Apparently, Albuquerque’s City Council has been listening to too much Petula Clark recently, because their obsession with downtown is approaching fever pitch. First and foremost, the recent decision to allocate a whopping $700,000 to study an arena and events center has seemingly placed this latest redevelopment issue on the fast-track with New Mexico First set to hold a meeting on the issue on Thursday, the 17th (I’ll be a panelist).
Then there’s the $28-million-a-mile streetcar that consultants recently recommended should be built from San Mateo to Downtown. The presentation can be found here. The presentation is full of platitudes and happy talk about the supposedly tremendous impact the streetcar will have in the form of additional residents and employers moving into the areas served by the system. But it is never stated why Albuquerque’s system will cost $28 million a mile while a “peer system” in Little Rock cost a mere $7.8 million per mile. Also, while anecdotal evidence that the streetcar will draw additional riders over the current bus system is presented, specific service improvements over the current Rapid Ride buses which run in the same area for far less money are nowhere to be found.
The fact is that the streetcar has support primarily among those who believe that other areas of the city exist primarily to support downtown. If a streetcar and events center are important to the public and are financially viable they will be built with private money when and where it makes sense to do so. Politicians shouldn’t force the issue on taxpayers.

The Rio Grande Foundation and Educate New Mexico are sponsoring a film event on July 31, what would have been Dr. Milton Friedman’s 96th birthday. We will be showing Flunked, the Movie, a film with an important message for New Mexico’s parents, teachers, and students.
Flunked is a 45-minute documentary that discusses America’s failing educational system, analyzes the reasons for that failure, and profiles some leaders who are making a difference. Ben Chavis, principal of the American Indian Public Charter High School in Oakland, California, (and a star of the film) will discuss the film and what can be done to improve our lagging educational system. Executive Producer Steven Maggi will be on hand to answer questions about the making of Flunked.
• Results of national and international tests show that our students are falling further and further behind. The average American student is no longer able to compete with foreign students, and in many cases, they’re failing to meet even basic academic standards;
• Complaining about the problem is easy, but it produces few productive results — especially when many schools nationwide are truly “getting it right;”
• Flunked is the story of these schools—their founders, leaders, and students—who are breaking the mediocre mold and attaining great results with their students…without government programs or mandates!
• By focusing on schools that are successfully applying these principles, Flunked sends a message loud and clear: Parents, students, principals, and teachers—in New Mexico and across the nation—do not have to settle for mediocrity in their own schools!
When: July 31, 2008 – 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Where: New Mexico Bar Association
5121 Masthead NE,
Albuquerque, NM 87109
The Bar Association is off Jefferson, south of Paseo in Albuquerque. Drinks and hors d’oeuvres will be provided. Happy hour begins at 5:00 and the film will start promptly at 5:30.
This event is free and open to the public.
Please RSVP to info@riograndefoundation.org or call 505-264-6090.

This excellent article appeared in the Albuquerque Journal today and explained the need to explore for oil and keep options open for securing our energy future.

The Rio Grande Foundation and New Mexico Prosperity Project hosted a luncheon with John Stossel at the end of April. Needless to say, Stossel’s visit was of interest to local media outlets. Gene Grant of KNME’s Channel 5 and host of “In Focus” sat down with Stossel to discuss his evolution as a journalist and Stossel’s perspective on some important issues facing New Mexico.
<a href=" “>

Residents of Santa Fe will vote next spring whether or not to impose higher taxes. According to the New Mexican, the tax would work as follows:

When a house is sold for more than $750,000, the buyer would be responsible for paying a fee that represents 1 percent of any amount over $750,000. For example, a house sold for $800,000 would owe $500. Revenue would go to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and would be earmarked to help increase home ownership among the city’s work force and for other housing needs.

Supporters claim the tax is needed to curb the economic and social consequences of the migration of the city’s workers to less-expensive nearby communities while earning wages in Santa Fe. In other words, Santa Fe is too expensive for many middle-income people to live in.
Of course, at a time when politicians are hoping to raise taxes, the fact that Santa Fe’s tax burden has gone up dramatically in recent years is conveniently ignored.
Residents of Santa Fe have seen their gross receipts rates climb more than 25 percent from 6.3125 percent back in 1999 to the current rate of 7.9375 percent. Of course, property taxes and hotel taxes have also risen in the last several years.
This doesn’t even address the impact of the proposed real estate transfer tax. Thankfully, the Texas Association of Realtors has done a useful analysis of the negative economic impact of real estate transfer taxes. The vote isn’t until March, but look for more on this from the Rio Grande Foundation.

Today’s headline in the Albuquerque Journal says it all: Tesla will be making its electrically-powered roadsters in California, not New Mexico. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
California’s offer includes the state’s purchase of $100 million in manufacturing equipment, which it will then lease to Tesla. The company will have the option to buy the equipment at the end of the lease term tax-free, for an estimated savings of $9 million. California will also make job training grants to Tesla of up to $1.5 million.
The Rio Grande Foundation has been critical of such payouts in the past for the very fact that companies like Tesla are simply playing governments against each other to extract the largest payout possible. This certainly seems to be the case with Tesla.
While the loss of Tesla will undoubtedly be portrayed as a major loss for New Mexico, the reality is that Tesla’s cars are based on unproven technologies and the company needs a sweetheart deal because no private investor — at least one who is concerned about earning a reasonable return on his investment — would consider making such a significant investment.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has a terrible economic record and faces extreme economic difficulty. While the payouts to Tesla will be extremely small relative to California’s overall economy, New Mexicans shouldn’t lose any sleep over losing Tesla to Arnold and his big payoff.

Recently, in the Business Journal (subscription required), an article discussed efforts by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. invest $1.5 billion to create a 150-mile, high-voltage transmission line that happens to cut through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park to reach San Diego. The idea is to generate solar energy, something environmentalists supposedly love, and transmit it to be used in a major urban center.
Yet, environmentalists are opposing the project. Instead, they are pushing for renewable power to be generated closer to heavily populated areas, rather than brought in from distant sites. I’m not sure exactly how that would work even if every building in large, southern cities was set up to generate solar power.
As a follow-up editorial in the Journal put it,

We have placed billions of barrels of coastal and arctic crude oil off-limits to ourselves. We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in 30 years. And now the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. faces fierce opposition in its effort to build one of the world’s largest solar power plants east of San Diego…killing this groundbreaking renewable energy project because it would diminish scenic views would be the act of a nation in the dark, in every sense.

As I’ve said before, environmentalists oppose our civilization and global warming and other supposed environmental crises are just tools in their fight. When environmentalists oppose wind and solar (not to mention nuclear), what do we have left?

The company that makes Miller Beer is owned by a South African company. The Coors Beer company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange and is jointly owned by a Canadian company. Now, shareholders of Anheuser-Busch brewing company are considering whether or not to allow InBev to acquire a controlling interest in the company.
Unfortunately, politics has reared its ugly head in what should otherwise be a decision based on what is best for the shareholders who own the company. Both of Missouri’s senators, Republican Kit Bond and Democrat Claire McCaskill, oppose the deal. McCaskill says it is “patriotic” to do so. In a letter to Anheuser-Busch’s board, he writes: “[D]o not hesitate to contact me to discuss ways that I and community leaders can work with you to improve the company without changing its ownership.”
This is no place for politics. Americans benefit from foreign investment in companies that do business here. There is no reason for Congress or misguided economic patriotism to get in the way of a deal that Anheuser-Busch shareholders feel is best for them.

While free market advocates and others who prefer drilling for oil and gas here at home rather than paying $5.00 or more per gallon of gas have been gaining ground in the public debate recently, some opponents of drilling, sensing that they are losing the debate, have used the issue of “idle leases” to defend their inaction. Marita Noon of CARE (Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy) attacks our own Sen. Bingaman for his ongoing efforts to keep vast tracts of our resource off limits. She also does a great job explaining the “idle lease” issue:

There are myriad other reasons why a lease may not be developed such as a shortage of equipment or the fact that extra leases are purchased to allow access to the parcel believed to have the most potential for production. But today, the biggest culprit for non-development is environmental protest.
Here are a couple of examples.
In New Mexico, each lease sale typically has a few parcels pulled due to protest. They are usually due to a specific plant or animal that is believed to be there on that piece of land. Recently, the environmental groups have begun to protest the entire sale, not based on flora or fauna, but on global warming. These protests take valuable time from the BLM employees — employees paid by our tax dollars — who could be processing the applications to drill, allowing the drilling to happen more quickly.

Don’t let those who oppose use of our natural resources confuse the debate. Ask them where they WOULD like to drill oil and gas. The reality is, they hate progress and Western Civilization and we must fight them at every turn.

Rarely do we at the Rio Grande Foundation discuss the 2nd Amendment or gun rights, but the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is a very big deal because it is a clear sign that the Court hasn’t completely abandoned attempts to read the document as it is written.
While it is impossible to underestimate the restoration of the right to carry guns in Washington, DC and other jurisdictions that have attempted to write their own laws in defiance of the Constitution, it would be really great if this trend towards Constitutional adherence were applied by the Court to the 9th and 10th amendments.

Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review (also printed recently in the Albuquerque Journal, made an excellent point recently in calling certain politicians on “failed policies of the past.” As Goldberg points out, at least when it comes to offshore drilling, “how does anybody know (if past policies like offshore drilling have failed) when we haven’t even tried?
Of course, the outer continental shelf is by no means the only place environmentalists want to stop drilling (they’re against it just about anywhere it is proposed), right here in New Mexico, they are protesting 43 leases made by the Bureau of Land Management.
Said John Byrom, president and chief executive officer of D.J. Simmons, Inc., of the concerted efforts of environmentalists to bog down the approvals process, “It doesn’t affect us immediately, but my information is that the challenge is part of a concerted Western states tactic.”
“They’re pulling out all the stops and they know how to play the legal game,” Byrom said. “It’s not surprising, but it is frustrating because they’re trying more and more to halt drilling in the United States.”
Unfortunately, unless there is a massive anti-extreme environmentalist backlash both in New Mexico and around the country, politicians will continue to feel like $4.00/gallon gas is okay.

Truancy has been a topic of discussion of late here in New Mexico. Unfortunately, most energy and political effort has been expended on the enforcement end.
Unfortunately, as I argue in the Farmington Daily-Times truancy is a clear indicator that students (and to an extent their parents) don’t value education. The problem is, of course, that a government-run monopoly is not designed to serve students and even those who remain in the system are often poorly served.
As I argue in the article:

We must dispense once and for all with the notion that “schools” should be funded. Instead of funding schools themselves, we must fund students and their needs. This means that money should flow through the students instead of bureaucracies.
The idea of funding education through students as opposed to schools may sound like a radical one, but until schools are required to treat children and their parents as customers and compete for their business, children who don’t feel served by the system will resort to the radical and harmful steps of truancy and dropping out.

Truancy will no longer be a problem if the schools are forced to serve their customers by providing an educational experience that is tailored to student needs and is relevant to their employment futures.

The national economy may be in bad shape and both gas and food prices may be rising at a rapid pace, but if you look at our current situation through the longer lens of history, things don’t look so bad at all. This is the perspective former Congressman Pat Toomey, the current President of the Club for Growth, brings to bear in a recent article, “The Greatest Story Never Told.”
Take a look at the article here. Undoubtedly, there is much we need to do both here in New Mexico and nationally, judged against history, there is no need to panic about the current state of affairs.

The Rio Grande Foundation recently made the case for eliminating New Mexico’s personal income tax. While the study received a great deal of attention throughout New Mexico, recently the study has received attention around the nation.
The Georgia Public Policy Foundation included a link to our study in that organization’s “Friday Facts” memo. Also, the Tax Foundation, one of the oldest think tanks in Washington, recently cited the RGF study on its Tax Policy blog.
Glad to see that people in other states recognize a good idea (eliminating the income tax) when they see one. Hopefully, New Mexico policymakers understand the need to stimulate the economy in a more substantial way than Congress’s “stimulus” effort.

Recently I blogged about the negative impact recent minimum wage increases are having on teenagers and others on the fringe of the job market. I expanded and elaborated a bit on the argument in a full-length article in The New Mexico Business Weekly.

Last year, my friend Drew Johnson at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (a fellow member of the State Policy Network) made national news with a story that Al Gore’s home in Nashville used more than 20 times the electricity of the average American home. Gore’s extravagant energy use did not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month in 2006.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President supposedly tried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research’s recent look at Gore’s energy bills found that Gore’s home now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. When it comes to living up to efforts to “save the planet,” it looks like Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite.

New Mexicans, especially Albuquerque residents, have dealt with the radical leftist group ACORN on multiple occasions in the past. ACORN led the charge in imposing a higher minimum wage in Albuquerque (before the Legislature and Congress imposed their own wage laws). This wage law is now an important factor in making it difficult for teenagers and minorities to get jobs. Also, ACORN was found to have engaged in massive fraud in its campaign on behalf of the so-called “living wage” in Albuquerque (a practice ACORN has engaged in nationwide).
So, how does all of this fit in with the housing crisis? According to a new study by the Consumer Rights League, ACORN, among other things, played a lead role in forcing lenders to lower their standards, thus encouraging millions of Americans who could not really afford a home to purchase one while demanding that lenders give loans to people who were likely not to be able to pay them back.
If they did not financially support ACORN and cow-tow to their radical agenda, lenders faced the wrath of one of the most political grassroots organizations operating today. Full text of the study can be found here.

The Rio Grande Foundation has long been critical of our system of government-run schools. There are many reasons for this, but one important reason is that the institutional design of the schools themselves and the government’s management of them makes it very difficult to serve the diverse needs of our children. Nowhere is this dynamic so clear as with the Albuquerque Public Schools’ inability to serve autistic children.
Corey Davis, a policy analyst with the Foundation responded to a recent article in the Albuquerque Journal (subscription needed) which explained that parents of autistic children have filed a lawsuit against APS. Corey’s letter to the editor, which appeared in the paper on June 17, follows:
School Vouchers Give Parents Choice Instead of Frustration

THE RECENT report that 10 families of autistic students throughout the district are seeking a class-action lawsuit against the Albuquerque Public Schools for failing to meet their educational needs once again makes it clear that tax-funded, government-run schools are not necessarily the best option for all children.
The lawsuit claims that special-needs educators aren’t properly trained to educate these students. These children are frequently sent home early for behavior issues instead of receiving a full day of education because the teachers haven’t received the training necessary to understand autism and how it affects the students.
The problem is not the teachers, but the one-size-fits-all education system.
Our state spends about $7,000 on each student’s education every year. If parents of special-needs children were given a school voucher so they could choose where they wanted to send their children, many more students would have the chance to receive an education from a school that addresses their needs instead of trying to drive a square peg through a round hole.
The state of Ohio has a publicly funded scholarship program specifically for autistic students. In that state, parents are given money to help pay for tuition at the school of their choice.
Rather than failing children with unique educational needs, New Mexico should consider adopting a program like Ohio’s that puts parents in charge and relieves school districts from the burden of educating students with whom it is ill-equipped to cope. This is certainly a better option than a costly legal battle with justifiably frustrated parents.
COREY DAVIS
Policy analyst, Rio Grande Foundation, Albuquerque

Japan has a single-payer health care system. While the Japanese people may be a healthy lot, they also must put up with some pretty absurd government rules and regulations. According to recent reports the Japanese government will now demand that people of that nation have their waists measured (the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33 1/2 inches). If they are considered to be “too fat,” the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments (and presumably people) that fail to meet specific targets.
As health care expert Paul Hsieh points out, such freedom-destroying regulations are the result of government payment for health care. After all:

Once a government starts violating individual rights by creating a “universal” health care system, this inevitably leads to further infringements of individual rights. This is not unique to Japan.
For instance, universal health care in Great Britain has led to infringements on the right to free speech. In 2007, the British government banned television stations from playing classic 1950’s-era humorous advertisements encouraging people to have an egg for breakfast, on the grounds that “the ads do not encourage healthy eating”.
When a government has to pay for everyone’s health care, it will naturally demand a say in whether people are leading a “sufficiently healthy” lifestyle, as defined by the government.

If we allow the state of New Mexico or the federal government to control our health care, we will inevitably face similar intrusions on individual liberty. Bill Richardson of all people should be sensitive to this issue.

Bad ideas never die. Thus, Albuquerque taxpayers were greeted with the headline “Downtown Arena Revisited,” this morning. While the article explains much of the story, you can only read it if you subscribe to the Journal. Thankfully, the story was covered elsewhere including KOB TV.
Certainly I knew that even though I’d debunked the need for a taxpayer-financed arena in Albuquerque a year and a half ago, Council will tonight vote on whether to spend $700,000 taxpayer dollars to study the issue. Obviously, since the arena and hotel complex are projected to cost at least $330,000, an expenditure of “only” $700,000 is a relative bargain. But we need to nip this rip-off in the bud.
The existing arena in Rio Rancho is struggling and, while that is far away from downtown, it certainly does not bode well for a competing arena in Albuquerque. Tingley Coliseum is also experiencing problems. Another arena is simply not necessary. Worse, the plan is to “double-down” a possible arena mistake by forcing taxpayer to subsidize hotel construction downtown. Why should taxpayers subsidize another hotel downtown when a vast majority of the hotels in this city (if not all) receive no such support?
Downtown is not just surviving; it is thriving. If a private entity wishes to build an arena or hotel anywhere in the city, Council should work with them, but demanding taxpayer support for this project is simply wrong and a waste of money.

According to a story in this week’s Albuquerque Alibi, UNM’s Health Sciences Center which includes UNM Hospital and the medical school, has adopted new restrictions to eliminate drug advertising in the University’s medical buildings. While those who see drug companies as evil subversives working to snooker doctors and their patients into purchasing their latest and greatest drug, it would seem that this is yet another effort by a University to stifle free speech.
After all, who is going to tell doctors what new drugs and treatment possibilities are out there? Are they supposed to hunt these treatments down on the internet? How about patients? Are drug companies’ advertisements (also under attack by those who dislike the pharmaceuticals industry) now the only way they can find out about new treatments?
The fact is that if we had a health care system that functioned more like a market with consumers able to price various options (using a consumer-directed mechanism like an HSA) rather than being shielded from them by health insurance or government programs, the so-called “problem” with drug advertising would largely disappear. After all, if it is patients who decide whether to use a generic drug or the latest name brand drug, they should be able to use it since they are paying for it. In fact, opponents of drug advertising justify their position due to the higher cost associated with name-brand drugs.

By and large, left-wing Democrats dislike privatization. After all, nothing illustrates the superiority of free markets and limited government like comparing the ability of free markets and the government to provide particular services. Government is so incompetent, however, that sometimes even those who are philosophically opposed to letting the free market work are forced to do so.
Consider the case of the US Senate’s dining services. According to the Washington Post, “the U.S. Senate’s network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money — more than $18 million since 1993…Come lunchtime, many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the basement cafeteria on the House side,” (a 15 minute walk, yet, “House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.” (The House cafeterias have been privatized for many years)
Because the situation had gotten so bad, the Senate recently voted to let a private company manage its food services. While a majority of both parties supported the decision (albeit quietly), some on the hard left dissented. In typical left-wing fashion, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), speaking for the group of senators who opposed privatizing the restaurants, said that “you cannot stand on the Senate floor and condemn the privatization of workers, and then turn around and privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own.”
Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review Online, who will be speaking at Rio Grande Foundation events in Albuquerque and Santa Fe on September 19, covered the story recently as well.

With oil prices over $4 a gallon and Congress doing nothing except make it more difficult to access the resources we need to keep our society moving forward, the average motorist may be frustrated. While ranting and raving about the oil industry and its supposed “windfall profits” is the preferred reaction of the political left, when compared to other major industries, the profits associated with the industry are actually low.
Currently, there is an online petition being circulated that any American can sign to express their support for increased oil and gas drilling. While increasing oil and gas supplies may take some time, we don’t want to be paying $10 for a gallon of gas in ten years. We can avoid that problem by accessing energy sources here at home. Nowhere is that more true than here in New Mexico where the NIMBY impulse is especially strong.

Americans are increasingly being asked to decide whether or not to allow or disallow resources to be accessed on both public and private lands. Unfortunately, the attitude that somehow certain people are “above” having resource exploited on or near their lands has become more prevalent in recent years and is to a large extent responsible for today’s rising commodity prices. Nowhere are these battles and this anti-resource attitude more prevalent than here in New Mexico.
As Marita Noon of the Coalition for Responsible Energy reports, yet another confrontation over resource usages will take place this weekend at a public meeting in Grants over whether all of Mt Taylor and many surrounding areas should be declared “off limits” to the public.
More background information on the battle over Mt. Taylor is available on the website of the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. A big crowd is expected, so if you plan to go due to the highly-charged nature of the issue, so show up early!