We at the Rio Grande Foundation have written a good deal about the proposed New Mexico Spaceport. Now, the new director of the Spaceport, Steve Landeene, is making the pitch for “tax hikes for billionaires” to justifiably-skeptical voters in Sierra County.
Landeene argued before the Sierra County Commission that the 1/4-cent gross receipts sales tax hike which will be on the ballot on April 22 is “the key to unleashing world history right here in Sierra County.” He went on to claim that “one study estimated the spaceport would generate $1 billion in economic development and 2,250 jobs within the first five years of operation.”
Of course, the question Landeene didn’t answer is why Sierra County residents should be asked to pay higher taxes — on top of an already-onerous 7.25% gross receipts tax rate — in order to pay for millionaires and others to go into space? If this project is really going to generate $1 billion, shouldn’t the investors be able to afford to build the Spaceport themselves?

Ned Farquhar has become one of my favorite opponents recently. He can always be counted on to represent and write about the latest energy and environmental issues from the green angle. In today’s Albuquerque Journal, he argues that nuclear power is not safe, not cheap, and will inevitably fall into the hands of terrorists. While there is a nugget of truth in each assertion, his claim that we should transition from nuclear (and just about everything else) to solar and wind, is absurd and based on green fantasies that have no bearing on reality.
First, he sets up a straw man, saying “Anyone who proposes nuclear power as a silver bullet, the single answer to our convoluted energy and security issues, is ignoring huge issues.” Of course, all forms of energy have issues and no one that I know of is arguing that nuclear is the “single answer” to our energy “problems.” Of course, what Farquhar doesn’t mention is that the people who have created what problems we have are the very greens he represents.
The resurgence of nuclear is a response to the hue and cry against greenhouse gases and the supposed “crisis” of global warming. The nuclear waste issue, on the other hand, could easily be handled in a free market, but once the federal government took charge, the issue became politicized and prices went up dramatically. Another red herring cited by Farquhar is the supposed danger of uranium falling into the wrong hands. While it is true that the United States tries to strictly limit access to weapons-grade uranium, the type of uranium used in energy-generating reactors is far different.
Ultimately, all of his problems with nuclear power can be boiled down to the simple fact that nukes are not politically correct. Only wind and solar power are beloved by greenies. Of course, even the two percent number cited by Farquhar as the percentage of our energy supply that comes from these politically correct sources is overblown.
The fact is that wind and solar are inconsistent and expensive. Given the high level of subsidies now handed to these industries, they may grow slightly as a percentage of our energy supply, but even a goal of producing 5% of America’s energy usage is a bit far-fetched. The fact is that we need coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. No amount of wishing and hoping is going to change that.

The New Mexico state legislature has recently passed House Bill 305, sponsored by Speaker Ben Lujan of Santa Fe, which will impose new mandatory regulations on utility companies throughout the state in an attempt to make them more accountable to environmental concerns.
While encouraging commercial, industrial, and residential growth in New Mexico, our state government will simultaneously force utility companies to adhere to new rules that will drive them to eventually decrease the amount of electricity provided to customers. By 2014, utility companies must be providing 5% less electricity to customers than provided in 2005, and by 2020 providing 10% less.
The law is also known as a Utility Customer Demand Management bill. If customers were actively demanding increased energy efficiency, new technologies and business models would develop in a free market that would meet their demands. Instead, government regulations have been adopted which are likely to stifle the very economic growth that our state needs.
In his blog titled A Lonely Vote for Coal and Against Conservation, Governor Richardson has mentioned that state Senator Tim Jennings of Roswell was the first legislator to vote against the proposed bill.
Although, according to Judy Pasternak of the Los Angeles Times, plans for some new coal-fired power plants have been cancelled or delayed nationwide, they “continue to advance in New Mexico, Mississippi and Indiana.” In the same article she mentions that Rick Sergel, head of North American Electric Reliability Corp., has suggested that the “tight conditions” placed on coal-fired plants may cause the nation to have an electricity shortage within 10 years.
It would seem obvious that, with a power crisis possibly imminent, utility companies should be allowed to ensure ample electricity to their customers. Unfortunately, Governor Richardson and the New Mexico Legislature are all too willing to ignore energy consumers in favor of promises of “efficiency.”

Regular readers of this know that while economists support business and economic growth, there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it. The right way is low, equitable taxes for all while the wrong way is largesse for a few which often results in higher taxes for others. Over the weekend, the New Mexico Film Office released figures stating that the industry generated $1.5 billion for the state. I’m not going to question that number. It would be impossible to state definitively that it is wrong.
On the other hand, I can also state unequivocally that bribing the film industry to come to the state was not the most efficient use of our tax dollars. That point was proven more than 150 years ago (by a Frenchman no less) Frederic Basiat. Speaking to the primary difference between a good economist and a bad one, Bastiat said, “The bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, – at the risk of a small present evil.”
I’m not calling the film industry “evil,” but I do think it is both immoral and bad policy to take money from low and middle income (not to mention wealthy) taxpayers in order to give it to wealthy filmmakers on the possibility that bringing them to the state will generate a few jobs and tax revenue. Across the board cuts in the gross receipts or income tax would have been far more economically efficient (no waste, no special office to distribute the money), not to mention being more just.
I don’t wish the New Mexico film industry any ill will, just that they’d stop taking my money.

Gil Heredia is running for District 7 in Alamogordo. Unlike so many politicians who feel that the only way to improve city services is to raise taxes, Heredia is advocating private sector solutions that are likely to reduce Alamogordo’s tax burden (which is heavier than other Southeast New Mexico cities) while improving service delivery at the same time. He outlined some of his ideas including privatizing municipal golf courses and the city-owned airport — most of which are applicable in cities large and small — in an article in the Alamogordo Daily-News.
Candidates for local office across New Mexico should be encouraged to borrow Heredia’s ideas on limited government. Heredia should be commended for his efforts and innovative approach to governance.

By now, most of you are probably aware that Governor Richardson has called a special session in an attempt to get his health care bill passed. This was no surprise given the Governor’s fixation on health care before the session began, but with little in the way of agreement on the issues, Richardson’s move seems somewhat desperate. After all, even House Speaker Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe, said of the prospects for a special session, “It won’t be fruitful for the governor to call a special session if there is not mutual agreement.”
This is the rub. The House which Richardson normally counts on for support didn’t even go along with the Governor, but instead gutted the bill. The Senate is even further away from the Governor than that.
Crazy things can happen in a special session, but if legislators seemed skittish about reforming health care in a short, 30-day session, it seems even less likely that they’ll go along with the Governor during a special session that is sure to be unpopular with legislators of both parties, particularly since they’ve already rejected his reforms once. Lashing out at those who don’t go along with his wishes seems to be the Governor’s current mode of operation. Only time will tell whether legislators cow-tow to the Governor.

Anyone who regularly reads this blog knows that we do not engage in personal attacks. We may have policy disagreements, but we don’t generally go after people as individuals. That said, I’m not really sure Governor Richardson has been on an even keel since he return from the campaign trail. First was the statement that doctors were being “greedy” for not going along with his health care plan. While I think this statement is false on its face, it is hard to see the political wisdom of publicly attacking the very health care professionals whose mission it is to make us well. Besides, doctors are people we all deal with personally and, while we may associate their presence with both physical and financial pain, they are certainly viewed more favorably than the nameless and faceless insurance companies.
Of course, attacking doctors was only the start for Richardson. Today he essentially told the Legislature — both houses of which are dominated by his fellow Democrats — “bring it on” (subscription required) when some lawmakers suggested he’s entered his lame duck phase as governor.
As if this belligerent attitude were not enough, the Governor topped his rhetoric off by publicly disagreeing with his Attorney General (also a Democrat) regarding what should be a relatively minor bill deadline and then challenging his Lieutenant Governor over whether she is deserving of security or not.
Something is just not right. While it is to be expected that the Governor would disagree with Republicans and veto their projects from the just-signed budget, he seems to be lashing out at anyone and everyone who crosses him, possibly due to his frustrations on the campaign trail.
While we at the Rio Grande Foundation don’t agree with him very often on policy matters, it would seem that the “wounded bear” routine won’t do much for his efforts to pass his health care agenda and other items. Perhaps he’ll shake it off, but until he does, he isn’t doing himself any favors…and that’s probably a good thing for taxpayers.

As you probably know, the Rio Grande Foundation has been among the most prominent organizations opposed to more government intervention in the health care sector and supporting market-based reforms.
While most New Mexico businesses and business organizations have opposed Governor Richardson’s plans for a massive new government-run health system, the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce came out in support of the Governor’s plan. Recently, a group of businesses and other organizations including the Rio Grande Foundation sent a letter to the Chamber outlining concerns with the Chamber’s support for even more government intervention in health care and the negative impact such policies would have on small businesses. Mario Burgos blogs about the issue here.

The issue of whether or not to drill in the Galisteo Basin has consumed Santa Fe’s local politics over the next several months. Not surprisingly, given Santa Fe’s politics, this has gone over about as well as well as a third term for President Bush would. Governor Richardson has responded to the outcry by the area’s wealthy, well-connected residents by placing a six month moratorium on drilling in the area.
In an opinion piece that was published in the Santa Fe New Mexican over the weekend, James Taylor, a Santa Fe resident and former oil man who is advising the Foundation on oil and gas issues, wrote that if oil and gas are indeed found in the Galisteo Basin, it would be a good thing for the area and the state. After all, we all use oil and all New Mexicans benefit from the largesse it provides. Besides, oil and gas drilling are fine in Farmington and Roswell, is it only OK to drill in less wealthy areas of the state, are there some in New Mexico who are simply too wealthy to tolerate drilling in their general midst?

Along with Michael Barone, Grover Norquist, and several other prominent conservatives, I recently participated in a symposium on what it means to be an urban conservative that was sponsored by the Minnesota-based Center of the American Experiment. You can read my thoughts and those of the others who took part here.

This article about a new Wal Mart being built in Edgewood, NM, really caught my attention. In the article, it was revealed that the Edgewood Schools have lost three bus drivers to the retailer, with as many as five additional employees considering a job move. Wal Mart plans to hire as many as 400 people in this town of about 2,000.
Clearly, if people are making the move from government jobs to Wal Mart, then America’s largest retailer must not be paying the “slave wages” critics so often accuse them of.
And don’t assume that the public schools in New Mexico don’t have adequate resources to pay bus drivers and other professionals, because they do. First and foremost, as the Rio Grande Foundation has shown in a recent study, education spending in the state is higher than that of our neighbors. New Mexico also spends more on administration and other expenses “outside the classroom” than any other state in the nation. Perhaps it is being mismanaged, but that is nothing new.
The fact is that Wal Mart pays competitive wages and will be a boon for Edgewood residents who will have access to inexpensive goods. That is the free market at work.

Micha Gisser has an excellent opinion piece on the Albuquerque-Bernalillo Water Authority’s power grab in today’s Albuquerque Journal
Among his more salient points is the fact that from 1994 to 2006 the price of water, adjusted for inflation, increased by from 35 to 45 percent, thus causing consumers to reduce consumption. Presumably, if water is scarce and getting scarcer, this trend will continue with or without these ridiculous regulations.
Gisser also notes that installing rain water collection systems is simply not economically viable. Since the variable charge per unit of water is not in excess of $2 or $3. Consequently, at the most, the annual saving for the household for the required equipment will be $50. Assuming that the gutters-and-barrel structure has a lifetime of 20 years, at a 5 percent annual interest the break-even investment is approximately $625.
Concludes Gisser, ” Let the price of water— reflecting all production costs, including the cost of the new conversion dam and the rental cost of water rights— guide users on how much water to consume. People do not need water nannies, they can decide for themselves how to conserve toilet water and if and when to replace their lawns by desert shrubs and invest in rain barrels.”

Way back when Congress was debating the tobacco settlement, opponents of the settlement, which amounted to government control over the tobacco industry, opponents argued that smokers saved governments money compared to what they would spend on end of life services for those who lived long, healthy lives.
That assertion has been borne out again in a recent study done in the UK which found that health care for those who are healthy and live the longest costs $417,000 from the age of 20 on while care for the obese was $371,000, and for smokers the cost was about $326,000. In other words, people with unhealthy habits actually consume less health care over their life-spans than those who are healthy. While this would be entirely irrelevant in a free country, government’s massive role in health care makes it highly relevant.
The good news is that governments can no longer use taxpayers as an excuse for attempting to control our lives; it looks like some other excuses for the nanny-statists are in order.

For some, taxes and government regulations are the first and favored tool for moral betterment. This reflex is made abundantly clear by the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club here in New Mexico and a coalition called “Leave No Child Inside” which is pushing a 1 percent tax on TVs, video games and video game equipment. Legislation has been sponsored by Representative Gail Chasey (D-Bernalillo).
Proponents of the tax would like the money to be dedicated to The fund would help pay for outdoor education throughout the state. Of course, taxing video games to fund outdoor education sounds great to the average do-gooder. Video games and television are politically correct and they make us fat. Who could be against taxing such harmful products?
Well, I’m no lover of video games and I do like the outdoors, but I don’t like getting government involved. Besides, in case you haven’t noticed, senior citizens around the country are now using video games to stay physically fit. Are we really going to make it harder for senior citizens, most of whom can’t hike around in the mountains, to get in shape at their own pace?
The fact is that governments should not be in the business of molding us into better people. Governments should leave smokers, fat people, couch potatoes, and others alone.

A story in this morning’s Albuquerque Journal (subscription required) provides a case study that perfectly illustrates some of the biggest pitfalls of state-managed “economic development.”
First and foremost, having lured the Malaysia-based Green Rubber Global to the state with $2.9 million in subsidies, the plant’s opening had been delayed for technological issues. This is the first major problem with state-managed development — government bureaucrats and politicians don’t know what the next “big thing” will be and, since they are not risking their own money, have fewer incentives to find out. So, we have a state poised to spend millions of dollars to fund a company with technology that may not be commercially viable. Sound a bit like another New Mexico investment in Tesla?
Today’s article is really about the fact that the city of Gallup — where the Green Rubber plant was supposed to be built — and Governor Richardson, who decided singlehandedly to de-fund the project after a disagreement developed over which governing body was supposed to manage Red Rock Park. Sound a bit immature to you? The state is supposedly going to have a new company creating hundreds of jobs for people in a relatively impoverished area and the Governor pulls the funding over management of a state park?
Of course, that is another major problem with state-managed development — they are inherently political and nature and policies can be changed on a whim. Businesses are more likely to demand higher subsidies in order to come to New Mexico because policies may change anytime.
Regardless of the ultimate success or failure of Green Rubber and Tesla, New Mexico must abandon state socialism and instead develop the state economy by means of lowering taxes and adopting fair and equitable regulatory policies. Only then will New Mexico achieve its potential.

Last week I blogged an article I wrote for the Tribune about the generous subsidies being given to the film industry for them to set up shop in New Mexico. Now, I’m sure that part of the reason our political leaders have targeted the film industry is to burnish New Mexico’s credentials as a tourist destination and remind people that we really are part of the good ole’ US of A.
Needless to say, it was quite a shock to the system when I picked up today’s Albuquerque Journal and read that not one, but two Hollywood stars ripped into Albuquerque after having filmed here. Jessica Alba, the star of a new film called The Eye said in a recent interview: “In Albuquerque there’s really only one restaurant that’s pretty good. You can only take Applebee’s and Chili’s so much. Our big day was hanging out at Walmart for five hours. It was like, “Yeah, Walmart!”
Adding insult to injury, Tommy Lee Jones, the star of not one but two films that were shot in Albuquerque, dissed the town, saying “Albuquerque is a really hard place to work. It’s very noisy. There are crows there, planes, trucks, people working on their cars. It’s just a noisy place to shoot.”
As if scary aliens weren’t a big enough reason to stay away from the Land of Enchantment, now Alba and Jones make Albuquerque out to be a noisy little hick town with nothing but Wal Mart’s and Chilis. Publicity like that is priceless. Me, I’d rather save our tax money and let entrepreneurs decide what our city and state should be known for.

A week or so ago on this blog I discussed the stimulus package moving through Congress and argued that it was unnecessary and based on bad economics. Unfortunately, the President and Congress don’t always listen to us, so we teamed up with the National Taxpayers Union — a Washington, DC-based grassroots taxpayer organization — to express our concerns. Read the coalition letter on the stimulus here.
Although I didn’t mention it in my previous posting on the topic, one of the additional problems with such politically-motivated legislation is that individual members understand that and will tack on whatever spending or interest group goodies they can. We are now seeing that process at work.

Somewhat surprisingly given its usually reasonable editorial opinions, the Albuquerque Journal endorsed Governor Richardson’s health care plan. After all, as the paper concluded, “New Mexico’s condition can only get worse.”
We’ve heard this before. Richardson, in his state of the state address, repeatedly implied that health care in New Mexico cannot get worse than it is now. For starters, he said, “the status quo is unacceptable” and he went on to state “The most expensive choice is to do nothing.” While advocates of radical change in our health care system seem genuine in their conviction that things can get no worse, what are the facts?
Yes, New Mexico has a disproportionately high rate of uninsured with 400,000 out of 2 million (third highest in the nation). While it may seem plausible to state that health care could get no worse, how about for the rest of us? Richardson’s plan would force doctors — as a requirement for licensure — to accept whatever the state or insurance companies provide them in the way of payment. Clearly, both the state and insurance companies will have tremendous incentives to cut costs at doctors’ expense, thereby forcing doctors out of the state.
Obviously, if ever-greater numbers of doctors are forced out of New Mexico, we could end up with even less access to actual health care (as opposed to insurance) for the 1.6 million insured and the 400,000 uninsured alike. Before embarking on a massive government program that even supporters view as “imperfect,” we need to take a clear-eyed look at whether this supposed “solution” might actually make the current situation even worse.

We have previously noted on this blog that pre-k programs in other states have failed in their supposed goal of improving lasting educational attainment for children. Yesterday, Richard P. Boyle, Ph.D. of UNM’s Institute for Social Research, confirmed this in an opinion piece which appeared in the Albuquerque Journal.
The conclusion reached by Dr. Boyle (study available here), an independent researcher who is not affiliated with the Rio Grande Foundation in any way, is that “While both preschool and full-day kindergarten programs were successful during the time they operated, most advances in achievement appear to have washed away by grade four.” This closely mirrors the findings in Arizona which is even further along with its “early education” initiatives than New Mexico.
Ultimately, pre-k and all day kindergarten are simply tools to give the public education system even greater control over our children while employing more teachers and draining taxpayers’ pockets. If New Mexicans are serious about education, they need to consider choice options that restore parental control and force schools to compete to best serve parents and students. Monopolies don’t work!

Today’s Albuquerque Journal contains a very insightful editorial (subscription needed) about the way government operates.
The article discusses the US Conference of Mayors’ request for more federal spending on local police which the Journal points out is a core function of government. The editorial contrasted police, something cities should fund, with projects like Mayor Marty’s proposed streetcar, Tricentennial Towers, the car wash Bernalillo County wanted to buy for $500,000, or the Hiland Theater commissioners voted to purchase and spend $1.3 million on renovating.
Justifiably, the piece argued that this was a case of “municipal leaders ordering dessert first while expecting someone else to pay for the meat and potatoes later.”
The problems is not only a local one. Rather, it is exactly how governments at all levels tend to function. Politicians and bureaucrats like power, not necessarily because they are malicious although that is sometimes the case, but because they think they are the most competent stewards of resources (see the El Vado case). Unfortunately, this is not the case and instead, governments accrue power while the “boring” core areas of government like policing and road and bridge construction are left to rot while trolleys and Rail Runners flourish.
The only solution is a vigilant, well-informed population that constantly pushes back against empire-building government officials.

Regular readers of this blog are undoubtedly aware that we have no love for the unelected bureaucrats over at the Albuquerque-Bernalillo Water Authority. We tangled with them over their outrageous attempt to use eminent domain to take over a privately-owned water utility, New Mexico Utilities Inc. That case is still tied up in court.
Now, Councilor Michael Cadigan has succeeded in allocating even more power to the un-elected bureaucrats at the Authority by giving them tremendous power over building and planning activities. Just over a month ago, Cadigan had been quoted as saying the Authority should have these powers and recently the Authority granted themselves the power — notice how that’s done!
The Albuquerque Journal had the right take on things in this morning’s paper, saying “the authority’s board should rescind its vote and forward its ideas to the City Council and County Commission, where public policy can be hammered out in a more democratic process.”
It is unfortunate that we have allowed water, the lifeblood of our city (not to mention development and individual property rights), to be controlled by an unelected group of bullies. Instead of putting a government agency in control, we should privatize the authority and make it accountable to its customers.

While the Rio Grande Foundation is often called a “conservative” think tank and Albuquerque’s alternative news weekly would typically be called anything but, part of our charge is to reach out to those who may not necessarily share ideas — at least normally. Nonetheless, when I read this article in the Alibi I felt that it was a perfect opportunity to weigh in on why all of us, no matter our political persuasion, should be concerned about government health care schemes. After all, if the state places the kind of controls on doctors that the Governor has proposed, New Mexico could see doctors leave the state in droves. This is not the favored outcome of liberals and conservatives alike.