More than two years ago, Juan Dominguez of Rio Arriba County entered into a leasing agreement with T-Mobile, allowing them to place a cell tower on his property. The tower gives reception to many cell users in the Chimayo area.
Some citizens in the area have banded together to form the Chimayo Council on Wireless Technology. The Council feels that the appearance of the cell tower desecrates sacred sites within eyeshot, such as the Plaza del Cerro (an original colonial Spanish plaza) and a commonly used pilgrimage route to the Santuario de Chimayo. They also say that the tower defiles the hills around Chimayo, which are venerated by the Tewa people. In fact, the town is named after one of these hills, Tsi-Mayoh.
Unfortunately for the Council, Mr. Dominguez owns the property on which the tower is located, not the citizens of Chimayo, nor any body of religious people or historic preservationists. He has given his consent for placement of the tower. Nonetheless, the Council has correctly asserted, according to the State Historic Preservation Office, that T-Mobile had some errors in its application to the county government, including incorrect coordinates for its location.
SHPO is requiring T-Mobile to resubmit a corrected application, after which state officers will evaluate the tower’s level of historical malevolence. If they deem that the tower is violating the visual pleasance of historical sites, the state office will escalate the case to the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which, under authority granted to it by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, may “make recommendations regarding historic preservation to the… heads of… federal agencies.” The federal agency involved in this case would be the Federal Communications Commission, which will make the final determination should the matter remain unresolved.
Sound like a bureaucratic nightmare? And all poor Mr. Dominguez wanted was to make some extra cash. T-Mobile has said that they cannot relocate the tower and keep their service effective. Not only are multiple levels of government involvement encroaching on Mr. Dominguez’ property rights, but they may also be hindering T-Mobile’s ability to run its company successfully in the area.
If the folks at the Chimayo Council on Wireless Technology have as much support from the community as they claim, they should consider buying Mr. Dominguez’s property or at least they could purchase the right not to have a tower built on the property.

The Albuquerque Journal chooses to run some pretty odd articles from time to time. I understand that articles dealing with local topics may not always be the most well-written, but at least they deal with topics relevant to Albuquerque or at least New Mexico residents. The Albuquerque Journal chooses to run some pretty odd articles from time to time. I understand that articles dealing with local topics may not always be the most well-written, but at least they deal with topics relevant to Albuquerque or at least New Mexico residents. This was the case on Sunday when it ran an article from Andrew L. Yarrow of the Baltimore Sun who argued that Americans who retire early from the work force are both “selfish and unpatriotic.”
Why is that? For starters, Yarrow argues, people who retire at 55, 62 or even 65 have many good, productive years of work yet and those people should be contributing to the nation’s economy and paying taxes. He goes on to make a few somewhat more valid points about our overburdened Social Security and Medicare systems and even discusses some incentives that could get older people to work longer.
While Yarrow makes some valid arguments about the problems with Social Security and Medicare, these are not really the fault of people who retire early. These programs are flawed in their very design and, if policymakers wish to alter their incentives, they must change them. The only way in which these people are being “greedy” is if they vote for and support policies that preserve the broken Social Security and Medicare programs rather than supporting market-based reforms that will benefit their children and grandchildren. Yarrow doesn’t even touch on real reforms to either of these programs.
Ultimately, Yarrow’s mistake is in approaching the entire issue from the collectivist perspective. In other words, he believes that Americans must work harder to strengthen the nation and preserve these government programs. He should be encouraging policymakers to find ways to alter these programs in ways that allow individuals to make the decisions that are best for themselves, without unfairly burdening others. That is the best way to ensure America’s future strength and make sure that Americans live long, productive, and fulfilled lives.

In case you missed the recent reporting, New Mexico is “celebrating” the 75th anniversary of the New Deal this year.
According to the state’s Historical Preservation Division, “Nearly every town in New Mexico has a building, structure, artwork, roadway, park or infrastructure built between 1933 and 1942 that would not have been possible without the New Deal.” The Division is hoping to compile a list of New Deal resources in towns throughout the state. By the end of 2008, HPD wants to round out its New Deal Register nominations so each of the 33 counties has at least one listed resource, which will result in there being more than 100 New Mexico New Deal resources listed.
Thankfully, while bureaucrats and those in the government celebrate the New Deal, Jonah Goldberg has an excellent new book out now which details the truly fascist nature and negative short and long-term impacts of the New Deal. These include its failure to bring America out of the Great Depression and its legacy of an eviscerated Constitution which haunts us today.

“A lot of you are going to have to make decisions above your level,” was Scott’s message to his people. “Make the best decision that you can with the information that’s available to you at the time, and above all, do the right thing.” This quote from Lee Scott, the chief executive officer of Wal-Mart, was made to his employees shortly before Hurricane Katrina made landfall illustrates the mind set the company took prior to the greatest natural disaster in American history which allowed the company to succeed where the Federal Emergency Management Agency failed.
According to a new study by Steven Horwitz, an Austrian-school economist at St. Lawrence University in New York, the entrepreneurial mentality of Wal Mart’s employees allowed them to excel while indecision paralyzed their highly-paid, “expert” colleagues in the federal government. A few of the specific acts of “heroism” or at least tremendous individual initiative on the part of certain Wal Mart employees:
In Kenner, La., an employee crashed a forklift through a warehouse door to get water for a nursing home. A Marrero, La., store served as a barracks for cops whose homes had been submerged. In Waveland, Miss., an assistant manager who could not reach her superiors had a bulldozer driven through the store to retrieve disaster necessities for community use, and broke into a locked pharmacy closet to obtain medicine for the local hospital.
Among the recommendations of Horwitz’s study designed to improve the response to future natural disasters:
1. Give the private sector as much freedom as possible to provide resources for relief and recovery efforts and ensure that its role is officially recognized as part of disaster protocols.
2. Decentralize government relief to local governments and non-governmental organizations and provide that relief in the form of cash or broadly defined vouchers.
3. Move the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
4. Reform “Good Samaritan” laws so that private-sector actors are clearly protected when they make good faith efforts to help.

While New Mexico’s Legislature failed to pass legislation that would allow individuals and businesses to take a credit against their state taxes for donations to organizations that offer scholarships to children in K-12 schools, another state, Georgia, is on the verge of adopting such a law. All that is necessary at this point is a signature from the conservative, Republican Governor who is expected to sign it.
As was repeatedly pointed out (here and here) in the debate over tax credits in Georgia, tax credits for education will improve education by offering choices to children in those who might not otherwise have a choice over their educations. New Mexico should follow Georgia and other states that include Arizona, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania in adopting education tax credits.

On Monday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson disclosed a plan to massively increase the powers of the Federal Reserve to regulate private financial institutions. The unveiling comes 11 days after House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank proposed a “Financial Services Risk Regulator” which would be managed by the Federal Reserve and would have the “capacity and power to assess risk across financial markets regardless of corporate form and to intervene when appropriate.” (Frank Calls for Increased Regulation, Wall Street Journal)
Paulson’s plan would “allow insurance companies to opt out of state regulation in favor of a newly created federal insurance regulator” (Treasury Proposes Financial Overhaul, McClatchy Newspapers), further outsourcing our capacity to self-govern to the federal government.
“The proposals would broadly expand the powers of the Federal Reserve, merge the regulation of stock and commodities markets, fold savings and loan institutions under the umbrella of bank regulation and allow insurance companies to opt out of state regulation in favor of a newly created federal insurance regulator.
For consumers, Mr. Paulson’s plan would create a new super-regulator whose powers would cut across financial services with overarching responsibility for protecting investors and consumers.
The plan also would create a new federal entity to oversee the mortgage origination process.”
What we need is less regulation, not more, and especially not at the federal level when it comes to financing.
The third Federal Reserve attempt was successfully enacted in 1913. America had dissolved the first one and, under vehement opposition from President Andrew Jackson, the federal charter for the second one expired. One of the supposed objectives of the Fed is to prevent financial panics like the one in 1907 that slashed the value of stocks in half.
Unfortunately, 16 years after the creation of the Fed, we entered into the most severe economic depression of our nation’s history. It would seem that giving even greater power to the Federal Reserve might create more problems in the long-term than it would solve.

An article linked to from Yahoo’s main page caught my attention “9 Reasons Your Taxes Are Going Up.” While you never know what you are going to get and what the ideology of the story’s author, it is hard to argue with most of the author’s points.
Particularly relevant are number four, Congress’s lack of willingness to reform Social Security and Medicare and our deteriorating infrastructure. Both problems could easily be solved by free market reforms.
The only cause of future tax hikes that I fail to see is number six, “White House’s Free Market Nonaction Policies.” Not surprisingly, the author fails to describe exactly what he is referring to here. Bush and the Republicans have become a big spending, heavy regulation party. This certainly doesn’t fit the “laissez faire” profile.
Unfortunately, it looks like Americans’ tax burdens are going up unless dramatic change takes place in Washington.

As we approach Tax Day, April 15, you should probably know that the IRS claims that paying your taxes is “voluntary. No, I know it is April 1, but this is not an April Fool’s Joke.
A filmmaker and friend of mine from the Washington, DC area managed to get an interview to discuss the “voluntary” nature with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid View the 4 minute long video here.

Socialists and government bureaucrats have a knack for framing policy discussions in terms of more or less socialism rather than emphasizing individual freedom. This has certainly been the case in the debate over health care. Now, the state wants input on a “Comprehensive Health Plan” and is holding meetings around the state to get public comments.
Certainly, those of us who understand how markets and individual freedom work will probably be turned off by the very concept of a “comprehensive” plan put forth with the state intimately involved in the process. After all, we’d rather have a dispersed and decentralized health care “system” in which individuals retain control over such important decisions. Nonetheless, if advocates of free markets and less government involvement in health care ignore such meetings, we have no excuse when the socialists make policies we don’t like.
If you can’t go to the meeting, you can offer your comments here.

Environments are sometimes their own worst enemies. Today’s celebration of “Earth Hour” during which major cities across the country turn off the lights for an hour is one of those examples. Thankfully, Mayor Marty hasn’t signed Albuquerque up for this ridiculous stunt, but if the concept catches on, I bet he’ll be first in line.
So, why does turning out the lights hurt, not help the enviros? Simply put, there are many people who generally support “helping the environment.” But what most hard-core environmentalists fail to realize is that for most people the environment is just not their highest priority. In this recent poll the environment is the top priority of only 4 percent of the US population far behind health care, Iraq, and gas prices.
The really dumb blunder of the enviros is that they seem to prefer radical steps like simply turning out the lights (will crime rise in darkened cities?) over more mundane efforts like pricing energy in such a way as to account for peak demand and shift demand to non-peak hours. Anyway, like NBC’s wacky experiment with turning out the lights during its Sunday Night Football broadcast last year, people are going to react negatively to such extreme measures as turning out the lights.
In the battle between regular people and their governments over control of energy, the greens may be our best allies.

We’ve certainly discussed the extremely flawed capital outlay process a few times before in this space. So, we read with interest the Albuquerque Journal’s recent stories on the capital outlay money that was shifted from some projects to others (especially the Unser Museum) recently. Tthe articles are for subscribers only and can be found here and here, but essentially what happened is that the Governor redirected $1.5 million to the Museum.
I’ve been to the Unser Racing Museum and I can vouch for the fact that it is both a nice facility and that it is poorly attended. In fact, it averages only 30 customers per day. Oh, and of course the Unsers are big contributors to Richardson.
So, do I begrudge the Guv? To be honest, not really. The capital outlay process is a disaster in need of reform. And, while the Unser Museum may be a money pit, at least it is not spurring the creation of additional even bigger goverrnment. In other words, Richardson actually saved Albuquerque taxpayers money (and preserved property rights) by redirecting $174,000 away from Mayor Marty’s hoped for arena and diverting $700,000 from a planned “extreme sports park” at the Big I which would have involved the City forcibly taking land from a private company currently located there.
Were the vetoes political? Probably. Is the capital outlay process a disaster? Definitely. Were the vetoes good for taxpayers and property owners regardless of their motivation? The answer to that is most likely “Yes.” Particularly in these tough economic times, I think most New Mexicans would rather see that money remain in their own pockets.

A recent article in the Las Cruces Sun-News outlining a new $1.9 million award by the U.S. Department of Labor to Doña Ana Community College’s nursing program caught my attention. As the article points out in its opening paragraph, nurses are in high demand and have been for some time. In fact, some would say there is a shortage of nurses.
Much later in the Sun-News piece, however, David Pearse, dean of health and public services at DACC, tells us that “there are typically 200 applicants each semester for 24 slots in the nursing program. That means we are turning away 176 students each semester.” That is where the $1.9 million from the feds comes in.
So, is there some kind of market failure here? Not likely, especially in two heavily-socialized areas of our economy like health care and education.
The reality is that in a “free” market in health care and education, nurses would likely be paid enough that no shortage would exist. Places of learning would spring up to fulfill the demand to educate nurses who would be happy to pay for the education necessary in order to get into the field just as they do for other fields.
Unfortunately, in the absence of anything resembling a “free” market in health care and medicine, nurse’s salaries are apparently too low, thus creating a shortage and the need for federal subsidies to educate them. Clearly, this is not ideal.

The financial market intelligence provider, Standard & Poor’s, has recently changed Public Service Company of New Mexico’s bond “outlook from stable to negative.” (Matt Mygatt, The New Mexican/Associated Press, Mar. 22, 2008) Other financial speculators, including Moody’s and Fitch Ratings, are either considering or have acted on reducing PNM’s bond status.
PNM’s bond status is in jeopardy because it has had to endure the recent increased costs of “fuel used to generate electricity” and of “purchasing electricity that it does not generate.”(AP) These increased costs have created a potential for the company to default on bonds when investors want to cash out.
This is causing problems for PNM. The state’s Public Regulation Commission has allowed PNM to seek a $300,000,000 loan to stabilize its bond status and avoid defaulting bonds, but because of market speculation, it’s finding it hard to secure the funds. To offset these financial woes, the company is also proposing a 13.8% rate increase for all customers, which the PRC would have to approve before taking effect. Many New Mexicans are objecting to the rate increase.
For most New Mexicans, PNM is the sole provider of gas and electricity. Market competition in this sector is nonexistent. Many citizens petitioning for the PRC to reject a rate increase have opined that because PNM is a legal monopoly, investors and company employees should have to bear the burden of increased costs, not customers who have no other option for heat and power. One citizen referenced CEO Jeff Sterba’s $700,000 salary, which the company justified as due for his executive experience. This is a good example of the need for consumer options in a free market. On one hand, a company should have the ability to increase customer prices if it needs to, but not if it’s operating a monopoly.
And for skeptics of utility deregulation, California was not really deregulation at all. Wholesale generation markets were largely deregulated but retail prices were not. True deregulation will not only save PNM and other energy companies the heartburn or having to ask politicians’ permission to raise prices, but it will result in lower prices for consumers due to efficiency and competition in a genuinely free market.

Federal Communications Commission representative Stephen DelSordo will be making an appearance at the Chimayo Elementary School gymnasium Wednesday, March 26, at 6:30 pm to discuss possible infringements of historical preservation made by a T-Mobile cell phone tower erected over two years ago, according to The New Mexican (Meeting set over cell tower, Tom Sharpe, Mar. 25, 2008).
Rio Arriba County ordinances regulate only towers more than 70 feet tall. The constructed tower is exactly 70 feet tall, but local residents are still urging for the FCC, which they believe is responsible for historic preservation in matters of communication tower placement, to review possible omissions of historic sites in T-Mobile’s application. After the tower’s construction, concerned residents formed a coalition known as Chimayo’s Council on Wireless Technology, which, in an open letter to the Rio Arriba County Commission, was successful in implementing a nine month moratorium in 2006 in order to study wireless emissions and change county ordinances accordingly.
Aside from the supposed desecration of historical sites, the Council on Wireless Technology claims “such towers can cause cancers, leukemia, heart disorders, immunological deterioration, sleep disruptions, anxiety, seizures, etc.” and “disrupt the ability of wildlife to function and cause disease in domestic animals.” Sounds a little bit like the X-Files to me and the Food and Drug Administration agrees.
The tower is the only one in the area that can provide service to T-Mobile and AT&T cell phone users. Did I mention that the tower is located on privately owned property? Local residents and free market advocates are encouraged to attend the meeting. Come to think of it, I haven’t been feeling the same since I used my wireless Internet connection this morning.

The congressional Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee met this past Wednesday to discuss uranium mining and the possibility of changing laws to mandate federal reclamation of uranium mines that have been abandoned since the Cold War. Many people think that the http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/needfornewnuclearplants/future of energy may be in nuclear power, which requires uranium. According to Michael Coleman of the Albuquerque Journal’s Washington Bureau (Navajos Urge Ban on Mining, Mar. 11, 2008), Navajo Nation President Joe “Shirley told the panel that the Navajo Nation has suffered pervasive illness and death because of Cold War uranium mining.” In 2005, Mr. Shirley and the Navajo outlawed all uranium mining on all of the tribe’s lands, saying, “hundreds of Navajo uranium miners have died as a result of exposure to radioactivity and uranium.”
However, in the Journal article, Pete Domenici, who is also on the committee, said, “Much has changed since the Cold War…Uranium mining in the future will be very different than uranium mining in the past…Our job is to get the real facts for the Navajo people, not the facts from the Cold War.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Energy and Transportation are all federal organizations responsible for implementing regulations to protect people from radiation. These regulations, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “are based on internationally recognized scientific studies.” The Institute’s webpage also feature’s a http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/quote from the mayor of Fresno, California: “Nuclear energy is, by every measure, the safest form of energy available today…The safety concerns have been met, the economic advantages are being analyzed, so full-speed ahead.”
Coleman noted in his article that “Tom Udall…is pushing for a federal moratorium on uranium mining on or near Navajo land.” There certainly was a time when uranium mining, especially when it was done in a “war-time” environment, posed serious health risks to miners and residents in the immediate area, but does Mr. Udall realize that technology advances with time? Has he considered that new safety regulations have been developed since the Cold War and that Congress and the applicable federal agencies will have much greater power to regulate mining on our near Navajo lands?
As a sovereign people, The Navajo certainly have the right to oppose mining on their lands, but considering that by 2030 our energy demands are expected to increase by 25%, Udall and others would be unwise to pass a blanket ban on uranium mining “near” Navajo Country.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation don’t really take a position on gambling although our tendency is certainly that individuals and not the state should decide how to spend their hard-earned money. That said, we do take a position against “outrageous laws” in New Mexico.
This brings me to an outrageous law New Mexico has on the books that prohibits NCAA Tournament Pools. Said Greg Sanders of the New Mexico Gaming Control Board, “Even if the amount of money gambled is small, it’s still against the law. Don’t do it, there are agencies out there looking for it.”
There are several problems here. 1) The state has a lottery and garners millions of dollars from gambling on Indian reservations so clearly gambling is not a “moral issue”; 2) Don’t police officers have better things to do than break up nefarious NCAA Tournament pools? 3) If the state got a cut of the money from NCAA Tournament Pools as they do from the lottery and Indian gaming, what are the chances these private pools would be legalized? It’s all about the $$$.
So, have your tournament pool. Here’s a bracket to print out. And tell your elected officials that the police have more important things to do than chase after Super Bowl and NCAA Tournament pools.

Paul Gessing appeared recently on Las Cruces radio station, KSNM 570 with morning show host Alan Riehl. Among the topics discussed were Governor Richardson’s health care plan, the Spaceport, and a host of political interests of interest to New Mexicans. Listen to the show here.

The centerpiece of bureaucracy-based health care reform like the proposal Governor Richardson continues to push is “universal coverage.” By this, advocates mean that if we all have health insurance then everyone will have access to health care. Sounds good enough even if the actual policy implications are a lot messier than they appear at first glance.
As I have written in the past, however, before governments embark upon dramatic “reforms,” we should make sure that current policies are not unnecessarily hindering the ability of New Mexicans to access quality health care. One policy I just discovered that is undoubtedly making health insurance and health care less accessible than it should be is taxation. Specifically, taxation of insurance premiums. Simply put, if you tax something you get less of it; if you eliminate taxes on something, you’ll get more of it.
Surprisingly enough, New Mexico levies a 4% tax on health insurance premiums! This means that for every $100 your employer or you pay for health insurance, the government gets $4. That doesn’t seem very smart if “universal coverage” is the goal. Actually, the original tax was 3%, but back in 2004, the Legislature and Governor Richardson apparently decided that health insurance wasn’t expensive enough, so they added a 1% surcharge.

According to Barry Massey of the Associated Press in the Albuquerque Journal (Gov. Vetoes $7M In Senate Pork, Mar. 6, 2008), the Governor vetoed $500,000 for “renovation of a law enforcement complex in Deming, $10,000 for a plasma television and related equipment, $10,000 for weight room equipment, and $30,000 for field maintenance equipment for the UNM Athletic Department.” A more extensive list of the vetoes is available in the article.
While seven million dollars is a relatively small amount compared to the $341 million worth of expenditures he approved, fiscal conservatives might take heart that the Governor is looking out for their interests.
While this may be the case and much of what the Governor vetoed should be funded locally and not by the State, the pattern of vetoes seems more related to politics than principle. In fact, among the “capital investments” approved by the Governor are “$4.5 million for an automobile assembly facility… $7.5 million to assist with a solar energy equipment manufacturing plant…[and] $7.5 million for infrastructure for a planned building for a financial services company.” Clearly, some of these funds are also unnecessary.
Gilbert Gallegos, Richardson’s spokesman, basically admitted that Senate inaction on Richardson’s health care bill was the real reason for the vetoes, saying: “Sen. Rawson” (one of the Senators targeted with the most vetoes) “has been purely partisan and defiant as a state senator. He is not willing to work with the governor in the best interest of New Mexico.”
Ironically, while it is clear that the funding process in New Mexico needs to change (or better yet have the money returned to taxpayers), taxpayers may be the short-term winners in this game of chicken. That is, as long as the Governor fails in his bid for government-controlled health care.

With the news that the US Senate voted yesterday to preserve its ability to earmark legislation (both Domenici and Bingaman voted to keep the pork coming), thus providing for often wasteful spending back home, often called “pork,” I thought my recent article from the Las Cruces Sun-News on how those running to represent New Mexico in Congress should approach the issue.
The underlying point of the piece is: “New Mexico should stand on its own two feet and not rely so much on the federal government.” Fortunately, because our representatives will have such limited pull due to their lack of seniority, our political leaders have no other choice at this point.
Making the Senate vote even more illustrative is the fact that on the very same day, the House passed a budget that — if its outlines are followed — would allow the vast majority of President Bush’s tax cuts to expire. Clearly, the collective voice of Congress is saying “Keep the pork flowing. We’ll raise your taxes to do it.” It is truly unfortunate that Senator Domenici decided to favor “bridges to nowhere” over New Mexico taxpayers.

In keeping with yesterday’s posting on the abysmal state of education in this country, this story which discusses a poll on what “socialized medicine” means to a group of survey respondents caught my attention. Among the findings:
* 67% said they understood what “socialized medicine” meant;
* Of those, 79% said the term means that the government makes sure everyone has health insurance;
* Only 32% said it means that the government tells doctors what to do;
* Of those who said they understand the term, 45% said that if America had socialized medicine, the health care system would be better, while 39% said it would be worse.
The fact that 79% of those who thought they understood what “socialized medicine” means said that it meant that the government made sure everyone has health insurance is not unexpected, but the finding that only 32% understood that giving everyone health insurance also means that doctors would be forced to obey government dictates is unfortunate and a clear sign of economic ignorance.
Obviously, we at the Rio Grande Foundation oppose socialized medicine or anything like it with every fiber of our being, but if Americans are convinced to go along with such a scheme without understanding that government would quickly be inserted into every health care decision Americans make, they are buying a bill of goods. This is an educational burden and opportunity for free market advocates.

Readers of this blog and followers of our work are probably aware of the failures of New Mexico’s education system. One study even found that New Mexico ranked dead last (51st in the nation in a study that included Washington, DC) in measuring what the study called “a child’s chance at success” as it pertains to education.
As bad as that statistic is, the really sad thing is that American education really isn’t that good to begin with. An article in the USA Today highlights this point discussing a survey of American high schoolers which asked them to name the most famous Americans in history. Shockingly, Founding Fathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn’t make the list, but Susan B. Anthony, Oprah, and Marilyn Monroe did make it.
Not to belittle the accomplishments of Martin Luther King and some of the others on the list, but there is no doubt that our politically-correct “education system” is failing to educate American students on the figures in American history that have contributed the most in favor of those that fit certain ethnic and gender groups. Of course, given the politically-correct nature of our teacher’s unions and their dominance of our education system, it would seem that the situation is not going to change anytime soon.

If you read our blog more often than you check our website, you may not be aware that John Stossel, one of the nation’s most prominent consumer champions, advocate for free enterprise, and critic of bureaucratic foolishness, will speak at a luncheon in Albuquerque at the Marriott Pyramid on (note date change) Wednesday, April 30.
Stossel, author of several books and the host of ABC-TV’s 20-20 program, is being hosted by the Rio Grande Foundation and the New Mexico Prosperity Project.
RSVP’s can be made online via credit card here. The event is open to the public at a cost of $30 if RSVP-ing before April 15; and $40 if after April 15.
If you are not familiar with Stossel and his work, many of his latest stories are available here. Stossel’s work also includes a column that he writes on a variety of topics, always with a free market, limited government bent. A list of his columns can be found here. His most recent comment on the inner workings of Washington, DC lobbying and “influence peddling” can be found here.
We eagerly await Stossel’s upcoming visit and will continue to blog his columns in order to expose readers to his message of freedom and limited government.

New Mexico has come to be known for its extremely generous subsidies for the film industry. In fact, the New Mexico Film Office recently publicized the “fact” that the state’s film industry has generated $1.5 billion for the state economy.
While there is no proof that New Mexico’s generous subsidies are good for the economy, other states like Michigan are hoping to lure films with even more generous subsidies. Of course, neither Michigan nor New Mexico are paragons of economic achievement. In fact, while Michigan’s economy and personal incomes continue to lose ground to states like Alabama, it has a long way to go before it falls to New Mexico’s low level.
While Michigan’s auto industry is likely to continue that State’s economic decline, attracting a relatively small film industry with generous subsidies is not likely to turn things around. After all, it is oil and gas revenues that have given New Mexico a bump in recent years, not the film industry. Hopefully these two economically-struggling states are smart enough not to get involved in a bidding war.