocre “C,” while Bingaman received an “F,” coming in among the worst-rated Democrats in the entire Congress (on par with Barack Obama). In the House delegation, Pearce received a respectable “B+” while Wilson received a sub-par “C-” and Udall picked up a low “F.”
While these numbers are quite revealing on their own terms, trends are also notable and can be studied with the use of the ratings database. Since entering Congress in 2003, Pearce has begun voting with the taxpayer more often, improving from lows of 53% to his current high point of 79%. Wilson, Domenici, and Udall’s ratings have remained fairly consistent over the years but Bingaman has become less taxpayer-friendly over time.
This is certainly useful information in light of the myriad races voters will be faced with this fall.