Micha Gisser is a former UNM professor and currently serves as a Senior Fellow with the Rio Grande Foundation. He had a very interesting article (subscription required) on taxes in the Business Journal section of the newspaper recently. Gisser essentially went through the tax cutting successes and failures of the last three Presidents to have cut taxes significantly — JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush and discussed their impact on the overall economy. I have previously compared the size and scope of these tax cuts here.
To sum up his arguments, Kennedy’s tax cuts were Keynesian in nature with the top income tax rate dropped from 91 percent to 70 percent and they succeeded in reducing unemployment from 5.7 percent to 3.8 percent while the deficit was actually reduced at the same time.
Gisser goes on to discuss Reagan’s tax cuts which included reducing the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. He calls the record of these cuts “mixed” because budget deficit increased dramatically under Reagan. Where I disagree with Gisser is that the deficit and tax cuts are separate matters. The deficits under Reagan were at least partly spending induced as this chart shows.
Lastly, there is Bush whose capital gains tax cuts in particular Gisser calls a success. Although Gisser gives Bush an undeserved pass on his spending (see previous chart), it is important to recognize at a time when Bush’s economic policies are increasingly unpopular that his tax cutting policies are not to blame. Rather than raising taxes as Obama proposes, we should make the Bush tax cuts permanent and look for ways to reduce our corporate tax burden which is among the heaviest in the world.
Overall, Gisser makes a compelling case, but rather than saying that a particular tax cut has a “mixed record,” we should look at cutting taxes as a way to shrink government. Ultimately, that should be the goal.

Councilor Isaac Benton created a task force and stacked it with his friends and supporters of the streetcar. Recently, the task force released its recommendations. Not surprisingly, they recommend continuing the 1/4 cent gross receipts tax that is up for renewal at the end of 2009. Also, given Benton’s bent towards control of development and personal mobility, he urges more financial support for transit. Lastly, while his task force supports the idea of the streetcar, they naturally view additional funding (more tax hikes and subsidies) as essential in order to move the project forward. Specific recommendations are below:

By a unanimous vote, the Task Force recommended continuation of the gross receipts tax for transportation, set to expire at the end of 2009. This tax will provide continued funding to maintain, improve, and repair city roads and to help maintain and operate the ABQ Ride transit system. The recommendation to continue the tax, which generates approximately $38 million annually, is tied to new comprehensive policy recommendations for each of the tax’s five programs: road maintenance, road rehabilitation, road deficiencies, trails & bikeways, and transit. A central focus of the Task Force’s recommendations is increasing capacity of the city’s existing street
system by improving efficiency and flexibility for private vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

The report also contains a recommendation about how the tax should be allocated in the future. “One of the most important recommendations from the Task Force is to increase Transit’s share of the tax from 20% to 36%,”
said Councilor Benton. “More and more people are using ABQ Ride every day. We must respond to the citywide demand for transit that has resulted from $3- and $4-dollar-a-gallon gas.”

On the question of the modern streetcar, a two-thirds majority of the Task Force supported the concept, further analysis, and development of the streetcar. However, it would limit such use of the tax to a maximum of 14%
of the total proceeds, and only if leveraged on a 3:1 basis with other sources. These could include State and/or Federal support, private sponsorships, and a Tax Increment Development District.

The report, once introduced at Monday’s Council meeting, will be referred to the Finance and Government Operations Committee, which could hear the report as early as their October 15th meeting.

Congress just passed a $700 billion bailout bill. While that deal will inevitably hit average Americans in their pocketbooks there is another “bailout plan” on the ballot this November in New Mexico…whether or not to bail out the Rail Runner. Unlike the Congressional bailout which voters had little real power over, voters will be able to support or oppose the bailout of the Rail Runner that will increase the gross receipts tax by 1/8 cent.
As I point out in today’s New Mexico Business Weekly, the Rail Runner is already nearing completion and there is no reason for voters to bail out this overpriced project now. If we’d been asked to give an up-or-down vote on the project before it was already rolling down the tracks, then a “yes” vote may have been a reasonable choice. At this point, if voters approve this tax hike they are saying nothing but “tax me more.” This seems like an absurd move while we’re in the midst of an economic crisis, but voters are easily duped.

When promoting market-based education reforms like tax credits, we at the Rio Grande Foundation are often confronted by those who believe — even if they don’t clearly explain their position — that New Mexico students can never achieve educational success, in part, because the population is too poor or too Hispanic. It is true that minorities have historically not performed as well as other students, particularly in public schools, but there is no reason this must be the case.
A new study from the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, “Demography Defeated: Florida’s K-12 Reforms and Their Lessons for the Nation,” debunks the myth that Hispanics can’t perform in the right educational environment. This study which can be found here shows how Florida, a state that has embraced far-reaching school choice reforms, has enabled minority students to excel. As the study points out:

In 1999, when these reforms were enacted, nearly half of Florida fourth-graders scored “below basic” on the NAEP reading test, meaning that they could not read at a basic level. But by 2007, less than a decade after the education reforms took effect, 70 percent of Florida’s fourth-graders scored basic or above. Florida’s Hispanic students now have the second-highest statewide reading scores in the nation, and African-Americans score fourth-highest when compared with their peers.
In fact, the average Florida Hispanic student’s score is higher than the overall average score for all students in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The fact that Florida Hispanics out perform New Mexico’s entire student population should indicate that vouchers and tax credits (both of which Florida has adopted) can improve results. Hopefully, New Mexico policymakers will take notice.

No, I’m not going to tell you who to vote for. Candidates are human beings, likely to shift positions with little notice and once entrenched, it is darn near impossible to get rid of them. Besides, we could run into trouble with the IRS.
That said, there are plenty of ballot issues on the November ballot that may be getting lost in the shuffle, what, with all the attention focused on the Presidential, Senate, and House races (not to mention legislative races) statewide.
While ballots may vary locally, here are some of the proposed ballot measures and what they will do along with some thoughts about how believers in free markets and individual liberty might respond.
Constitutional Amendments
CA 1 Increase the size of certain school boards to nine members and conduct elections by mail-in ballot.
Proponents argue that increasing the size of the school board will somehow improve their administration, but it would seem that it is a half-hearted attempt at best. Allowing choice and forcing schools to compete for students would be more effective.
CA 2 Allow midterm salary increases for county officers.
Do we really need to pay bureaucrats any more than we already do?
CA 3 (2008) Require confirmation of heads of cabinet-level departments or agencies who are subject to senate confirmation at the beginning of each term of a governor.
This is largely irrelevant because the Senate will more than likely act as a rubber stamp. True accountability only comes with greater transparency.
CA 4 (2008) Allow school elections to be held with other non-partisan elections.
Yes! Giving a broader swath of voters the ability to vote on school elections, especially bond measures and tax increases will prevent education bureaucrats from monopolizing low-turnout votes. Also, holding all of these additional elections costs taxpayers’ money.
CA 5 (2008) Require the governor to fill a vacancy in the lieutenant governor’s office by appointment, with consent of the senate.
Like amendment three, this amendment will have very little impact.
Ballot Measures
Measure A: Should the state issue $14,725,000 of debt to build additional senior centers?
Measure B: Should the state issue $11,019,000 to build new libraries?
Measure C: Should the state issue $57,925,000 in debt to build a variety of health care-related facilities?
Measure D: Should the state issue $140,133,000 in debt to build higher education facilities? This ballot measure explicitly provides for property tax increases to pay for the debt on these bonds.

Believers in limited government and free markets should vote against ballot measures because they represent deferred tax increases and result in an inevitable expansion of government. This article provides some insights as to why voters would want to vote “no” on bond measures.
There is yet another issue on many New Mexico voters’ ballots (voters in Bernalillo, Sandoval, Valencia, Santa Fe, Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and Taos counties) this November, that is the 1/8th cent tax hike to pay for the Rail Runner commuter rail project and some other transportation projects. Believe it or not, no one has the exact language for it (or at least they won’t give it to me). Needless to say, we at the Rio Grande Foundation have been longtime critics of the Rail Runner and can’t imagine anyone who believes in limited government would vote for such a project, particularly since it is nearly completed already and won’t be abandoned if the tax hike is defeated.
Watch this space for specific ballot language.

Congressman Ron Paul is one of the few elected officials nationwide who seems to actually understand the causes of the current financial crisis and the potential negative effects associated with the $700 billion bailout that was defeated in the House of Representatives yesterday. Check out the short video from Dr. Paul:

With all the action and talk about the bailout, the health care issue has been moved off the front pages. Nonetheless, there is still discussion back and forth on the issue. Dr. Jim Tryon, a prominent New Mexico doctor who has advised Governor Richardson and others on health care reform, wrote on the topic in the Albuquerque Journal. In his article which can be found here he argues:

(Our) health care “system” is a non-system. Can you imagine running a $6 billion dollar enterprise without a chief executive and a board of directors? Without a governance structure there is no way to coordinate the business of health care. Without an empowered governance structure, special interests will continue to rule and protect their individual turf, and profit, at the expense of the whole.

Of course, the idea that health care should be a “system” seems like a fallacy to me. After all, a system sounds like something that the government would control from the top-down. Medicare and Medicaid are “systems,” but those are not models we should adopt. We don’t have a grocery system, but there is no problem getting food at your local supermarket.
Rather than creating a “system” — even a more coherent one than exists now — adopting reforms in order to free individuals and businesses from unwise government policies would be more sensible than forcing a top-down system on everyone. After all, the fact that so many involved in the health care debate exercise their power to say “No” is probably a good sign that widespread support for any single reform option is not there (thankfully). Maybe we can give greater freedom a try for a change?

Google has been one of the most innovative companies in the world for some time now. Their web browser is used by hundreds of millions of people every day and I couldn’t get around town without their maps. According to recent news stories, however, their most recent innovation may take the cake…at least as far as combining environmental and bottom line benefits are concerned.

The company is considering deploying the supercomputers necessary to operate its internet search engines on barges anchored up to seven miles (11km) offshore.
The “water-based data centres” would use wave energy to power and cool their computers, reducing Google’s costs. Their offshore status would also mean the company would no longer have to pay property taxes on its data centres, which are sited across the world, including in Britain.

So, use ocean water to save massive amounts of electricity and hang onto more revenue at the same time. What a beautiful concept. We’ll see if google’s floating data center idea “floats” and whether it can keep politicians’ grubby hands away from these platforms or if they’ll find some way to tax.

According to the new U.S. Economic Freedom Index 2008 Report which was co-published by the California-based Public Research Institute and Forbes, New Mexico is less economically-free than most states (as indicated on the chart on page 11, it is ranked 41).
There is no question that New Mexico lags in economic freedom and that it relies heavily on the federal government for its daily bread, but this information is particularly interesting considering that Forbes is one of the sources. After all, the magazine has written glowingly of Albuquerque as a place for doing business. Albuquerque is certainly not dramatically freer than the rest of the state, so what is the disconnect?
Does Forbes not believe that economic freedom is integral to business? If they believe that, then I’d urge them to take a look at this international index of economic freedom. More likely, it just seems that the writers of those puff-pieces on Albuquerque simply don’t understand economics and they are basing their recommendations on the amount of handouts our local governments give to those who know how to lobby properly or have the right connections.

There’s no doubt that New Mexico government is sorely lacking in transparency. That is one reason that improving transparency has become a central focus of our work. See our legislative tracking site: www.newmexicovotes.org. Of course, nothing is more basic to transparency than knowing what is on the ballot. Thus, it is all the more disappointing that it is so hard for voters to find out exactly what they’ll be voting on in five weeks.
The only information I could find in my internet search of 2008 ballot measures turned up this site from ballotpedia. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State’s website had no information available. Bernalillo County claims to have a “sample ballot,” but the information presented at this link is less than optimal.
Colorado too is ahead of New Mexico. This handy site has links to a list of candidates and ballot measures.
This is not the way things are done in other states. Check out Arizona’s Secretary of State website has ballot measures online in both Spanish and English. New Mexico needs to get its act together by publishing all ballot measures and candidate lists on the Secretary of State website. Contact her here.

These are dark days for those who believe in free markets and limited government. Each day brings a new story of a new, major financial company in trouble and now Congress is dickering over a $700 billion taxpayer-financed bailout package. Many on the left like EJ Dionne and even the supposedly conservative presidential candidate John McCain is blaming “greed.” Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom seems to be that massive government intervention is necessary because the financial markets are “broken.” Of course, the implication is that we have a free market and it is capitalism, not government, that has created the problem.
The reality could not be more different. Back in 2000, my former colleague Jeff Dircksen at the National Taxpayers Union stated that:

The secret of (Fannie’s and Freddie’s) success –subsidies– could also prove to be their undoing. Given their market dominance, Fannie and Freddie may need to pursue increasingly risky loans to maintain a portfolio that has grown at 18 percent per year over the past decade. An economic downturn or a change in interest rates could cause substantial numbers of higher-risk borrowers to default, sending Fannie and Freddie’s stock prices tumbling, and leaving taxpayers holding the bag.

NTU is not alone in blaming Fannie and Freddie for being at the heart of the crisis. The Wall Street Journal carried an excellent article yesterday that pinned blame on the two mortgage giants. Economic analyst Peter Ferrara has also said much the same thing.
Unfortunately, offering the correct analysis is not always enough when the media has fixated on “greed” and the misdeeds of Wall Street titans. We who understand the reality of the situation must simply keep hammering away with the truth and it will set us free.
Oh, and if you are opposed to the current plan to use 700 billion taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street, click here to sign this petition from the National Taxpayers Union.

With Wall Street in crisis and so many issues sucking up airtime, health care as an issue has been pushed from the front pages of America’s newspapers. Of course, Albuquerque’s alternative weekly still has time to do a story about how our health care system is “poisoned.” In fact, from the sound of things, American health care couldn’t get any worse. But, if we’ve learned anything from the ongoing financial debacle, things can always get worse.
I point out as much in a follow-up letter to the editor. The fact is that our health care system does certain things very well:

Nearly 80 percent of global drug development occurs in the U.S., with only 16 percent coming from Europe. America also leads in high-tech treatments that draw people on waiting lists (or where treatments are simply unavailable) from Canada and the U.K. to get treatment in the U.S.

Before adopting policy changes for the simple sake of change, we need to carefully consider whether those changes will harm our ability to continue doing the things we do well and whether we’ll really see improvements in those areas where our system struggles.

While there have been several postings on this site about Jonah Goldberg, I thought the readers might enjoy reading Jonah’s comments about his visit to New Mexico. I think I made the mistake of saying something nice about Bill Richardson in front of him though…

If you missed our breakfast with Jonah Goldberg, you missed a great event. Don’t believe me? Just take a look at a few of the comments posted by local bloggers. Here are the thoughts of Gary Wolf over at AWOL Civilization. Harold Morgan over at Capitol Report had this to say on the Capitol Report blog.
Jim Scarantino also had some insightful thoughts over on the New Mexico Liberty.
If you want to find out what Goldberg thinks of the ongoing economic situation, check out his recent column here.

Rarely will you ever see a more fact-base and easy to understand analysis of everyday economic issues than RGF Board member and Director of Research Ken Brown’s opinion piece on the pages of the Albuquerque Journal today.
Brown explains the “broken window fallacy” and why so-called “economic development” simply does not work. Copies of this piece should be mandatory reading for all elected officials in New Mexico and beyond. The Rio Grande Foundation will distribute this piece to all New Mexico legislators before the 2009 session.

In case you have been completely out of the loop for the last few months, you are probably aware that we are hosting a breakfast event with prominent conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg tomorrow (Friday morning) in Albuquerque.
With someone as prominent as Goldberg in town, particularly during a heated election season, we have seen some interesting blog traffic from the left-wing blogosphere. Check out this post from FBIHOP. Somewhat more surprising was the snarky attitude taken towards Goldberg by the supposedly non-partisan New Mexico Independent. The good news is that hostile publicity is better than no publicity at all.

It never ceases to amaze me when voters choose to tax themselves more. This is particularly true when the economy is on the rocks. I’d recently written about just such a tax hike issue on the ballot in Carlsbad where voters chose just yesterday to levy a half-cent hike in the gross receipts tax.
Although voters misguidedly chose to increase their tax burden, the Rio Grande spurred an interesting debate with letters to the editor and opinion articles here, here, here, and here placed in the Current-Argus.
We’ll follow Carlsbad closely to see how this major tax hike impacts Carlsbad’s economy and in our next tax friendliness study we’ll note how the hike impacts Carlsbad’s tax burden relative to other cities around the state.

A few months ago, the Rio Grande Foundation sponsored a showing of the film “Flunked” and a conversation with education reformer Ben Chavis. Video of the post-film discussion is available here.
Several people enjoyed the film and asked if copies were available for sale. This was not the case when we showed the film, but DVD’s recently went on sale. Order your copy here.

New Mexico is just one of dozens of states nationwide with massively funded state pension systems. According to this article, “by 2020, coverage will no longer be considered solvent.” Also, “the authority has an unfunded liability of about $4.1 billion but that has dropped from about $5 billion.” This improvement is the result of rate increases in recent years.
Surprisingly, despite the massive shortfall, New Mexico is actually in relatively good shape, at least according to this analysis.
There seems to be several major problems here:
1) Politicians have an incentive to over-promise what they pay state workers in the future relative to what they are paid right away. This is a means of cost-shifting onto future politicians and generations;
2) The inevitable tax increases hurt taxpayers even though they are largely unaware of the future massive burden they will be faced with;
3) From a pensioners standpoint, it is tough to be on a fixed income when fees and rates keep rising.
The single most important solution to this problem is to move away from defined benefit pension plans and give employees greater control over and responsibility for their own retirements.

Sorry to ignore the blog for a few days. I was at the annual State Policy Network conference in Scottsdale with hundreds of other think tank leaders. We exchanged ideas and generally worked to help each other create a more effective free market movement nationwide.
My posting for today is simply this very telling chart which clearly shows how Santa Fe’s gross receipts tax has risen dramatically over the years. As we’ve pointed out previously, the gross receipts tax is devastating to New Mexico’s economy because it most hurts the very businesses that generate jobs and wealth in our economy. Having jumped from 4.25 percent back in 1980 to nearly 8 percent this year and perhaps over 8 percent this fall if voters pass the Rail Runner tax, the gross receipts tax will continue to do untold harm to City and State economies.

In case you missed it, the US Government has recently decided to nationalize our two largest mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. American taxpayers are now the proud “owners” of these two houses of cards.
I pointed out a few months ago that this absurd situation has been years in the making. Investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe on Monday. “America is more communist than China is right now. You can see that this is welfare of the rich, it is socialism for the rich… it’s just bailing out financial institutions.”
As the Wall Street Journal points out, while the situation is deplorable:

By far the biggest risk here, however, is that the companies could still emerge with their business model intact. That model is the perverse mix of private profit and public risk, which gave them an incentive to make irresponsible mortgage bets with a taxpayer guarantee.

Hopefully the Bush Administration gets its act together and separates Fannie and Freddie from the government teat once and for all. Otherwise, we’re setting ourselves up for another bailout down the road.

With a hotly-contested Presidential race, not to mention Senate and Congressional races on the ballot here in New Mexico, there has not been much discussion of a tax hike that voters throughout the northern and central portions of the state will be voting on.
Voters in in Bernalillo, Sandoval, Valencia, Santa Fe, Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and Taos counties are being asked to approve a one-eight cent increase in the gross receipts tax to fund the Rail Runner and various transit projects in November. I debated the issue with Laurence Rael, Executive Director of MRCOG before the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce’s transportation task force recently. The powerpoint of my presentation is available here.

The US Minerals Management Service recently announced that it intends to prepare a new Five Year Leasing Plan for the Outer Continental Shelf. This is a vital first step in initiating more exploration and production on OCS lands that MMS estimates could hold 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
MMS has opened the process for taking public comments. I’m writing to you, in hope that you will take a few minutes form your hectic day to write a brief note or letter to MMS, underscoring your support for leasing these lands and producing more of the oil and gas that are the foundation for our economy, living standards and opportunities.
Already, a number of environmental pressure groups have mobilized their extensive financial and networking resources, to deluge MMS with comments OPPOSING any plan that opens up more OCS acreage for leasing and drilling. I’ve heard that comments to MMS are currently running at approximately 15 to 1 AGAINST opening new OCS areas – and thus in favor of continuing the unconscionable Energy War on Poor Families.
To make it easier for you to write a letter to MMS, I’ve attached a sample letter (click on the link below) that provides some facts and ideas you can use, and that you can tailor to your own taste. Also attached are a couple of background papers by MMS and the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) that provide useful information about the OCS program and the laws and technologies that enable us to extract even more energy, from even deeper waters, with even greater care for the environmental values we all cherish.
You can send a detailed letter like this. But even a brief letter supporting a full analysis and expanded leasing program will help greatly.
All comment letters must REACH MMS by SEPTEMBER 15, when the comment period closes.
Letters can be snail-mailed to the addresses on the sample MMS letter – or they can be submitted by going to the MMS website (http://www.mms.gov/5-year/5-YearProgramComments.htm) and using either of the following links:
via the web: Public Commenting System
via e-mail: 5YearRFIComments@mms.gov

Comments on 5-Year OCS Oil & Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015
Ms. Renee Orr
5-Year Program Manager
Minerals Management Service (MS-4010)
Room 3120
381 Elden Street
Herndon, VA 20170
Mr. James F. Bennett
Chief, Branch of Environmental Assessment
Minerals Management Service (MS-4042)
381 Elden Street
Herndon, VA 20170
Dear Ms. Orr and Mr. Bennett:
I am writing to express my strong support for MMS plans to initiate a new five year leasing program, and for expanded leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) during the 2010-2015 five-year period. I urge you to fully consider and carefully analyze all planning areas of the OCS, leaving none off the table, as you prepare the draft proposed program and environmental impact statement.
Energy is the foundation of modern society and the living standards we enjoy. It is the key to actually securing the rights and opportunities guaranteed by our Constitution. Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is essential for jobs, food, heating and transportation. Reducing the soaring cost of energy is especially important for America’s small businesses, minorities and poorest families.
Right now, the United States is spending almost $700 billion a year to import foreign oil and gas – because we have made the vast majority of our lands and resources off limits to drilling. As T. Boone Pickens constantly reminds us in his ads, this is rapidly becoming the largest transfer of wealth from one nation to another in the history of mankind. It can not, must not, and need not continue.
On top of that, as Investor’s Business Daily notes, “America is nearly helpless in the face of a resurgent Russia intent on reclaiming its czarist empire, an Iran hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons, a China making common cause with dictators to acquire energy, and a menacing Venezuela aligning with Russia and Cuba to control sea lanes in the Caribbean, where 64 percent of all US-bound tanker traffic passes.”
The oil and natural gas beneath the 1.76 billion acres of the OCS are vitally needed resources that belong to all Americans. Nearly one-third of US domestic production already comes from the OCS, and the Minerals Management Service has conservatively estimated that undiscovered, technically recoverable resources could total 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The long record of OCS operations demonstrates that this energy can be produced without harming the marine environment – thanks to new rules, technologies, and commitments by government and industry alike to environmental safeguards. In fact, there has not been a major spill from an OCS production platform in nearly 30 years, and MMS data show that only 101,995 barrels of oil were spilled during all operations on the OCS between 1980 and 2007, out of 11,855,000,000 barrels produced.
MMS is required by law to prepare a schedule of OCS lease sales that “best meet national energy needs for the 5-year period.” To achieve this goal, the agency must develop a schedule that has maximum flexibility, and include as much acreage as possible, so that it can respond to our nation’s changing and growing energy needs, population and economic growth, and economic and national security.
Growing US and world demands for oil and gas are not being met with adequately expanding supplies. As a result, gasoline and other energy prices have more than doubled in recent years – and far too many families have had to make painful choices between heating, eating, medical care, transportation, and rent or mortgage payments. Many have little money left over at the end of the month for vacations, college or retirement. This is both intolerable and unnecessary.
A major reason for this situation is that our own government has closed numerous areas to leasing – and denied us access to energy resources that belong to the American people. In fact, for decades now, Congress has imposed “temporary” moratoria that prohibit oil and gas leasing, drilling and production on 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska and the Lower 48 States.
Over the past year, however, people have begun to realize that government has become the cause of, rather than the solution to, high prices and other energy problems. By margins of 2:1 and even 3:1, they are now demanding that these moratoria be lifted, and drilling resumed on the OCS.
President Bush recently reversed the Executive Branch prohibitions on leasing and drilling, and Americans are demanding that Congress now lift its prohibitions. I am optimistic that Congress will ultimately listen to the will of the people and act responsibly, to end the needless moratoria.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has already removed restrictions on drilling for 30 billion barrels of oil in the Chukchi Sea and all the natural gas in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s shores. She has already finished the environmental impact studies, so that shipments to the Lower 48 can start in as little as a year or two – if MMS and Congress do their jobs.
I therefore believe MMS has a responsibility to take a long-term view, assume the moratoria will end, and include in its analyses and plans all the Outer Continental Shelf lands and resources that We the People of the United States own off our shores: in the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. The new MMS plan will be in effect until 2015 – and I ask simply that MMS devise its plan accordingly, to reflect continually changing global conditions and steadily rising energy demands.
That means including all areas, off all our coasts in the new Outer Continental Shelf leasing plan.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment, and for making the 2010-2015 OCS plan a truly comprehensive plan that does exactly that.
Sincerely,

It seems like every week or two the Albuquerque Journal feels compelled to publish a hopeful article by proponents of some “alternative” energy source. This week’s edition, “N.M. Sun, Wind Key To Our Energy Future” comes to us from the N.M. Solar Energy Association.
The authors assert in their article that:

A concentrated solar plant (CSP) utilizing about 15 square miles of otherwise unusable land would produce enough electricity to offset New Mexico’s total electrical energy requirements. A CSP of around 100 square miles could meet the country’s entire need, producing more energy than the U.S. consumption of oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower and nuclear energy.

and,

Wind energy programs are working well in New Mexico and have proven to be a cost-effective energy source. Eastern New Mexico could easily produce 20 times the amount of electricity needed in the state. New Mexico’s wind could supply a major percentage of U.S. energy.

This all seems wonderful and without a doubt that wind and solar can become a more important part of both our state and national energy picture, but as it stands now (according to the Energy Information Agency), they combine for less than 1 percent of our energy supply.
Certainly, what the authors promise for wind and solar doesn’t seem to mesh with reality. It’s hard to believe there’s a conspiracy here because if you could solve our energy problems with the measures they proscribe, someone would have done it or be doing it now.
America can’t run on a pipe dream. Solar and wind can help, but they will be niche players for the foreseeable future.