My view is that stem cell research has the potential to improve our lives significantly. Yet I hope the president follows through on his veto threat. My reason:

By its very nature, government politicizes everything it touches. Science is no exception. Stem cell research needs neither government money nor politics. It is better is to get the government out and let the private sector continue its good work. Those people calling for increased funding could take out their checkbooks and support it. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research would not be forced to pay for it.
Michael Tanner

Of course the same thing could be said for just about everything the government forces you (the taxpayer) to fund. By the way, if popular support of stem cell research is mirrors congressional support for it then we should see a lot of voluntary contributions to it. My guess is that most stem cell research already qualifies for some government sponsorship because of tax deductibility to those private organizations conducting it.

It’s always nice to discover a new, well-written defense of liberty. Check out this blog by economist Jeffery Alan Miron.
HT: Newmark’s Door

Governor Matt Blunt (R) in Missouri has signed legislation restricting use of eminent domain. His bill is particularly good in that it bars the taking of private property solely to increase taxes or create jobs; It explicitly rejects the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London; and it increases the compensation for seized homes from market value to a premium level (since clearly the owners did not want to sell and value their homes above the market clearing level). It also provides additional tools for homeowners to fight with in court and a “Property Owner’s Bill of Rights” to educate those faced with a possible eminent domain seizure.
Good for Missouri. Now lets demand the same in New Mexico!

Economic growth depends on division of labor. Division of labor depends on freedom of trade. Freedom of trade depends on, in the words of Adam Smith, “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty.”
So writes P.J. O’Rourke in a column for the Weekly Standard about Adam Smith’s lesser known book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. If the economic system in America depends on liberty, should we not imagine that it is moral? But we don’t. And very few even understand why it works.
How could tax cuts actually lead to higher tax revenues? Taxes discourage productive work and move investment from the private to the public sector – reducing taxes leads to higher private sector growth, higher wages and higher profits – which, taxed at the lower rate, still bring in more tax revenue. It is so simple, but it means thinking about the economy over time, as a dynamic system, not as a static state. This is something that many economists forgot after Smith.
So, as some politicians preach morality in anti-market economics, saying that “we need to do right by hard-working Americans and raise the minimum wage,” rational thinking men should re-open their Adam Smith texts and remember the morality of markets. As other states push through higher minimum wages, New Mexico should steadfastly refuse to make the same mistake. The simplistic thinking of minimum wage advocates reveals itself in absurd hypocrisies – such as advocates of minimum wage hikes asking to be exempt because it would cause the same layoffs that they claim the minimum wage doesn’t cause!
Instead, New Mexico should lower taxes, encourage business and wage growth, and take pride in our moral and free market system.

NCPA has just rolled out its new Medicaid Reform Service Center. New Mexico needs to take notice.

Not only is ethanol inefficient, it also adds to polution. Find out how here.

A recent Albuquerque Journal story discusses a study by the national Foundation for Child Development in which full-day pre-kindergarten is recommended for all 3 and 4 year olds. New Mexico’s new and controversial half-day pre-K program was deemed “inadequate” by the Foundation.
I’m not sure if this foundation is funded by the teacher unions or not, but I can’t think of a more effective way to create jobs for public school teachers than allowing the state to get its hands on your kids even earlier. Of course, other studies have found that starting kids even earlier in school to be costly and ineffective boondoggles.

Clearly, the so-called experts are moving quickly towards mandatory in-the-womb schooling at some point. This will clearly create a conundrum for the National Education Association which is adamantly pro-choice.

While New Mexico’s state government gears up to build a spaceport, Space.com reports on a similar endeavor underway next door in Texas.
Both projects were initiated by brazen billionaires, Virgin’s Sir Richard Branson seeking to launch his Virgin Galactic in Southern NM, and Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos and his Blue Origin setting up in West Texas. Both are supposedly private endeavors, with private companies and investors seeking to make a profit through space development.
The difference? Blue Origin is building its launch site with private funds, on private land, while billionaire Sir Richard Branson is taking advantage of the relatively poor New Mexico taxpayer, conning Bill Richardson and the New Mexico Legislature out of $100 million in public funds, plus a sizeable chunk of public land.
We’re told that a billionaire needs our hard-eared tax dollars for “economic development,” while at the same time we’re asked to forget about the negative impact on economic growth of high taxes and reckless spending by the state government. Given the Texas economy outperforms NM in almost every measure, it’s clear which approach works better.
Low taxes and limited government lead to real economic development, not welfare for billionaires.

This Fourth of July, let us respect all of the rights enshrined by the founding fathers. Just as important – but often respected much less – as the right of freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and suffrage, is the right of property.
In fact, it is an even more basic right than many that we hold to higher esteem. The fundamental, inalienable rights of man are: life, liberty and property.
This Fourth of July when we remember our country and our freedom and our constitutionally protected rights, let us reflect on why this right of property is so important. In the words of our founding fathers:
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” – James Madison
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association–‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.’” –Thomas Jefferson
Let us also remember that this recognition – that only the protection of property rights can allow for the protection of freedom – was confirmed by the end of slavery in our country and by the new enslavement of the people in countries which abolished property rights.
As declared by the Great Emancipator himself:
“One of the reasons why I am opposed to Slavery is just here. What is the true condition of the laborer? I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.
When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor, for his whole life. I am not ashamed to confess that twenty five years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on a flat-boat—just what might happen to any poor man’s son! I want every man to have the chance—and I believe a black man is entitled to it—in which he can better his condition—when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system….” – Abraham Lincoln, 1860
Let us remember who we are not. We are not a collectivist society – where property is not a right but a crime and where poverty replaces prosperity and bondage replaces freedom. As the Virginia Institute explains here, it is this loss of private property which destroys the free society.
So, this Fourth of July, let’s rejoice in our right to property and our freedom. And let us not forget to protect them when they come under attack.

As those who regularly visit the Rio Grande Foundation’s main website may be aware, New Mexico’s fiscal year ended on June 30. The end of the fiscal year means that the Foundation’s spend-o-meter cycles back to zero. By this time next year, the state will have spent $12.6 billion.
A recent story in a new, New Mexico-oriented online publication known as The Citizen explored the issues surrounding government spending in New Mexico and how the spend-o-meter helps New Mexicans keep track of how their money is spent.

We are so fortunate to be blessed by such a heritage: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

This report should be of particular interest to New Mexico. You may be surprised to learn of the history of property rights among Native Americans. If you are a regular reader of this blog and Rio Grande Foundation reports, you will not be surprised to learn that the existence of well-defined property rights and economic freedom have at times led to prosperity for Native Americans.

The Rio Grande Foundation doesn’t take a position on smoking, but we do have a few things to say about government officials twisting the truth. I just knew this was the case when the U.S. Surgeon General came out and stated “The debate is over! Secondhand Smoke Kills!”
Of course, no new evidence was given to buttress the argument and the lapdogs in the media didn’t bother to ask, so it was all dutifully taken as truth with few questions asked. That’s why we have people like Michael Fumento to take a look behind the smokescreen.

As usual, the best solution to smoking is to let the free market decide. Let entreprenuers decide whether to allow smoking or not and let individuals decide whether to patronize them.

I notice that the law of demand reflects reality. When the price of something goes up people buy less of it; and when the price goes down people buy more of it. Why do “progressives” want to suspend this reality in the case of wages? Read Don Boudreaux’s excellent description of reality, including why he is not an “ideologue” when it comes to minimum wage laws.

New Mexico gets $2 back for every $1 in federal taxes paid, according to the Tax Foundation. It’s not because the state demands more from the federal government that other states like New Jersey which receives about 55 cents back for every $1, it is because of the progressive income tax. New Mexicans are poor and the federal tax structure provides the Earned Income Tax Credit and other negative income taxes to help the poor.
New Mexico, as of 2002-2004, had a rate of poverty as defined by the US Census of about 17%, among the highest in the country.
But is the progressive income tax the best way to help out poor New Mexicans? According to a new study reported by the Heritage Foundation the cost to the private sector of providing the government an additional $1 in tax revenue is about $2.50 not $1 as many people assume. So, the redistribution of tax money from the rich – who may live outside New Mexico or within – to the poor, costs jobs, growth, wages, opportunity and innovation of 2.5x the amount actually taxed and redistributed.
Although the progressive tax structure is supposed to help the poor, a low flat tax and smaller government would mean much greater economic growth, the only proven way to lift the poor out of poverty. Aid to developing countries has done little to nothing to alleviate poverty, while policies of growth have lifted millions each year out of poverty – why not help the remaining impoverished within the US in the same way?

If you are in need a thin smear of rhetorical mush today, then look here.

There is a debate going on within the Republican Party that makes me want to hold my nose. Unfortunately, I may soon have to hold my tongue.
Kudos to George Allen for standing up for free speech.

In case you missed it, the Rio Grande Foundation got some nice ink in the Albuquerque Journal relating to our rally marking the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision.
Whether Governor Richardson’s commission succeeds in finding a solution that secures our individual property rights or whether John Dendahl pulls an upset and pushes legislation through the legislature next year, we hope that this will be the last time New Mexicans are forced to mark this dreadful Supreme Court decision.

President Bush celebrated the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision with an Executive Order, basically restating the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. By the President’s order, private property is now protected by:

limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

It’s absurd that the Fifth Amendment needs repeating, especially to certain Justices whose reading comprehension is diminished in the presence of our founding documents.
We’re still at the mercy of state and local government land grabs, but I guess we’re not supposed to worry about the Federal government, at least until January, 2009, when our next chief executive may have other orders in mind.
Our government was founded on the principle that individual rights are not subject to the whim of any one man or government body. They are not granted to us by government, but inherent in our very existence as sentient beings. We should demand a government that holds our Constitutional rights as inviolable, not feel grateful for whatever meager scraps of rights a government official is willing to indulge.
The President’s Order is an insult. His oath of office would be better served by leading a movement to impeach those Justices who rule in clear violation the US Constitution.

Speaking of the failure of New Mexico to protect the cornerstone of liberty, there is a new book out. In Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st-Century America, a new book published today by the Cato Institute, Timothy Sandefur, a staff attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, examines the state of property rights after Kelo.

Today marks the 1st anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. It was such a bad interpretation of the constitution that it makes you wonder what they were smoking.

Property rights are the cornerstone of the liberty that has made us so prosperous. Paul is leading an event today that calls attention to New Mexico’s subsequent failure to protect those property rights.
Thanks to Robin for the graphic.

Should New Mexico replace the state income tax with an immigrant tax?
No country can let in an infinite number of immigrants. And, if we allow immigrants to take advantage of public schools, welfare, social security and Medicaid, it will cost us a lot. Tech Central Station has come up with a strategy: tax the immigrants. According to the plan, each immigrant must put the dollar amount necessary to pay for his own deportation into an account; if he is ever unable to support himself, the money will be used to pay for his removal; in addition other taxes are levied on his wages that don’t apply to citizens. This way we could be sure that there is no drain on the economy of taxpayer funded programs and instead immigrants create more revenue.
Why not replace some current taxes with a tax on immigrants? Nobody can argue against a tax refund for all citizens. In any case, it is an interesting and innovative idea for an old and sometimes divisive problem.

I have signed on to the following open letter on immigration. The only thing I could add is that our inefficient and ineffective welfare system tends to reduce the benefits of immigration while enabling the “misguided commentary.” Look here to find the many distinguished scholars who signed the letter. Thanks to Alex Tabarrok for putting it together.

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:
People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.
Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who were already here have worried about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.
Overall, immigration has been a net gain for American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.
Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.
In recent decades, immigration of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to have been small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.
While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.
Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system, that enable Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.
We must not forget that the gains to immigrants coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid.
America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.

Today’s Albuquerque Journal reports on HB80, Equitable Sentencing Schedule, which among other things doubles the threshold at which shoplifting becomes a felony from $250 to $500. This bill was passed during the 2006 legislative session and is set to go into effect on July 1.
The bill’s sponsor, Hector H. Balderas (D), argues the change is necessary to keep up with inflation, one of the chief tools in the belts of those seeking higher minimum wages at the local, state, and federal levels. Professional shoplifters will now be able to steal just under $500 at a time to avoid a felony arrest, instead of the presumably inadequate bundles of grifted goods available today. I guess even Jane’s Addiction needs to make a decent living.
But it’s certainly not good for New Mexico retail businesses and their law abiding customers. According to the Online Lawyer Source:

The consequences of shoplifting cause one third of all new businesses to fail. Businesses lose sixteen billion dollars annually in lost revenue as a result of shoplifting. In addition to lost profits, the consequences of shoplifting also force businesses to raise prices and take other costly preventative measures to reduce their vulnerability to shoplifting… The average family in America spends $300 every year in order to subsidize the cost of what shoplifters steal.

So who does benefit, beside those employing the five-finger discount ? Following the nail-bitingly close presidential election in 2000, Richard Romero’s 2001 Restoration of Felony Voting Rights act allowed an estimated 50,000 convicted felons to return to the polls after completing their sentences, and passed after:

Every Democratic member of both the House and the Senate received copies of a study in progress which demonstrated that Democratic defeats in several close elections in various states could be attributed directly to felony disenfranchisement.

Apparently, removing some shoplifters from the voter rolls during the maximum 18 month sentence for a fourth degree felony conviction is too much a burden for the state’s politicians to bear, especially with mid-term elections coming up. Maybe this post should be titled “The Voting Rights Act for Shoplifters.”
Lawmakers should concentrate on protecting the property of the state’s businesses and providing a secure environment in which residents can engage in mutually-beneficial trade. Easing the lives of criminals, and their voter eligibility, in order to maintain entrenched political power is as perverted as special interest politics can get.