This article appeared recently (May 28) in the Albuquerque Journal. The author’s basic point is that Native Americans were promised health care paid for by the federal government and that the government has fallen short of its obligations. Of course, more money is essential (in the author’s mind) to rectify this injustice.
This promise of a “right” to health care is strikingly similar to politicians’ promise to “universal” health care and other plans to dramatically alter America’s health care system. While more money may indeed be necessary to “fully” fund the Indian Health Care system, history has shown that government-run health services are very expensive and thus, by their nature, are ultimately “underfunded.”
While the Indians undoubtedly had little choice in the wording of the “treaties” they signed with the US Government, their costly and ultimately sad experience with “free” health care should give so-called progressives pause when promoting the idea as a panacea for current problems.

Recently, I discussed our new study on eliminating New Mexico’s personal income tax with Alan Riehl on Las Cruces radio station KSNM 570AM. You can listen to the show here.
If you’d rather read a short, 700 or so word article about eliminating the personal income tax, you can read that here.

A few weeks ago I blogged about the importance of candidate surveys from Project Vote Smart. With the primary election on Tuesday, the Rio Grande Foundation and several other New Mexico-based non-profits surveyed candidates on several issues of interest to each group.
The results of the House Candidate surveys can be found here and the Senate surveys can be found here. The questions that we chose were number 3 and number 9, but each of the questions is relevant in its own way to voters hoping to make an informed decision. If candidates in your area chose not to fill their survey out, make sure to tell them that voters need to make an informed decision and they can only do so if candidates are willing to take firm positions on the issues.

A few weeks ago, I blogged on this page about the reforms Georgia has recently made to health care policies within its borders. Today, I wrote about these changes and urged New Mexico policymakers to follow suit, in the Business Journal section of the Albuquerque Journal. Check out the article here (no subscription required).

I have often heard that one of the keys to improving our failing education system (both here in New Mexico and nationwide) is to get business leaders and the business community more involved in education. While forcing schools to adhere to the principles that businesses must adhere to in a competitive economy is the centerpiece of the Rio Grande Foundation’s education reform agenda, I’ve long been skeptical that businesspeople taken as a whole have any particular insight into making the fundamental reforms necessary to improve American education.
That reality was made clear to me this morning as I sat through a presentation by a manager of Intel Corporation’s education experts. While he had a lot of great information on how to help bring technology to the schools, his company’s solutions are designed to work exclusively within the context of the current government school monopoly. Like Bill Gates’ efforts to improve K-12 education by throwing money at government-run schools, Intel’s efforts are destined to fail to have any long-standing or widespread impact.
You’d think that corporate guys would figure it out. The key to their success is the fact that they have to compete to make a better product or some other company will take their market share and they’ll lose money. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that many business types actually understand how the market system actually works. Thus, when it comes to reforming something like education, they don’t see the big-picture problems and incentives as necessary to their success.
This is the stuff of college theses and grand intellectual inquiries, but what we ultimately need is education reform that demands schools compete as if they were the next Intel or Microsoft. After all, even a flawed Vista operating system is forced to compete with Apple. Our schools face no real competition.

The Navajo Nation is planning on building a coal-fired power plant near Burnham, NM. It applied for an air permit from the Environmental Protection Agency in early 2004, but still hasn’t received permission to begin construction. The Diné Power Authority, a Navajo enterprise, filed a lawsuit against the EPA on March 18 attempting to force the federal agency to make a decision on the permit, according to the Albuquerque Journal (Navajo Enterprise Sues EPA Over Proposed Power Plant, Mar. 19, 2008). “The lawsuit claims the tribe is losing $5 million in… revenue for every month the permit is delayed.”
“The EPA says it was initially delayed by climate-modeling uncertainties… and then by nearly 1,000 mostly negative comments posted on the agency’s Web site,” according to the Santa Fe New Mexican (‘We want the smoke to stop’, May 21, 2008). The Feds say they have to respond to every comment before issuing a permit.
With improved emissions technology, the new Desert Rock Energy Facility will be able to crank out ¾ of the electricity with only 1/5 of the emissions currently being produced by the Four Corners Power Plant in Fruitland, NM (The New Mexican). On top of that, the operators of the new facility are “exploring options that may prepare the project to capture and sequester CO2 emissions from the plant in the future when technology exists that makes this process technically and economically feasible.”
On March 19, New Mexico Environment Secretary Ron Curry, who has a hand in delaying the permit along with the EPA, issued a statement that said, “We respect the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation and the rights of tribal governments to determine their economic futures and to pursue positive change within their communities. However, the responsibility of taking strong action to combat global climate change is one we must all share.”
Curry is operating in quite a paradox. If the government recognizes the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation, then why is it being prohibited from starting a project that will “bring $52 million a year in revenues to the tribal government and provide up to 400 jobs on a reservation where unemployment hovers around 50 percent” (The New Mexican)?
This anti-development mentality on the part of outsiders, mostly wealthy outsiders, was the point of the Rio Grande Foundation’s recent showings of the film Mine Your Own Business. In fact, the film drew a crowd of nearly 100 to Farmington for a showing of the film.

Last week, the Rio Grande Foundation and CARE (the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy) held a series of showings of the film Mine Your Own Business in Albuquerque, Farmington, and Roswell. As this article from the Farmington Daily Times discusses, the film drew a crowd (80 people) in Farmington. This included some hostile opponents from San Juan Citizens Alliance and the Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment.
While we certainly wish that more people shared our belief that responsible mining and access to dependable energy sources are compatible with and integral to our modern way of life, increasing numbers of environmentalists are anti-progress. Our hope is, by showing this film, to expose New Mexicans to the dark side of the environmental movement and point out that we should not blindly attribute altruistic motives to those who say “save the earth.” After all, it was Jacques Cousteau who once said, “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.”

In 2006, Santa Fe County voters agreed to a tax increase to fund improved emergency medical services to outlying communities around the city of Santa Fe and throughout the county, according to Julie Ann Grimm of The Santa Fe New Mexican (911 Stretched Thin, May 20, 2008). So far, $6 million has been levied from county taxpayers and given to the county government for this purpose, but the county’s emergency needs still haven’t been met.
The county’s been having a problem with recruiting and retaining enough paramedics. If a county resident calls 911 because of a heart attack, there may not be enough county paramedics to respond. Odds are the city of Santa Fe, which has its own fire department and adequately staffed emergency response team, will have to send its own paramedic team to far off county lands, leaving the city more vulnerable to a shortage. The city and county medical employees try to work together to meet the needs of citizens.
Unfortunately, the city and county governments don’t cooperate in the same way. Santa Fe city residents (who are Santa Fe county residents as well) are helping to pay for services outside of the city, but their city government is actually contributing to the county shortage by offering more competitive wages to paramedics, leaving the county fire departments in need.
While this competition drives paramedic wages up, it almost seems that the County and City should combine rescue efforts so services do not overlay. Even better, the City and County would likely save even more up to 2/3rds of the money it spends now by privatizing some emergency medical services.

Ned Farquhar, a regular columnist for the Albuquerque Journal, is one of my favorite punching bags. His stances on most issues are predictably left-wing and rely on the coercive power of big-government.
A recent column of his, “Four Options with More Mileage than ANWR,” remains stuck in my crawl. In his article, Farquhar expresses his opposition to drilling in ANWR on the grounds that the area would produce “only” a million barrels a day and “only” reduce our reliance on foreign oil from 65 percent to 60 percent. Considering that the US uses approximately 20 million barrels daily, I’d say that it is well-worth drilling on 20,000 acres of frozen tundra (half the size of the District of Columbia) in a wildlife refuge the size of South Carolina.
Obviously, drilling in ANWR alone is not the answer to all our energy needs and “energy independence” is not a reasonable or relevant goal, but we are reliant on oil (not addicted as Farquhar would assert) and we have to drill for it somewhere.
But, Farquhar believes otherwise. His preference is for (1) electric cars which are not on the market yet (and rely on some other energy source like nuclear) and hybrids which still use gasoline. Clearly, this is at best a partial option for the future. (2) Farquhar predictably pushes renewables which he admits generate less than 2 percent of our energy. He claims, apparently using a magic wand, that we can up that to 25 percent by 2020. (3) Use bio-fuels. Again, it sounds nice on paper, but can we really ramp up production to necessary levels? (4) More efficient vehicles (using government mandates). Again, no details are necessary and individual preferences are ignored.
The ironic thing is that with oil at $130/barrel, the market, not government bureaucrats, is the most powerful force acting on behalf of efficiency. Demand for fuel efficient cars and hybrids has skyrocketed. Now, most Americans are unhappy with current fuel prices, but if Farquhar and his friends in the environmental movement have their way, fuel prices will go up and freedom will drop. It couldn’t be any simpler than that.

When discussing the federal budget, the size of the numbers being dealt with and their different meanings and calculations becomes overwhelming and even irrelevant. The federal deficit is an example of this. While President Bush and federal bureaucrats like to cite our supposedly reduced deficit as a result of their successful policies, when future obligations are accounted for, the picture is much worse. In fact, according to a recent article in the USA Today, “the federal government’s long-term financial obligations grew by $2.5 trillion last year, a reflection of the mushrooming cost of Medicare and Social Security benefits.”
As the article goes on to explain:

Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That’s nearly $500,000 per household.
When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages.
The $2.5 trillion in federal liabilities dwarfs the $162 billion the government officially announced as last year’s deficit, down from $248 billion a year earlier.

Clearly, entitlement reform should be a top priority of politicians in both parties, but it doesn’t look like any of the current crop are making it a top priority…instead, it seems that our children will be inheriting our debts.

Yesterday’s Albuquerque Journal featured an article titled APS Will Cover $20M Funding Hit. Apparently, the state did an audit in 2007 that found that the Albuquerque Public Schools district was over-reporting teacher experience and special education staff. The state determined that it had given APS $20 million too much because of these errors.
Part of the problem was that from at least 1991 to 2001, APS was calculating teacher training and experience against state rules. APS’ criteria for “teacher training” were more lax than the state rules allowed. Even after the state warned APS in 1991 and forgave the errors, the district continued to miscalculate for another decade.
APS also used a “computer program that accidentally doubled its number of special education staff.” Who knows how much that computer program cost the city? My little cousin could’ve designed a program that can count numbers. He probably would have done it for free too.
APS will not have $20 million of state money in ‘08-’09 that it’s used to receiving. APS says it can “cover the loss with its cash reserves next year.” But, unless APS suddenly hires teachers that actually meet its over-reported levels of training and experience, and unless it doubles the size of its special education staff, it will be $20 million ‘short’ every year.
The district’s chief business officer, Gina Hickman, said that we were giving APS $13 million too much for teacher training and experience, and $7 million too much for special education staff. I can understand that APS may have different guidelines for calculating teacher training and experience than the state does. I would assume APS was giving this $13 million to teachers with more training and experience. But, if the faulty computer program was doubling the numbers of special education staff, what was APS spending our $7 million on?

In case you are not aware, the Rio Grande Foundation and the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE) are hosting free film events around the New Mexico. We are showing the film Mine Your Own Business in an effort to expose the real agenda of all-too-many in the environmental movement.
The Farmington Daily-Times had an excellent article in which both Paul Driessen, who is speaking after each of the film showings, and I were interviewed about the film and its message. See you in Albuquerque this Tuesday, Roswell on Wednesday, and in Farmington on Thursday.

Whether or not the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should even exist is, in my opinion, an open question. After all, the Constitution makes no provision for a federal role in addressing emergencies. If any government was to respond, it is state and local governments that are in the best position and are the most capable. This was clearly the belief held by those who founded this country and lived in the early years of the Republic.
Now, private actors are organizing and getting directly involved in assisting with natural disasters. Engineers Without Borders, a coalition of local engineer organizations around the world, is looking to fill the competency void left by government bureaucrats and assist when disasters happen all over the globe.
Clearly, despite the crowd-out effects associated with government, the rise of private, voluntary organizations like Engineers Without Borders (and volunteer efforts by companies like Wal Mart) are our best chance to avoid future disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

As readers of this site are undoubtedly aware, the Rio Grande Foundation is one of New Mexico’s leading voices on behalf of tax reform and reducing the burden of taxation on New Mexico citizens and businesses. While the Foundation does not involve itself in political campaigns, one useful tool in analyzing where candidates stand on taxes and a wide variety of other issues is the Project Vote Smart website.
Project Vote Smart surveys all candidates and publishes the information online in order to give voters the knowledge needed when they go to vote. Information on races taking place in New Mexico can be found here (find the candidate you want and click on the Issue Positions/Political Courage Test button).
Because few incumbents actually fill out the survey, direct comparisons between candidates can be difficult. The primary battle between challenger Dennis Kintigh and incumbent Dan Foley in the 57th House district is one interesting example. While making it clear that he favors limited government, Kintigh’s survey indicates that he’d like to slightly decrease corporate and personal income taxes (with other taxes remaining the same) and “slightly increase” K-12 education spending. Why would a supposedly conservative Republican state publicly that they don’t see any problems with current property and sales (actually gross receipts) tax rates? After all, the Rio Grande Foundation has called the gross receipts tax “New Mexico’s most economically-harmful tax.” Likewise, why would he increase spending on a K-12 system that is clearly broken (for example, the Quality Counts 2007 study by Education Week ranked the state 51st in the nation for giving children a chance at success)?
Kintigh’s opponent, incumbent Representative Foley, while he didn’t fill out his survey, has certainly been a leader in reducing New Mexico’s onerous tax burden. He’s also consistently worked to reduce out-of-control spending like the 11 percent increase of two years ago.
These surveys are a rich source of information. If candidates in your area have not filled theirs out, contact them and ask that they do so.

The state of Georgia is on a roll. Over the weekend I blogged about an important piece of health care legislation that was recently signed into law by Gov. Sonny Perdue and expressed my hope that New Mexico would follow suit. Now, we receive word that the Georgia Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed legislation that will allow individuals and businesses to take a dollar-for-dollar credit on state taxes for contributions to non-profit groups that fund tuition scholarships for children in K-12. More than 10,000 children will benefit from the new law.
As regular readers may know, the Rio Grande Foundation has been promoting tax credits for education in a loose coalition with Educate New Mexico and other proponents of educational choice in New Mexico. Georgia has set the standard in health care and education. Hopefully New Mexico follows their lead.

David Freddoso, a columnist with National Review Online, wrote a column recently on the Wilson v. Pearce race for the Republican nomination for the open New Mexico Senate seat. Freddoso did his research, talking to several free market or Republican activists around the state. I offered my two-cents, arguing that Pearce is the better candidate from the perspective of taxpayers.
By way of backing that statement up, I encourage readers to take a look at annual ratings of Congress put out by the Washington-based National Taxpayers Union. Pearce’s rating data can be found here. Wilson’s rating data can be found here.
I’m certainly not alone in my analysis that Pearce is the more fiscally-conservative candidate. Check out this hard-hitting ad from the Club for Growth.

You may have missed it unless you work in health care…in fact, I can almost guarantee it, but the State of New Mexico held a “Input Meeting” on New Mexico’s Comprehensive Strategic Health Plan. Now, as an advocate of free markets and individual choice, the very concept of the government having a “comprehensive” plan for my health is distasteful and the idea that governments can even make decisions in a “strategic” fashion is a bad joke.
But, the meeting was held and I attended one of the panels on financing health care in Albuquerque. Not surprisingly, for a day-long meeting, nearly all of the attendees were either employed by government or work directly for a particular interest group. Average New Mexicans simply did not attend. More importantly — and perhaps as a result of the self-interested attendees — the primary topic of discussion was “what can government do for me?” Unfortunately, as long as the focus of health care reform is on government doing more rather than less, the problems in our health care “system” will worsen.
For a look at the framework on which discussion of the State’s so-called strategic plan was based, check out the word document found here.

According to a new study, New Mexico ranks number one (worst in the nation) in deaths from falls for seniors. New Mexico ranked highest with 99.26 deaths per 100,000 people over the age of 65. Wisconsin was second at 87.35 deaths per 100,000 people over age 65 and Vermont came in third with 81.46. Alaska ranked the lowest, with 15.95 deaths. Medical treatment costs for falls involving people over age 65 were more than $19 billion in 2000, and that figure is projected to increase to more than $40 billion by 2020.
While the problem of seniors falling is certainly real and obviously expensive, the ability to prevent it and potential preventative measures are unclear. Certainly, it would seem that seniors should be aware of the problem and take steps to prevent or prepare for it.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue recently signed legislation making High Deductible Health Plans paired (HDHP) with Health Savings Accounts (HSA) more affordable and available in that state.
An HDHP is a health insurance plan that offers consumers lower premiums and higher deductibles than a traditional health plan. HSAs allow consumers to set aside funds tax-free for future qualified medical health expenses.
The legislation exempts insurers from state premium taxes for the sale of high deductible health plans with a Health Savings Account, while allowing consumers to deduct from state income taxes an amount equal to premiums paid to a HSA plan. The new legislation will affect mostly the self-employed and small business employees by providing a $250 annual tax credit for small business employers that spend at least $250 annually to enroll their employers in an HSA plan.
If Governor Richardson and New Mexico’s legislators are really concerned about reducing the number of uninsured in the state and improving access to health care, they should consider similar legislation.

Recently, the Albuquerque Journal contained a story with the headline “NM Ranks High on Health Care.” Since I follow these issues closely and have a pretty good grasp on New Mexico’s very real health care problems, I immediately took a closer look. What gave New Mexico such a positive ranking on health care?
The answer, if you can call it that, is contained in a recently-released study by the Trust for America’s Health. According to this study, what New Mexico ranks high in is receiving funding from the federal Centers for Disease Control.
Of course, there is no correlation between CDC spending and health care outcomes, but as a Trust spokeswoman said, “New Mexico does well competing for federal health care dollars. Officials in New Mexico have been aggressive and successful in submitting grant requests.”
So, while the Trust study claims that more federal funding is needed for disease prevention programs, New Mexico is having great success in accessing more than its share. Maybe the next time the Trust studies health care spending, it will take a look at whether all this money actually achieves intended results.

If you missed the luncheon hosted by the Rio Grande Foundation and the New Mexico Prosperity Project last Wednesday, you missed out on a really outstanding event. The folks over at AWOL Civilization were kind enough to blog about the event here.

Mark you calendars now! The Rio Grande Foundation and CARE (the Citizen’s Alliance for Responsible Energy) are partnering to bring a powerful film event to New Mexico!
On May 20-22 we will be showing the movie Mine Your Own Business in New Mexico.
Albuquerque–May 20: State Bar of New Mexico, 5121 Masthead NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
Roswell–May 21: Roswell Museum and Art Center, 100 West 11th Street, Roswell, NM 88201
Farmington–May 22: Totah Theater, 315 W. Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Mine Your Own Business is a one-hour feature documentary that exposes the real agenda of many prominent environmental activists. It is an entertaining and informative exposé on how the environmental movement is ignoring the world’s poor and their dire need for economic development.
The film features interviews with some of the world’s poorest people and reflects on their individual goals for a better life. It is the first documentary to ask hard questions of the environmental movement and the right of all people to live prosperous and productive lives. Even if you think you understand the importance of economic development, this film will provide insight into the desperate state of the world’s poor – as no book or study can – and why we cannot deny them the dignity of development and economic achievement.
Read a review of the movie. Listen to an interview with the film’s producer. Watch the preview.
Each showing will be followed with a short presentation by Paul Driessen, author of the book Eco-Imperialism. Driessen will localize the movies message and answer questions from the audience.
Each event will be held in a “happy hour” type timeframe with refreshments (Beer and wine will be available at the Albuquerque and Roswell locations) from 5:00-5:30pm, showings at 5:30 and Paul Driessen’s presentations at 6:30. These events are open to the public free-of-charge and you are encouraged to bring everyone you know! (Event sponsorships are still available.)
RSVP today at: info@riograndefoundation.org

Santa Fe County Commissioner Jack Sullivan was fighting the majority, according to The New Mexican (Official fights planned tax hike, Apr. 29, 2008), when he proposed that Santa Fe County drop out of the Transit District, which includes Santa Fe, Taos, Los Alamos, and Rio Arriba counties. The Transit District is trying to impose a tax increase on residents to expand bus services in these counties.
The only problem is that the state legislature, through the Department of Transportation, is considering imposing its own tax for Rail Runner services. The Transit District doesn’t know where Rail Runner routes are going to connect yet. They have no clue where bus service might be needed most. A week ago the Transit District, even though it didn’t have the details of Rail Runner service, wanted to impose a tax increase anyway. Thankfully Jack Sullivan was able to persuade Santa Fe County Commissioners to hold off until they were able to talk to the state about plans for the train. Sullivan said, “Details about how Santa Fe’s approximately $4.5 million portion in tax revenue would be spent are vague.” It’s possible that the state would impose a tax for some of the same services the Transit District wanted to tax for.
Some officials didn’t think double taxation was a big deal. Transit Board director Josette Lucero said, “We’ve already gone back to the drawing board twice.” Santa Fe City Councilor Miguel Chavez said, “We’ve already reconsidered…it seems a little redundant.” County Commissioner Mike Anaya said, ‘Sullivan needs to take a longer view of the issue and not get bogged down worrying about which county pays for what.’ (The New Mexican, 4/29). Details are so messy when you are trying to pick peoples’ pockets!
Then, after the Commission’s April 29th meeting, at which Sullivan was able to convince commissioners to wait for more details from the state’s Department of Transportation before agreeing to the Transit District’s tax, Board director Lucero said, “I can totally understand their position…I agree that the parties needed to come together months ago.” Santa Fe Mayor David Cross said, “We’re just not ready. We don’t have a plan for public transit that includes the Rail Runner…I would like to see that addressed as part of the equation…” (The New Mexican, County agrees to put hold on tax increase, Apr. 30, 2008) The Transit Board director is only going to participate in a task force if they can come to a resolution within 30 days, after which Sullivan will reintroduce the idea of Santa Fe County dropping out of the Transit District.
Why isn’t possible double taxation a big deal for the Transit District? Why haven’t the counties and state been collaborating on transit? Why is the Transit Board director putting a timeline on researching the impacts of the tax? It’s obvious that some of these people aren’t concerned with wasting our money. Other than Sullivan, many of these officials seem to have no problem flushing our money down the toilet.

It never ceases to amaze me that David Roybal was a speech writer for Governor Richardson. His columns are often incoherent and never really seem to make a policy point one way or the other. Perhaps that is a strength when it comes to writing politicians’ speeches? If you never make a clear point, you never have to defend unpopular positions…Barack Obama is certainly learning that lesson!
Nevertheless, Roybal, writing in today’s Albuquerque Journal, implies that he’d like to see one of New Mexico’s congressional delegation obtain an earmark to pay for some of the costs associated with the Rail Runner. Among the supposed “benefits” of using the earmarking process is the fact that “an earmark escapes scrutiny that it would otherwise have to face as a stand-alone measure….worse, if the process shows a project to lack merit…it might be voted down.”
Roybal goes on to question whether the Rail Runner should be funded as an earmark and touches on the price of gasoline, but he never takes a particular position on the issue. The fact is that the Rail Runner is not a viable project from a transportation perspective, even with expensive gasoline, because it won’t go where people need to go at the times that they need to be there. Otherwise, someone in the private sector would have thought of it a long time ago.
Sad to say it, but New Mexico taxpayers should (and will probably have to) foot the bill for this boondoggle on their own.