As Harry pointed out, New Mexico’s ranking for economic freedom among US states and Canadian provinces is quite dismal. New Mexico always seems to stand out on a map:

Not so pretty, is it?

New Mexico was near the bottom of the recent rankings of states and Canadian provinces:

New Mexico
New Mexico’s climate for economic freedom has worsened steadily over the past
two decades, to the point that, by 2003, its overall all-government ranking was 50th,
while the subnational fell to 47th after five straight years at 44th. Size of government
helped sink the overall ratings, coming in at 56th all-government and 53rd state and
local. Takings and taxation provided no help, coming in at 48th all-government (in
free fall since finishing 13th just three years earlier) and ranked 48th subnational. In
the labor market freedom area, New Mexico was ranked 41st and 40th. At 10.1%, its
state and local tax burden is well above average, unlike the gasoline tax at 17¢, which
is below average. And don’t try drowning your sorrows; all three alcohol-related
taxes are among the highest in the nation.

Today I was doing some research on economic freedom and uncovered this 1970 gem by Leo Rosten:

Fenwick and a friend of mine from Washington, a sociological Meistersinger named Rupert Shmidlapp, were talking about minimum wages, which Congress had just voted to raise from $1.25 an hour to $1.40—and ultimately to $1.60. Fenwick stunned Shmidlapp, whom I had forgotten to brief in advance, by mournfully remarking that the minimum-wage laws would of course create unemployment, and that these particular laws would wreak havoc precisely among those unskilled workers (Negroes, teenagers, Puerto Ricans) they were supposed to help.
“What?” gulped Shmidlapp.
“To begin with,” said Fenwick, “the American wage-earner today gets twice $1.40 an hour, so the bill is not going to affect him——-”
“The bill is designed to help the unskilled and the undereducated,” retorted Shmidlapp.
“An admirable intention,” beamed Fenwick, “because a tragic proportion of that group is unemployed. But if employers aren’t hiring them at $1.25 an hour, is there any reason on earth why they will hire them at $1.40?”
I poured a stiff drink for Shmidlapp.
Fenwick continued: “Surely the unemployed will have less chance of finding a job under the new, higher minimum-wage laws than they had under the old.”
“What?” cried Shmidlapp. “Can you prove that?”
“Yes,” said Fenwick. “Every time minimum wages have been raised, the ratio of unemployed teenagers has risen— and mostly among Negroes and Puerto Ricans, who are the teenagers it seems absolutely insane, if you look at the crime rate, to force onto the streets with nothing to do! … Don’t you agree that every time you raise the minimum, you must push more unskilled or inexperienced or poorly educated or discriminated-against workers onto the unemployment and relief rolls?”
Instead of repairing his fences, Shmidlapp attacked on the flanks. “What about the greedy employers,” he demanded, “who cruelly exploit their workers by not paying them enough to live on?!”
A twinge of pain crossed Fenwick’s boyish features. “Oh, very, very few employers can hold on to their workmen if they pay them less than the workers can get elsewhere.”
“It isn’t what they can ‘get,’ it’s what they’re worth!” Shmidlapp thundered.
“Only God can decide how much a man is ‘worth,’” sighed Fenwick. “Let us consider the best wage a man can get— for his labor, services or talent——”
“Some men just can’t live on that! Or feed and clothe their children! Or pay their medical bills!” This was Shmidlapp at his best.
“We certainly ought to remedy that,” said Fenwick. “No American who wants to work should go hungry because of the objective (and therefore efficient) forces of supply and demand. Let us by all means give and guarantee the poor a minimum income; that does far less economic and political damage than a minimum wage. A minimum income does not discriminate against the black, the illiterate, the inept——”
“Do you mean to stand there and tell me”—Shmidlapp was too agitated to notice that Fenwick was sitting, not standing— “that no workers are actually helped when Congress raises the minimum wage? !“
“Oh, some workers will have their wages raised from $1.25 to $1.40 an hour,” said Fenwick, “but far more will not get a job they might have gotten at $1.25! And fewer teenagers and Negroes will get on-the-job training, which they desperately need. It is just too costly to train them at $1.40, much less $1.60 an hour—especially for skills that take long training periods. This makes a raise in minimum wages absolutely heartless,” mourned Fenwick. “It prices decent, innocent, willing workingmen right out of the labor market!”
“Then why does Congress pass such laws?” shouted Shmidlapp.
Fenwick blinked. “Are you suggesting that Congress never passes foolish or short-sighted——”
“I am asking why, if minimum wages are so goddam stupid, far-sighted humanitarian leaders like Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey and Governor Rockefeller support them?!”
“Politics,” chuckled Fenwick. “Or innocence. Or ignorance. Or all three. Politicians and labor leaders get a lot of public credit for raising wages, and considerable private satisfaction in imagining all the good they have done.”
“I happen to know that many business leaders, Republicans and conservatives, favor minimum-wage legislation!” swooped Shmidlapp.
“Of course they do. They can be just as wrong, ignorant, or selfish as anyone else,” said Fenwick. “Many of them are manufacturing products in the North——”
“What does geography have to do with it?” demanded Shmidlapp.
“Well, northern manufacturers are delighted to force up their competitors’ costs in the South; in that way, businessmen in the North won’t have to face the desirable effects of that free-enterprise system conservatives and Republicans love to extol.”
“But opinion polls show that the public——”
“The public,” sighed Fenwick, “is not well-informed about economics, and will pay for its innocence. Increased minimum wages lead to increased costs, which lead to higher ……… Then many honest, low-wage earners in the South (where the cost of living is lower; which is one reason wages there stay lower) will become disemployed. And many more of the young and no-skilled, in Harlem no less than Dixie, will remain more hopelessly unemployed than they already are.” Fenwick regarded Rupert Shmidlapp innocently. “Tell me, honestly: Would you rather work for $1.25 an hour or be unemployed at $1.40?”

Can you guess who Fenwick might be in real life?

Business is business, but as a frequent guest on 106.3FM and a talk radio listener, I am going to miss having that station at the end of my dial. With so few decent radio options available around here and just one talk station, perhaps it is time to make the jump to XM or Sirius?

Last night, I attended one of the City of Albuquerque’s meetings on Mayor Chavez’s so-called “Modern Streetcar Project.” It wasn’t so much a meeting involving give-and-take between community leaders and residents as it was a sales pitch from the City’s Transit Department and the HDR Company which will manage the project.
There was a 30-minute powerpoint presentation and a Q & A session, which did feature lively debate, but the only elected official who actually showed up, Councilman Heinrich, left immediately after making a short introduction. Most of the attendees appeared skeptical of the $224 million project and justifiably so. Although this meeting was designed to convey the sense that this project is a “done-deal,” information on expected ridership numbers, operating costs and subsidies, fares, and operating hours was in short supply.
A few things struck me as particularly troubling:
First and foremost, Heinrich and others constantly compared the $224 million streetcar to the Big I interchange reconstruction which cost $230 million to complete. There is no doubt that the Big I carries exponentially more people and goods than the streetcar will ever carry.
Secondly, while the Mayor’s trolley will be paid for by all taxpayers whether they ride or not, the Big I was largely paid for by motorists and truckers themselves through gas taxes and other fees. There simply is no comparison between the two projects as far as importance to the community is concerned.
Lastly, the people pushing this project say Portland is supposed to be our model. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Albuquerque is only 60 percent as dense as Portland and Albuquerque’s metropolitan area has only 40 percent as many people (797,000 as compared to 2 million).
I’m really only scratching the surface of the arguments against this and other rail projects, but as was made clear last night, we won’t have a chance to vote on this. Pressuring City Council to oppose this boondoggle is the only way to stop it.

Here is interesting commentary by Robert Novak on death of the living wage in Chicago. It looks far from over, however. Wal-Mart and Target still face enormous risk of political takings in Chicago.

It is important for opponents of eminent domain to attend the meeting this Thursday of the Governor’s Eminent Domain Task Force. This will be the only opportunity that the public will get to express their opposition to eminent domain abuse.
Pertinent information is as follows: The meeting will be held at 4:00 PM on September 28th (this Thursday) at the Village Hall in Los Ranchos de Albuquerque. The Village Hall is located at 6718 Rio Grande Blvd. NW.
The purpose of the meeting is to allow members of the public to provide comments and suggestions to the Task Force. The Task Force was convened by Governor Bill Richardson following the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, to study the adequacy of New Mexico’s eminent domain laws and determine whether there is currently sufficient legislative protection to prevent the abusive use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.
If you are unable to attend the open meeting, please send comments to the Task Force via mail, fax, or the Governor’s website as follows:
Mail: Governor Bill Richardson
Attn: Task Force on the Responsible Use of Eminent Domain
State Capitol Building, Suite 400
Santa Fe , NM 87501
Fax: (505) 476-2207
Website: http://www.governor.state.nm.us (click on contact the Governor)
Questions concerning the Task Force can be directed to the Governor’s Office at 476-2200.

Despite the fact that I live nowhere near a Rail Runner station and have no real need to ride the thing, I decided to take a ride on the train this morning to see how ridership is holding up. As you may know, the train is still “free,” at least in the sense that it costs nothing to get on, but that will change in mid-October.
Anyway, I took the train from Journal Center northbound at 7:46am and found that the crowds have thinned out considerably as compared to what I’d read in early news reports about the throngs of people aboard. Despite the fact that there were only two cars on the train, I had my own row and there were less than 25 passengers on my car.
When I got off at the 550/Sandoval station, a handful (less than 5) people got off who looked like they were going to work. Most of the rest of the people seemed to be waiting either on or near the train for the trip south. Clearly, 2 months in, a large percentage of the train’s passengers are joyriders.
On the way back south on the 8:20am train, I switched cars and counted 10 passengers on board. When I got back off at the Journal Center station, there were between 10 and 15 people getting on to go downtown, but by no means was the train going to be crowded.
Another sign of the Rail Runner’s declining popularity was abundant parking — the lots at 550/Sandoval and Journal Center were at most half full.
So, what does this all mean? Just that before millions of additional taxpayer dollars are spent on laying Rail Runner track to Santa Fe, perhaps we should more honestly assess whether these trains more resemble shiny new toys that will actually harm our overall transportation network or whether they are in fact serious efforts to better move people from place to place.

I just loved this little blurb from Grace-Marie Turner at the Galen Institute: Wal-Mart announced yesterday that it will soon offer a 30-day supply of nearly 300 generic medicines for just $4 each. Target quickly followed, and surely Walgreens and others will be close behind. Who says that competition doesn’t work?
Wal-Mart’s program is starting in Tampa Bay and will include the entire state of Florida by January, then spread to stores around the country.
Not to be outdone, Target announced it is matching Wal-Mart’s prices in Tampa Bay first, with other stores to follow. Three cheers for Wal-Mart for getting this started!
Generics already are cheaper in the U.S. than in Canada, so how long do you think it will be before we have Canadians coming to the U.S. to get their prescriptions filled here?

There is a lot of talk about the 2005 Energy Bill that passed Congress and the campaign ads in which Patty Madrid criticized Heather Wilson for voting for a bill that contained $2.6 billion in subsidies for the oil industry. Wilson defenders have hit back saying that the Energy Bill was “good for New Mexico” and that all five members of the New Mexico delegation voted for the bill.
So, what is the real story? Well, Dr. Harry Messenheimer recently cut through a little of the confusion by putting “a pox on both houses” by criticizing both politicians for their disinformation about gas prices and the energy industry in general. But, there is even more meat on this bone.
First and foremost, yes, there were very real subsidies in the Energy Bill. In fact, the Energy Bill was far more costly than the $2.2 billion received by the oil industry. The real cost of the Energy Bill is closer to $74 billion. Unfortunately for Madrid, much of that money was spent on nuclear energy, “clean coal,” and the development of “next generation” energy sources.
Is this good for New Mexico? After all, New Mexico is a big producer of energy. Any economist worth his or her salt would say “no, let the market decide.” First and foremost, people need energy from all sources, the only thing subsidies do is alter which form of energy is used and artificially raise or lower demand. Unless the bill specifically encouraged use of energy sources from New Mexico at the expense of other sources of energy, there is no net benefit to the state.
Unfortunately, in New Mexico, the concept of a “free market” might be as rare as a saguaro cactus sighting is within our borders.

Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez is acting as if the city itself won the latest lottery jackpot. A week ago he introduced plans for a new, taxpayer-backed downtown sports arena, now he is pushing his latest big-budget idea, a so-called “modern streetcar” running along Central Avenue from Old Town to Nob Hill and from Central Avenue to the Sunport.” (I urge you to check the previous link to the schedule of “town hall” meetings the Mayor is holding on this project and to attend and speak your mind as I will)
Never mind that the cost for this system would be $240 million (split evenly betwen the city and the state) and that although the Mayor has repeatedly called the system “modern streetcar,” it is really just a light rail system that brings all the costs and problems of light rail (cost overruns, slowness of service, and clogged streets among the prominent issues).
Beyond all of the problems associated with light rail is the question that must be asked, “Why do we need light rail running down Central Avenue when the Rapid Ride serves the same purpuse at a much lower cost?” Instead of blowing $240 million on a shiny new toy, Mayor Marty should consider ways to expand bus service to serve more people at a far lower cost, or he should do nothing and let taxpayers keep some of their hard-earned money for a change.

The results are in and it appears that you can fool some of the people all of the time, or at least 58 percent of them anyway. Now, we turn our attention to the so-called quality of life tax increase that will face voters in November.
For more on the deluge of tax hikes that are falling on taxpayers in Bernalillo County and Albuquerque like the monsoon rains did earlier this year, check out this recent missive from the Rio Grande Foundation on the web-magazine The Citizen. By the way, if you are a close follower of the news, especially what happens here in New Mexico, but the Tribune and Journal leave you feeling less-than-fully-informed, I highly recommend bookmarking The Citizen.

Before heading off to the polls, it’s always wise to take a look at the sample ballot, you know, so you don’t end up accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Preparing for tomorrow’s APS special election, we find, in English and Spanish:

“Shall the Albuquerque Public School District issue $351,000,000 of general obligation bonds to erect, remodel, make additions to and furnish; school buildings within the district, to purchase or improve school grounds, to purchase computer software and hardware for student use in public schools, and to provide matching funds for capital outlay projects funded pursuant to the Public School Capital Outlay Act?”

This language was erected by someone clearly interested in the bond measure’s passge–plenty of detail of all the good things that will be done for the children, but nary a word on who is going to pay or how much. Who will own this ‘obligation’? How will this obligation be repaid?
Expand on the benefits, obfuscate the costs, and any deal sounds sweeter. The ballot measure should state in plain terms that passage would raise property tax rates by 5.6%, forcing the owner of a $100,000 house to pay an additional $71.32 per year in taxes.
Given that APS only graduates 52.8% of the students who enter its schools, and of those who enroll at New Mexico’s institutions of higher learning, 44.1% need remedial classes, it seems unlikely that APS is adequately preparing its students to face this kind of decision as educated adults.
But this is no surprise coming from a school district better known for its conflicts of interest, for paying huge settlements to administrators with substance abuse problems, and for blaming failing schools on the ‘diversity’ of its own students, than for any success in actually educating.
$351 million that actually improves the education received by APS students might very well be worth the increase in property taxes. But what worth is $351 million in the hands of Albuquerque Public Schools? $351 million dollars breaks out to about $3884.29 for each and every one of APS’s 90,364 students, most of the average private school tuition in this country.
If you were going to spend $3884.29 on your child’s education, would you make out the check to APS?

It really shouldn’t be such a radical, nor should it be such an uphill push in Congress, but it is good to see the Albuquerque Journal throwing its considerable weight behind more transparency in government.
Speaking of “transparency,” although I can’t say for sure whether the Republican Party’s lawsuit on biased location of early voting stations has merit, it seems pretty obvious that locating an early polling station in the Albuquerque Public Schools headquarters for the September 19 school tax hike is a transparently political move. I’m not sure how this problem can be solved, but ways to improve neutrality in voting sites should be considered.

As Election Day rapidly approaches, it appears that Congress may be on the verge of accomplishing something positive for taxpayers for a change. Although it took a massive coalition of groups from across the political spectrum and endless pressure from the blogging community, we are one step away from slightly greater transparency in government and exposing all those earmarks that Congress is so addicted to.

What a concept! Take a government monopoly — in this case I’m talking about America’s taxpayer-funded national passenger railroad known as Amtrak — and allocate a portion of the money appropriated to you by Congress every year to fund a group to lobby for more funds for you. These practices are not entirely uncommon in the federal government, but at least there is usually a middleman, say the public employee unions, that does the lobbying. In this case there is no pretext, Amtrak simply gives the National Associtation of Railroad Passengers — one of Amtrak’s most dedicated backers — money to lobby on its behalf, theoretically as a citizen-backed organization.

Now that Rio Rancho is set to open its arena in a matter of weeks, Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chávez has a serious case of arena-envy. Chávez has threatened eminent domain for a project that wouldn’t have a single permanent tenant lined up. Of course, eminent domain isn’t the only potential problem with the proposed arena, taxpayers would also be on the hook as an insurance policy on debt repayment. This may have been something of a gamble when a similar agreement was made, but with a competing arena located in Rio Rancho, not to mention The Pit, I can only imagine how poorly the taxpayers will fare under such an arrangement. Here’s hoping Mayor Marty comes to his senses!

Interesting commentary by Professor Roberts on suddenly understanding reality in Chicago.

The Cato Institute has just released its 10th annual report on Economic Freedom. Whether it be big limitations or small limitations New Mexico continues to remain unaware of the benefits of economic freedom. For example, here is an excerpt from the press release:

“Economic freedom is unambiguously good for the poor, not just in terms of incomes, but also in terms of the whole range of development indicators such as longevity, access to clean water, or the extent of child labor,” states Ian Vásquez, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Global Economic Liberty.

Check it out.
Update: Professor Boudreaux comments on the link between freedom and prosperity.

New Mexico is one of five states which license the phrases “Interior Design,” “Interior Designer,” and “Designer.” Anyone can practice interior design in New Mexico, licensed or not, but you need the state’s permission to in any way indicate that you do such work. The law clearly isn’t designed to protect consumers, since anyone can offer such services regardless of professional training and experience. Instead, the law is designed to protect a small cartel of state-favored businesses against competition.
Government-approved businesses have the privilege of paying the state an initial $300 plus $250 per year in fees to “license” the above terms and buy protection from competitors. We’ve even got a “New Mexico Board of Interior Design” to manage the program–if there was ever a useless bureaucrat jobs program, this is it.
The Institute for Justice has taken up the case of two New Mexico “interior designers” who are suing the state on first amendment grounds. The IJ has a good report on Interior Design licensing here.
In the meantime, the members of the New Mexico Interior Design Cartel can be identified, even avoided if so desired. There are plenty of other talented and experienced “Designers” out there, but good luck finding them in the Yellow Pages.
Hat tip: Coyote Blog

I took my first-ever trip on the new Rail Runner commuter train this weekend to and from the New Mexico Wine Festival and thought I’d offer a few thoughts on the train. First and foremost, I got on at the Paseo/Los Ranchos station for the first train of the day. The train was jammed to the gills and it wasn’t just standing room, but sardine-like conditions. The train cars are nice and the air conditioning was cranked up so conditions weren’t too bad. On the way back on the 3:05 train, there were fewer people although it was still standing room only.
Obviously, the price for a ticket is still “0” and most economists will tell you that there is a nearly unlimited demand for anything that is “free.” Curiously enough, this very same dynamic was at work inside the wine festival as well where the lines for a “free” sip of wine were upwards of 10 minutes long. I did notice that, while large numbers of passengers did take the train to the wine festival, equally large numbers (at least on the first train of the day) appeared to be joy-riding. After all, I saw many of the people that had just gotten off the train at Bernalillo, get back on the train right away.
While the train may prove popular even after the “reduced fare” of $2 per trip (as opposed to free) is instituted on October 14, the most important number is the estimated $320 million cost to taxpayers. Even if you don’t believe as I do that the $320 million would be best given back to the taxpayers of New Mexico in the form of tax cuts, it is hard to believe that other legitimate needs would not be better served than a train, the tickets for which, are priced far below market prices.

A recent story about Trilby Lundberg, the nation’s guru of gasoline prices, is a must-read for politicians and those who think that high gas prices are the result of some kind of conspiracy. Ms. Lunberg publishes a twice-monthly newsletter that analyzes gas prices nationwide. While Ms. Lunberg, as far as I can tell, hasn’t got a political bone in her body, she does have a few opinions about the possibility for oil companies to manipulate prices on a grand scale. Of price gouging she says, “It would be a comedy because it is impossible” and “oil companies have no interest in helping each other and instead want to increase their sales at the expense of the competition.” She goes on to say, “They all have no mercy.”
So, while some on the left criticize oil companies and business in general for being “greedy” and “merciless,” it is these very traits that prevent businesses from colluding. Ask Trilby Lundberg, the “guru of gas prices!”

One of New Mexico’s few groups of educational innovators came under attack recently when the National Center for Education Statistics released a study that argued, in part, that students in charter shools lagged behind their peers in regular public schools. Unfortunately, as is so often the case when the results of studies fail to make common sense, the analysis used government data that failed to fully account for the socio-economic differences between charter school and public school students.
The charter school concept is a compromise between those who would like to see significant educational reform that goes far beyond the limits presented by the public schoos and those who grudgingly view some forms of school choice as essential tools for improving existing public schools. It is, nonetheless, hard to believe the results of a study that finds students doing worse at schools that are targeted to their needs and interests than similar students who remain in traditional public schools where socialist-style mass production is the name of the game.

According to the August 17 article, about 4.1 percent of New Mexicans moved here from another state within the last year. This puts New Mexico at No. 9 in the nation for the percentage of its residents who had moved from another state within the previous year.
Although New Mexico’s increased popularity is a good sign, it is hard to tell whether the state is actually becoming a more attractive place to live or whether greater numbers of native New Mexicans are leaving the state for greener pastures. The Rio Grande Foundation recently studied the issue and found that at least historically-speaking New Mexico has tended to lose population to other states as a result of poor tax policies.