Reporters affiliated with both major Albuquerque newspapers picked up on my have picked up on my recent National Review Online article on Richardson’s spending record. The Albuquerque Journal and Tribune have both highlighted the story in recent days.
Richardson’s record will provide the Foundation with some great fodder as he runs for the nation’s highest office. If Big Bill (or any other politician) wants kudos instead of brickbats, broad tax cuts, school choice, and the restoration and maintenance of New Mexicans’ Constitutional liberties would be a great place to start.

In case you missed the Rio Grande Foundation’s most recent commentary, I discussed Governor Richardson’s record in a recent article on National Review Online. Richardson’s run for the White House is a great opportunity for the Foundation and for those concerned about the very real political and economic problems facing New Mexico to expose them and discuss them on a national stage. These problems — high taxes, poor educational performance, and poverty — are not new. Richardson didn’t cause them, but he could be doing more to resolve them. I just hope that our efforts are more productive than the Republican Party’s calling Richardson a “carnie huckster.”
The Foundation remains steadfastly non-partisan, yet our state’s politcal culture would benefit greatly from a more robust debate — as opposed to name-calling — between the two parties.

Our good friend Troy Williamson over at Educate New Mexico had a nice piece in the Albuquerque Tribune yesterday. For some reason, rather than fighting education choice tooth and nail, it appears that the education establishment in Agua Fria actually supports giving students and parents educational choices. I’m not sure if the best thing to do is to not talk about this shining example lest the NEA send try to stop it, but who knows, whatever is in the water that has caused this cooperation in Agua Fria might actually spread to other parts of the state. Let’s hope it does!

Here at the Rio Grande Foundation, we talk a lot about tax policy and the fact that New Mexico’s policies tend to be relatively unfriendly to entreprenuers and business activity in general. Unfortunately, while New Mexico trails its neighbors in most economic indicators, the average person often does not make the connection between overall economic conditions and tax policy. In at least one instance, that is changing.
As the Albuquerque Journal reported this week, the Legislature is now considering whether to exempt concert tickets from New Mexico’s gross receipts tax. The reason for the potential tax cut? The number of concerts being held at the Pan American Center in Las Cruces has declined by 60 percent since Texas ended its tax on most events. Thus, while New Mexico may be charging only a dollar or more per ticket in taxes, for a concert promoter, that can be $25,000 in forgone profit on $500,000 in ticket sales.
Some might say that even $25,000 is not much money for a “rich” promoter, but a good businessman would be a fool to pass up $25,000. So, is eliminating the ticket tax a good idea? Maybe, or maybe not. The point is that every time we raise taxes — or forego opportunities to cut them — businesses and consumers make real-world decisions as far as where they want to spend their money. This has had a serious impact in stunting economic growth in New Mexico.

The Rio Grande Foundation will be releasing a new paper in a matter of days that thoroughly analyzes New Mexico’s gross receipts tax and both the economic and political issues associated with dramatically broadening the tax base as New Mexico has done. Our first take on the issue was done for a national audience in the publication Human Events .
With state legislative sessions starting up around the country, other states are looking to generate ever more revenue, especially if it can be done without appearing to raise taxes. Broadening the tax base can do just that by going after those who are “unfairly” escaping certain consumption taxes (ie. services).
Be on the lookout for upcoming work on this important topic from the Rio Grande Foundation.

It looks like the first good thing to come out of the Bush Administration in the long term will be his proposal on health care. Basically, he is removing some of the incentives inherent in today’s employer-sponsored system and giving incentives to those who must purchase their own insurance because they are unemployed, their employer doesn’t offer health coverage, or some other reason.
While the health care proposal is a step in the right direction, it unfortunately appears likely that Bush will also be making some sweeping proposals to address the purported issue of global warming. The worst part is that Bush is falling into the big-government trap set for him by the environmentalists if he raises fuel-economy standards for automobiles, plans even greater subsidies for renewable energy sources, and places draconian controls on emissions at utility plants and other big polluters.
If Bush instead looked for market-base proposals such as those to increase the gas tax while offsetting other taxes, he might get some support from limited government types.

Finally, the worst-kept secret in New Mexico is out of the bag nationally — Governor Richardson is running for President. Although the Rio Grande Foundation definitely has concerns about Richardson’s credentials as a fiscal conservative, not to mention his plan to expand Medicaid without needed refom, we do welcome the attention Richardson’s run will generate for New Mexico and — as the National Taxpayers Union points out — Richardson is more fiscally responsible than most of the Democrats who have announced for President.
If nothing else, hopefully Richardson will recognize that a run for the top office in the land will require he do something to improve New Mexico’s abysmal education system and to reform eminent domain.

On Wednesday, Albuquerque City Council Member Michael Cadigan (and Water Authority board member) and Bob Gay of New Mexico Utilities faced off in the west side edition of the Albuquerque Journal over whether it makes more sense for a government agency or a private company, to manage the provision of water services to a large portion of the west side of Albuquerque.
Having read both sides of the argument, it is plain to see that this is yet another case of a government agency forcibly attempting to crowd private providers out of the market. I’ll take Cadigan’s points one by one:
1) The Water Authority has agreed not to raise New Mexico Utilities’ (NMU) customers rates to pay for the acquisition. This is meaningless government doublespeak. The Authority could raise its existing customers’ rates; it could wait and then raise NMU customers’ rates to pay off debt; or, since it has access to government revenue sources, it could simply get the money from taxpayers by other means.
2) NMU has outgrown its water rights and will have to buy more. Again, this is meaningless. If there is a problem, it is a problem for NMU and provides no justification for the Water Authority to forcibly take over NMU.
3) NMU sells water for a profit and doesn’t have the incentive to conserve. Heaven forbid, someone tries to make a profit by giving customers what they want. When Cadigan and the Water Authority go to Santa Fe and demand that urban areas — not to mention 65% of New Mexico’s population — receives more than 10% of the state’s water, then he can complain about NMU’s business practices. Forcing 10% of New Mexicans to adopt draconian conservation measures is ridiculous when 90% of the water is used elsewhere.
4) NMU customers can’t take advantage of the Water Authority’s rebate program. Again, Cadigan and the Water Authority have control issues and simply want to be able to tell NMU how to run their business. I’d be interested to know if the Water Authority has ever sat down with NMU to figure out a way for the Water Authority to pay for these conservation subsidies?
5) The Water Authority has “improved” its service over the years. Once a government agency has control of the region’s entire water supply, what incentive do they have to keep improving…perhaps they decided to improve in the first place because they looked bad when compared with NMU?

I wonder how often this sort of thing happens in New Mexico. On second thought, the minimum wage issue is a perfect example of how the left professes to care about the “little guy,” but really doesn’t. Wal Mart can easily factor the cost of an increase in the minimum wage into its bottom line, but how about the mom and pop bookshops and the little stores run by recent immigrants?

New Mexico politicians and Governor Richardson in particular, should heed the unspoken advice of Speaker Pelosi: Mandating wage hikes reduces jobs for the unskilled and raises the cost of doing business. That is what Pelosi undoubtedly had in mind when she exempted American Samoa from recent minimum wage legislation on behalf of some tuna canners with headquarters located in her district.

Governor Bill Richardson delivered an ambitious State of the State address this afternoon: text available here. Among the many plans for your tax dollars and the money paid to the state by the oil and gas industries is a massive Medicaid expansion, a 7.4 percent hike in teacher salaries, and lots of new spending on solar and wind power. He did propose some modest tax cuts, but an 11 percent spending increase is the order of the day.
Conspicuously absent from the Governor’s remarks was any mention of eminent domain reform. Although he claims to be supportive of his task force’s findings on the issue, his failure to mention eminent domain during his speech is a troubling sign indeed for property rights activists.
There is no doubt that Richardson has an ambitious agenda. It will be an interesting session.

Rep. Tom Taylor of Farmington (the House Republicans’ floor leader) and Rep. Dan Foley of Farmington (the House minority whip) outlined their plans for the upcoming legislative session in today’s Albuquerque Journal. Specifically they explained what they plan to do with all the excess revenue flowing into the state’s coffers. The Rio Grande Foundation also outlined its hopes for the legislative session recently and there is a great deal of overlap when it comes to cutting taxes. We especially applaud the legislators for stating, “No one can say New Mexicans don’t already pay their share of taxes. New Mexico is one of the most heavily-taxed states in the nation.”
That said, there were a few concerns: First and foremost, the legislators state that New Mexico should “cut its sales tax.” While we encourage almost any tax cut, it is important to be accurate in our descriptions and New Mexico does not have a sales tax. In fact, as the Department of Revenue points out, we have a gross receipts tax which is far more encompassing and economically-harmful than a sales tax.
The legislatators also talk favorably of eliminating the state’s gas tax. While I suppose there would be no specific harm if this unlikely scenario were to occur, there are dozens of more economically-harmful taxes than the gas tax. More importantly, the gas tax is one of the few taxes that actually benefits those who actually pay it (through the construction of roads). Thus, we’d encourage Taylor and Foley — and the rest of the Legislature — to focus their efforts on reducing the gross receipts and income tax rates with some of this excess revenue. Done properly, tax cuts will spur New Mexico’s economy to the point that entreprenuers will no longer need special favors from the State to relocate here.

Given the lack of public disclosure of the project’s financing and the very nature of government-financed projects, the only surprising thing about this story is that it took so long to develop. As it turns out, Governor Richardson has overcommitted New Mexico taxpayers to funding the RailRunner based on the assumption that Congress was going to step in and foot $75 million of the bill. Raising the gas tax to pay for these “unexpected costs” would be a disaster. If lawmakers in Santa Fe had any guts, they’d kill this train before any more taxpayer dollars are wasted on what will undoubtedly be further cost overruns (not to mention at least $8 million in annual operating costs).

According to most political analysts and this Washington Post article, western states including New Mexico are moving towards the Democratic Party. While this could help Governor Richardson in his bid for the nation’s top office, there are differening opinions as to why the west is turning blue. Author Ryan Sager has written a book called “Elephant in the Room” in which he makes the case that the Republican Party lost the west by turning their backs on limited government. No matter what is really happening, it is a trend that will be interesting to track. If the west indeed does turn blue, New Mexico may be considered a trendsetter as it has been blue (as far as state politics are concerned) for many years.

Ron Paul, the constitutionalist-Republican Congressman from Texas has set up an exploratory committee for the purposes of running for President in 2008. Given the dearth of small-government types in either party that have announced for 2008, Dr. Paul’s candidacy is a welcome development. If nothing else, it will be interesting to what extent he can attain a platform to discuss his limited-government views. We at the Rio Grande Foundation certainly welcome a real debate over the role of government in our daily lives.

The water fight between the government-run Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority and the privately owned New Mexico Utilities Inc. is getting ugly. As the Rio Grande Foundation has previously pointed out, a government takeover of a private utility is a foolish step that will only result in higher water rates.
Having listened to Senator Ortiz y Pino discuss water policy at a recent legislative forum and hearing him say that 90% of New Mexico’s water is used for agriculture while only 10% is used for residential purposes, I realize once and for all that the proposed takeover has nothing to do with water or conservation and it has everything to do with power. A sad commentary on the government agencies that are supposedly there to serve us.

In my humble opinion, one of the few bright spots of President Bush’s Presidency has been the tax cuts that have reduced the burdened the federal government places on hard-working Americans. That is why it is very unnerving to hear that the Administration is now talking with Democrats about forcing more taxpayers and small businesses to pay a greater portion of their incomes to the federal government in the form of payroll taxes.
Such a policy would result in the largest tax hike in U.S. history and would do nothing to solve the severe problems assoociated with Social Security. Rather than passing a massive tax hike in the hopes of propping up a system that robs younger workers of their money, President Bush should focus on solutions that give individuals greater control over their financial futures.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal Rick Homans is claiming that he and the Richardson Administration have created new jobs. It is easy to see the results of government action when it creates government favors for particular interests whether they be movies, spaceports or what not. The people who get jobs as a result of the government favors are readily identifiable and happy about it.
But how about the jobs that have gone begging because we do not have a good tax and regulatory climate? Government does not create jobs. Unfortunately our bad economic climate makes it easier to dish out favors and then claim credit. Despite Homan’s claim about our low unemployment, New Mexico remains consistently above the nation and region over time when it comes to the rate of unemployment and the rate of labor force participation and below the nation and region when it comes to per capita personal income. And our situation will not improve relative to other states until we get out of the big-government, dishing-out-of-breaks to favored interests and get into lower tax rates, less regulation and equal tax treatment under the law.
BTW did you happen to notice an irony? While touting governments success on the opinion page, the front page contains news of the difficulty of making jobless claims to the government. A labor department spokesman is quoted as saying: “the call volume has increased dramatically compared to last year, although the number of new claims filed still remains at about 1,400 to 1,600 a week.

While snow slowly melts here in New Mexico, back east there is a heat wave going on and people are talking about global warming. Of course, just like warm winters and large snowstorms are nothing new, neither is talk about global climate change. In fact, as Jeff Jacoby points out, there have been apocalyptic forecasts of global weather change — whether that be heating or cooling — for more than 100 years.
While I am not a climate scientist, it is no coincidence that the people who want to grow government the most have also jumped at the chance to use global warming as a tool to further their agendas.
What is perhaps even more perplexing about the global warming issue is the role that apocalyptic fears have played in human society for thousands of years. There seems to be a desire on the part of many humans to be living in a “special” time, even if it means death and destruction for themselves and their species.

Richard Branson and his company, Virgin, may someday launch spacecraft from the New Mexico desert and yet, he can’t own an airline that flies within the United States because he’s a foreigner. Aside from the fact that such regulations are unfair, they are harmful to American travelers. Competition is reduced and the variety of services provided is constrained. In fact, a study by consulting firm Campbell-Hill Aviation Group argued that Virgin America would save travelers $786 million per year.
So, what special interest might be behind such a misguided policy….why, labor unions of course! How typical of the labor movement. Instead of welcoming competition and the new jobs that would be created by additional airlines, the labor unions would rather stifle competition and stick travelers with the bill. And they wonder why union membership is collapsing.

The Governor’s office sent out a press release this morning, “Governor Bill Richardson Appoints Linda Roebuck as
Behavioral Health Czar” that caught my attention. No, the Rio Grande Foundation hasn’t taken a particular interest in behavioral health and as far as we know, Ms. Roebuck is a fine person…the problem is the job title “Czar.” According to our friends at Wikipedia, Tsar (same meaning as Czar) means “is a contraction of the earlier tsesar, derived from the Roman title Caesar. Great, so now we have an “emperor” of behavioral health. Not only is the name derived from an imperial title, but if you’ve read any history you’d know that Russia’s Czar’s were not exactly a successful bunch and they eventually gave way to the Lenin and the Soviets…not exactly a great track record if you ask me.
My intention here is not to poke fun at Governor Richardson. After all, we have a federal “Drug Czar” and various groups are constantly lobbying for one czar or another. I just hope that before more czar’s are named that more people understand that we shouldn’t want a “czar” in the first place.

It is no secret that Governor Richardson plans to boost education spending dramatically in 2007. But will his big-spending ways have any positive impact on kids’ educational attainment? Not according to a recent study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. As Matt Warner explains “After two decades of failure and almost twice the price, it’s time to give parents the power of choice.”
Hopefully, Governor Richardson will throw his support behind some educational reforms that are likely to have a positive impact, like tax credits.

Thomas Sowell adds another fine article to his series on “dangerous obsesssion.”