Rio Grande Foundation policy analyst Stephen Ford discusses the results (or lack thereof) of Arizona’s Pre-K program and how they may be relevant for New Mexico policymakers in the Rio Rancho Observer. Unfortunately, albeit not surprisingly, Governor Richardson is not concerned with results and is moving ahead with even greater funding for pre K, having sent out a press release to that effect earlier this month.
Among other things, the Governor allocated “an additional $14 million toward the expansion of PreK programs in New Mexico, boosting the number of students served by 63 percent.” According to the release, “the $14 million will pay for nineteen new programs. The pre K program expansion makes 58 programs available in 43 communities across the state and will increase access to early childhood education for approximately 3,568 four-year olds.”
With less-than-promising results in Arizona, it is unlikely that New Mexico’s abysmal education system will be improved by giving them another year to do a bad job of teaching our children. Only time will tell.

The passage of legislation during the legislative session earlier this year that will offer protections for New Mexico property owners from eminent domain abuse was positive, but property rights are by no means secured.
Unfortunately, un-accountable, rogue bureaucracies like the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Authority can get judges to strip private companies (subscription required) like New Mexico Utilities Inc. of their property rights for no good reason.
Sure, the unaccountable thugs at the water authority will claim that only they can ensure that water is used efficiently and, since it is such a “scarce” resource, it is too precious to be left in private hands. What they won’t tell you is that there is no “water crisis” here in New Mexico, but there is a water distribution crisis. That is, upwards of 80% of the water in this state is used for agriculture, an industry that plays a relatively small role in the state’s economy.
Rather than using a supposed crisis as an excuse to weaken property rights, New Mexicans and the state’s legal system should use property rights to solve the state’s water distribution problems.

Yesterday, David Hogberg and I wrote on the American Spectator website about some of the health care proposals being cooked up by the Democrats in Congress. Today, we discuss SCHIP and how that program is being used to create “universal health care” by making us all “children.”
As I mentioned in my recent Wall Street Journal piece, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has been a national leader in expanding this program, thus putting more New Mexicans than ever on the government dole.
Congress may vote as early as today on expansion.

In today’s edition of the American Spectator online David Hogberg and I take on the issue of health care in the current Democratic Congress. While the Republican Party’s record on health care was no better (prescription drug bill, anyone?), other steps were taken in the right direction such as the move by John Shadegg (R-AZ) to allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines.
While health care certainly needs reform, adding new mandates like Mental Health Parity and allowing Medicare the authority to “negotiate” with drug companies for lower drug prices is a step towards Michael Moore’s vision of socialized health care, not better health care.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is running for President and is doing so by campaigning as a “market-oriented Democrat” and a tax cutter. While these terms may be music to the ears of limited government types, the truth is that Richardson has expanded government in New Mexico at an unprecedented pace.
Recently, I discussed Richardson’s fiscal record on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Let’s just say that while he is certainly to the right of most of his Democratic colleagues (and perhaps some, Republicans as well) he’s no fiscal conservative.

Some good news was reported last week on the New Mexico economic front. According to the Albuquerque Journal, a company called Green Rubber Global is going to set up a headquarters in Albuquerque and open a state-of-the-art tire recycling business in state. No one can dispute the fact that this is good news for the state economy or that tire recycling fits in well with the overall “green” development model that is driving development in the state.
Of course, a few days later the Journal ran another piece (subscription required) outlining the $3.9 million incentive package the state is offering Green Rubber in order for them to build a $30 million plant. Of course, this project will be a boon to New Mexico’s economy in the end, but wouldn’t it be great if taxes were and regulations were made reasonable for every business owner in the state and not just those making a $30 million upfront investment in a politically-favored business model?

The Office of Management and Budget has published its “Mid-Session Budget Review.” To sum the situation up:
– Federal tax revenues continue to be very strong, having risen by 7 percent. This comes on the heels of increases of 15 percent and 12 percent the past two years (clearly tax cuts are helping the economy);
– At 1.5 percent of GDP, the budget deficit is now lower than it was in 24 of the past 30 years;
– Total 2007 federal spending is estimated to be 20.2 percent of GDP, up from 18.5 percent when President Bush took office. Had spending remained at 18.5 percent of GDP, this year’s budget would show a $35 billion surplus.
Basically, what the OMB is telling us is that spending is rising fast, but the economy (and tax revenues) continue to outpace even Congress’s ability to spend. If Congress and the President could agree to limit federal spending to inflation and population growth, the deficit would be gone and economic growth would continue long into the future.
Of course, it wouldn’t hurt New Mexico to enact similar limits.

The entire debate over socialism vs. free markets comes down to two simple facts: 1) the left doesn’t understand economics and 2) the left confuses compassion with government action. Michael Moore has made these mistakes in spades throughout his career, nowhere more often than in “Sicko.” Unlike most of the mainstream media, John Stossel calls him on the lies and obfuscations that Moore perpetrates.
Hating Michael Moore is not going to win any arguments; instead, those who philosophically disagree with his socialist worldview need to come up with alternatives of their own that are superior to the snake oil Moore is selling. Kudos to John Stossel!

As a product of Albuquerque Public Schools, I feel strongly attached to its fortunes and misfortunes. As of Monday, superintendent Elizabeth Everitt announced her refusal to renew her contract next year. She leaves her office as a controversial figure.
Whatever achievements Everitt did or did not accomplish, her tenure is tainted by the effects of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. We can criticize her all we want, but she could accomplish little in the face of such overwhelming and stifling regulation. The system created by this act “impedes learning, encourages dropouts, narrows the curriculum, increases anxiety, fosters academic dishonesty, and does nothing to improve schools,” and Everitt could do nothing to change this.
We all know that APS has plenty of problems. Yet we must also realize that we can never address those problems until we can define our own educational system, free from No Child Left Behind and other strangling federal regulations.

Franklin Roosevelt is considered by the “mainstream” and many academics to be among the best presidents in our history. I have always felt otherwise and believe that he is actually among the 10 worst.
I was pleasantly surprised, then, that George Will will offered such a strong condemnation of the Roosevelt record on the pages of the liberal establishment Washington Post.
Among Roosevelt’s many sins was, “Furiously using legislation and regulations to multiply federally favored groups, and by rhetorically pitting those favored by government against the unfavored, he could create a permanent majority coalition.” This certainly sounds like the model used by the modern Democratic Party.
Roosevelt summed up his big-government philosophy in his second inaugural address by saying that he wanted “To enforce the ‘proper subordination’ of private power to public power.” That is nothing more or less than removing power from the individual and giving it to the government. It is the ultimate goal of the Rio Grande Foundation to reverse that troubling trend here in New Mexico.

While it generated a good deal of buzz on the left and in the media, relative to Farenheit 911, Michael Moore’s “Sicko” seems to have been a dud. There may be any number of reasons for this relative lack of success, but I think the overtly-socialist message has a much narrower audience than a foreign policy flick that tears apart what we all know was a deeply-flawed foreign policy being propagated by the Bush Administration.
Of course, when Kurt Loder of MTV fame unloads a scathing review, it is a given that the rest of the mainstream, left-leaning media is not lined up in lock-step with your cause.

Congressional Democrats are hoping to pass a tax hike on cigarettes in order to pay for still bigger government. While billions in tax hikes were removed from the Energy Bill by Senate Republicans, the latest tax hike to increase funding by $50 billion for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program , also called SCHIP.
Of course, SCHIP expansion is just another means of expanding government health care at the expense of private health care. Not surprisingly, Governor Richardson has made SCHIP expansion a point of emphasis. The not-so-subtle point here is that the Democrats are using SCHIP expansion as a means of incremental steps to “universal, socialized medicine.”
Perhaps President Bush will veto this massive tax hike and expansion of government as he has pledged in the past?

A few weeks ago I blogged about a David Brooks column in which he claimed that the “free market” is failing to produce enough educated workers for the American economy.
It was good to see John Stossel express many of the same thoughts I did in a recent column. We have enough problems with the teachers’ unions and those who have a direct interest in misleading Americans about the socialist nature of government-run schools, we don’t need so-called “conservatives” doing it as well.

Few cities are so willing to adopt senseless and economically-harmful policies as Santa Fe. Whether the issue is the dreaded toilet exchange program or the incredibly inflated $9.50 an hour minimum wage, Santa Fe is on the loony left.
Now, some city councilors would like to push the city even further down the road to economic foolishness. The latest proposals are for a two cent tax on soda pop and a 1 percent hike in the city’s gross receipts tax. The plan is to use the money for a variety of open space and child development initiatives.
While the soda tax may not be as big or economically-harmful as a 1% increase in the gross receipts, it is patently unfair and unnecessarily targets one group of people – soda drinkers – to pay for something that most of them will never benefit from. Besides, as soon as a soda tax is levied, can taxes on burgers, pizza, and ice cream be far behind?
Of course, raising the gross receipts tax — especially by a full penny — will do more economic harm than the soda tax. Santa Fe already has the heaviest gross receipts tax burden of any major (25,000 people or bigger) city in New Mexico, a one-cent increase would give the city an astounding 8.625 percent gross receipts tax rate. The new rate would be an astounding 25 percent greater than the rate charged in Albuquerque. Check this table for gross receipts tax rates statewide.
While it may not happen overnight, eventually Santa Fe’s economy and even its tourist industry will begin to suffer from these absurd policies. After all, most wealthy people didn’t get that way by carelessly wasting money. Eventually, even Santa Fe’s tax burden may cause tourists and part-year residents to look elsewhere.

This article not only sums up why we celebrate the 4th of July, but explains the ideas behind the Rio Grande Foundation.

An article in the Albuquerque Journal’s Business Outlook section yesterday (subscription required) focused on the Universal Service Fund and the fact that Qwest, which has major operations in New Mexico, has called the Fund “outdated.” In case you don’t know, the Universal Service Fund is one of those line items on your phone bill that turn a $14 bill into a $28 bill.
Specifically, it is a nearly 12 percent surcharge on phone bills to subsidize phone service in rural areas, mountain communities and other places where installing equipment and making a profit would be difficult. Now, I know that New Mexico is one of those areas that have probably benefited disproportionately over the years from this subsidy, but with the fund at $4 billion and few in need of the subsidy, one might think that Qwest would ask for the fee to be dropped entirely since it impacts their customers.
Not so, instead Qwest and some federal lawmakers have proposed using some of the funds to provide hard-to-reach customers with broadband service. Great, now we can all subsidize broadband service for Ted Turner’s house.

Micha Gisser, a senior fellow with the Rio Grande Foundation, had an excellent article on health care in the Albuquerque Journal last week. In his article, Gisser explained that despite a relatively widespread lack of insurance in New Mexico, no hospital denies patients essential coverage. And, while having large numbers of uninsured is less than ideal, nationalized healthcare is not needed to resolve this problem. In fact, Gisser points out, “President Bush’s proposal to cap the tax deduction for employer-sponsored health insurance at $15,000 and give people the same tax break to buy insurance regardless of whether they get it from an employer or elsewhere,” would have a tremendous impact on the ability of individuals to obtain health coverage.
Gisser clarifies once and for all that mandatory health care as Massachusetts has done is based on the absurd assumption that we will criminalize lack of insurance. Gisser writes, “Suppose New Mexico passes a law insisting that everyone purchase health insurance from any of the private insurance companies. Are we willing to enforce the law by sending the ‘disobedient’ head of a nonpoor household to prison?”
As I wrote a few weeks ago, there are no “easy” health care solutions.

waste more taxpayer money!!! Seems like our friends in Sandoval County have admitted their complete and total failure(subscription required) at getting countywide, subsidized wi-fi. Unfortunately, the County’s failure is not a mere matter of “breach of contract” as County Commissioner David Bency claims.
The problem is that governments simply are not efficient managers of services that are either not absolutely essential or rely on being up to date on the latest technology. Hopefully, unlike our friends in Sandoval County, Albuquerque’s elected leaders will understand their limitations.

The US Supreme Court recently ruled against the Washington Education Association’s efforts to levy fees on public employees who choose not to join a union but are represented by the union in collective bargaining. George Will explains that had the Court ruled any other way, it would have allowed labor unions who have been unable to persuade people to join, the option coercing the unpersuaded.
Maybe someday New Mexico will rid itself of its “Little Davis-Bacon” which allows unions to unfairly set prices on construction projects.

In today’s Roswell Daily Times, I had an article denouncing the Energy Bill that passed the Senate recently. While some of the worst provisions, namely a $32 billion tax package that would have increased taxes on motorists in order to fund alternative fuel projects, died, the bill will still harm motorists and taxpayers if it becomes law.
We’d all be better off with NO national energy policy than central planning.

This story is really not a surprise. Private charity has always been more effective at improving peoples’ lives than government handouts and examples of this in reaction to Hurricane Katrina have already been widely reported.
What is surprising is that people are so easily fooled, so often, by government officials who say “we’re going to help.” Things weren’t always this way. In fact, after every disaster, natural or otherwise, we should mandate the reading of “Not Yours to Give,” an excellent Illustration of the way government has usurped and corrupted private charity.

New Mexico is so poor…how poor? It’s so poor that the state’s Human Services Department serves one out of three citizens of the state. You know the worst part of it is that they are so proud of that fact that they put that at the very top of the webpage for all to see. While serving one of three New Mexicans may seem like a lot, if the Legislature passes “universal health care” which Richardson has endorsed, one in three could be just the start.
Hat tip to John LaPlante, Managing editor of the blog State House Call.

Without a doubt, the biggest health care story of the next few weeks will be left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore’s movie Sicko in which Moore lashes out against a variety of problems with the US health care system and makes the case for socialized health care.
Albuquerque hosted a “sneak preview” of the movie and since I was curious, I went over the weekend.
The beginning of the movie is a series of vignettes with people who have been left behind for whatever reason by the American health care system. Although little in the way of hard data are presented, given the role health insurance companies play in denying and limiting patients’ access to health care, he certainly has a point. Unfortunately, rather than criticizing the fact that federal law places HMO’s and other intermediaries between patients and doctors, Moore uses his examples to build the case for Hillary Clinton-style nationalized health care.
Moore then takes on the American Medical Association for their role in limiting the supply of doctors. On this point, although he’d probably be horrified, Moore is in agreement with none other than Milton Friedman. The very goal of professional licensing is to limit supply, thus increasing prices. Doctors are not the only ones who do this within the medical system, but the power of these professional organizations is one factor that drives health care costs up.
Moore then visits Canada, Britain, and France and interviews a number of people who rhapsodize about the wonders of their respective systems — basically, health care is “free” and we can’t imagine how it must feel to pay for health care. Of course, Moore glosses over the very real problems with both the costs and the long waits for service in these countries: Britain, France, and Canada.
Lastly, we embark upon the episode involving the 9/11 workers and the visit to Cuba that has made headlines. I do believe that it was a shame and a travesty that workers at Ground Zero have not received the health care they needed. Surprisingly, Moore did not specifically mention the Environmental Protection Agency’s role in providing a false sense of security to workers and others who were exposed to the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers.
While even Moore admits that Cuba is a poor country, he fails to point out that it is the very socialist system that provides ridiculously cheap medical care that makes the place so un-livable. All the viewer sees is grateful Americans who have been ignored by their own government receiving “free ” health care.
There is no doubt that Michael Moore’s movie is part of a coordinated effort on behalf of socialized medicine. Bill Richardson will be making a big push for some kind of “universal” coverage in New Mexico next year and all of the Democrats running for President have proposed some kind of universal coverage.
Unfortunately, what we really need in health care is a good dose of capitalism and reforms that peel away the socialism that has built up over the years in our system. Seems that we need a libertarian/conservative version of Michael Moore to propagandize on behalf of limited government.

From a fiscal policy perspective, the growth of government during Mayor Chavez’s term is easy to quantify and well-publicized. Whether we’re talking about the streetcar or taxes, Chavez is not shy about increasing the size and scope of Albuquerque governmnet.
But another are in which government has grown in troubling ways is in so-called “nanny-state” activities. Simply put, Chavez seems hell-bent on becoming the third parent most Albuquerque residents never had. There are almost too many examples to cite, but red light cameras and regulations on pet owners are two examples.
Chavez also pushed for and got a ban on talking on your cell phone while driving and he singlehandedly banned smoking on all city-owned land save golf courses.
Not to be outdone, the Legislature-passed ban on riding bikes or skateboarding without a helmet if you are under 18 also went into effect recently. Apparently parents and their children are simply not able to make this decision for themselves.
Ultimately, what it all boils down to is that we have put our politicians on such a pedestal that they have nearly unlimited powers to tell us what we must and must not do. While some may agree with one or more of these particular laws, there is unquestionably a trend both locally and at the state level to allow politicians to make more and more decisions for us. With each nanny-state law that passes, New Mexicans will become a little less free to choose what is right for themselves. That is unfortunate.