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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript of Coburn remarks:

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

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

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

The Rio Grande Foundation and Moises Venegas have worked together on education choice issues in the past. Most recently, we were part of a loose coalition on behalf of education tax credits. While we consistently approach the education issue from a pro-freedom perspective, Venegas, particularly in an article “Poorer Students Lost in Rush to Create Mesa del Sol Charter,” that appeared on the opinion pages of the Albuquerque Journal on Sunday, April 6, approaches the issue from a very different perspective and comes to some conclusions contrary to the promotion of choice.
First and foremost, Mesa del Sol is a taxpayer-subsidized development now taking shape south of Albuquerque’s Sunport. Recently, the developers behind the project requested to build a charter school as part of the development.
Venegas’s argument is a bit bizarre in that he claims that wealthy people “already have school choice if they are willing to spend $10,000 to $16,000” to send their kid to an expensive private school or they can move to an area with better schools. While this is technically a choice, these are not good choices especially when one considers that these people are already paying thousands of dollars annually in taxes for the failing government schools.
Venegas furthers the class/wealth issue by arguing that Mesa del Sol’s application for a charter is another means of the wealthy segregating themselves at the expense of poorer students. This argument boggles the mind. Sure, wealthy people (like their poorer counterparts) want what is best for their children, particularly when it comes to education. While Mesa del Sol may indeed be targeted at high-end residents, even relatively wealthy people will struggle mightily to pay $10-$15k annually per child in private school tuition. It would seem that building a charter school for the community is eminently sensible.
The fact is that true school choice will benefit all New Mexicans whether they are wealthy, poor, or in between. After all, competition drives improvement and cost reductions in all products whether they be cars, televisions, or education. Charter schools (and tax credits or even vouchers) are not the be-all, end-all when it comes to improving educational quality through choice, but they would be a big help. Rather than tearing down certain attempts to build alternatives to the failed government schools, Venegas and others should let 1,000 flowers bloom and bring choice to all children.

When discussing New Mexico’s economic position relative to other states, we at the Rio Grande Foundation often cite per capita personal income as a measuring stick. That’s because this statistic is the single best way to rank the economic strength among the states.
With that said, there is some good news relative to New Mexico’s economic standing in recent years. According to new federal data, since 2003 (not coincidentally the year New Mexico’s personal income and capital gains tax rate cuts began), New Mexico’s national ranking has improved to 43rd from 47th with New Mexico leaping over Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah, and Idaho.
Sure, strong growth in oil and gas prices played a big part in this improvement, but note that Alaska’s ranking, another state with a major oil and gas industry, changed very little over the same time period and has certainly not seen New Mexico’s consistent improvement in recent years.

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.