Good to the last dropping.
HT: WSJ’s opinion journal.

Dave Barry’s take:

Of all the wonderful things government says, that’s always been just about my favorite. As opposed to if you get to keep the money. Because what you’ll do is go out and bury it in your yard, anything to prevent that money from creating jobs. They never stop saying it. They say it with a straight face and we in the press will write that down. We will say, “This is expected to create x number of jobs.” On the other hand, we never say that the money we removed from another part of the economy will kill some jobs.

How many net jobs do you think will be created by Medicaid spending, the Spaceport, the train to nowhere? Inquiring minds want to know.
Read entire Dave Barry interview here.

Like Matt, I am more than a little bit nervous about eavesdropping on domestic phone calls.
Nevertheless I had to laugh at this gotcha to both sides of the partisan debate.
Let us not forget the perspective of Ben Franklin:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty not safety..

You can be sure that your Foundation will be working tirelessly to defend liberty in 2006.
Update 12/28/05: More on giving up essential liberty in other contexts here.

You mean the government itself would actually enforce a cartel agreement so as to boost the prices you have to pay?
Government enforced cartels are pervasive in NM too. You can begin to find their sources here and here and here. Notice that the so-called “missions” of these cartel sources generally produce results that are just the opposite of the “mission” statements.

Here is a great perspective on the politics and economics of ANWR. What is really relevant for New Mexico is this (just substitute “Otero Mesa” or “Valles Vidal” for “ANWR” and “Quail” or “Rattlesnakes” or “Spotted Owls” or whatever turns you on for “caribou”):

…the ANWR debate ….. would not be an issue if the land were privately owned. If we abandon the farce of “public ownership” and if private individuals owned the land, we’d find out pretty darn quickly whether caribou migration or drilling is more valuable, given the available technologies.
So here’s my policy proposal: privatize ANWR. Better yet, have the federal government grant the title to the land to a joint venture of the Nature Conservancy and the residents of the area, and let them figure it out. Then if it’s worth it to drill, let the firms interested in drilling make them purchase offers. That will satisfy those worried about income distribution effects of “big oil” being able to buy their way in. Establish the property right on the other side. But if we believe Coase, establishing the property right and reducing the transaction costs will end up with the optimal combination of drilling and caribou migration.

This week’s “The Line” on KNME Channel 5 in Albuquerque (8:30 pm Friday, 7:00 am Christmas Day) features our good friend John Dendahl. Tune in and you will see an informing and entertaining discussion of
* boondoggling in state government
* groping in state government
* pay-to-play in state government
* and more.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.

Here is a great blog that contains breaking news. Thanks to John Onesti for the link.

Here is an update on the Lost Liberty Hotel project of Logan Darrow Clements. Recall that the project seeks

to build a hotel on the land currently owned by Judge Souter. The town has declined Clements’ request for the land, but he and some residents of Weare, New Hampshire, are working to bring the issue to a vote of the townspeople.
The Lost Liberty Hotel will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

If you would like to help with the project you can purchase a new song called “Preeminent Domain” for only $2.00 here. Here are the song’s lyrics:

Allow me to make it eminently clear
It’s a free country Judge, or didn’t you hear.
Facts are facts, and rights are rights
Take my land and you take my life
So easy to give when it ain’t yours
So easy to take what you didn’t create
Nothing grows on trees but leaves
And if you don’t leave us free, that’s all there’ll be
All we want is to be left alone
From the Right and the Left they invade our home
So easy to give when it ain’t yours
So easy to take what you didn’t create
When did we fall asleep, when did we turn to sheep?
How did we get so dependent, how did we get so dumb?
Why did we let this happen?
When did our government becomes our master?
It’s time to remember who we are…
I hear you laughing, but it won’t be funny
There’s only so far you can push this country.
‘Cause facts are still facts, and rights are still rights
Take our land and you take our life
So easy to give when it ain’t yours
So easy to take what you didn’t create
It’s upside down and inside out
But not for long as you’ll find out .

HT: Mickey Barnett

Chuck Muth comments today on how Colorado voters are like New Mexican voters. They have been fooled:

It was only a little over a month ago that voters in Colorado, spooked by “the sky is falling” rhetoric of the left and a few misguided souls on the right, decided to suspend the spending restraints imposed by the state’s TABOR law (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) and allow the government to keep budget surpluses for the next five years. Voters were warned in ominous terms that unless they loosened TABOR’s restrictions, critical and necessary government operations would have to be cut.
Voters bought it, proving once again that it IS possible to fool a majority of the voters a lot of the time. And as Brendan Miniter points out in Monday’s Political Diary, “The state is now allowed to keep an estimated $3.7 billion in revenue it otherwise would have had to give back to the people.”
So what are the politicians planning to do with their share of the loot?
Well, in Boulder, Colorado, local officials intend to use some of the new-found dough to fund efforts to make their county “climate neutral” by 2025. As Miniter explains, this means “offsetting any greenhouse gases (the county) creates by planting trees and funding other ‘green’ programs.” One of those other “green” programs already being discussed is requiring “contractors to use both sides of the paper they use to submit bids.”
Good grief.
Your tax dollars are the football. The politicians are “Lucy.” And the taxpayers are “Charlie Brown.” The TABOR referendum in November was Lucy telling Charlie Brown to “trust her,” that she wouldn’t yank the football away at the last minute as Charlie Brown tries to kick it.
And once again voters are finding themselves flat on their backs. Will we never learn?

On December 15, 1791, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. It read:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Two hundred and fourteen years and one day later, we learn this.
The President may not be familiar with this part of the Constituiton. I wonder if he is familiar with Article II, Section 1 which requires him to:

solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

(Need I mention Article II, Section 4?)

Here is a good article on the politics of immigration. Despite the recent hardline rhetoric, there is hope for a bipartisan consensus that immigration is good for the country. Putting up our own iron curtain is not an effective and efficient way to combat terrorism.

Why does a poor state like NM rank among the highest in mortgage closing costs? Could it be excessive regulation?
HT: Craig Newmark

New Mexico has its train to nowhere, and now it looks like Alaska is actually going to get its bridge to nowhere! Wouldn’t it be cool if the train to nowhere could take passengers to the bridge to nowhere (we have already bought some track in Colorado)? And while we are making such wise use of the taxpayers money, let’s not forget the run the nowhere train down to the spaceport that takes passengers to nowhere.
Update 12/23/05: Alaska is actually getting its BRIDGES to nowhere. At least Alaska is in the national news with its taxpayer ripoff. In New Mexico we ripoff the taxpayer while managing to keep the train to nowhere under the radar.

The new spaceport will cost our taxpayers an estimated $225 million. The recipient of this corporate welfare will be Virgin Galactic. Virgin Galactic estimates that up to 2300 jobs will be created as a result of them receiving the welfare. That estimate is somewhat vague since we don’t know whether that is all for direct employment or some of it is for businesses that would have sprung up somewhere else absent the welfare. Also, we are told that 100 “founders” have paid $200,000 each for the cost of a flight. In any event, let’s take the 2300 jobs estimate and ask the following questions:
1.) How much is it costing our taxpayers for each job “created?”
2.) How much are our taxpayers subsidizing each founder for his/her flight?

Answers:
1.) Almost $98,000 per job! Isn’t it wonderful that we can afford such a payment to bring in those poor, unemployed rocket scientists.
2.) $2.25 million per founder! Is that enough to put you into orbit?
I am glad to see at least one other person thinks this is too inconsequential a payload for our taxpayers.

The know-it-alls have decided to spend the taxpayers’ $225 million on a new spaceport rather than an NFL stadium. But they have ignored an important complement that we already have for the new stadium: a blimp.

This story (subscription) by Rosalie Rayburn questions why New Mexico’s gasoline prices are mostly higher than in other states. She misses the main reason: gasoline in not a fungible commodity because of EPA rules. Refineries must produce gasoline with specific formulations for specific areas, thereby eliminating the possibility of transport from one region to another when there is increased scarcity in a region such as NM:

Presently, the motor fuels industry has to separately refine, transport, and store as many as 18 different so-called boutique fuels for different markets. Some of these blends are more expensive to make, and the logistical burden of having to simultaneously provide all of them adds to costs and causes localized shortages and price spikes.

Higher prices result when when gasoline becomes relatively more scarce compared to other regions. You can be sure that refineries would have plenty of incentive to transport more gasoline to NM absent the EPA rules.
BTW: I spent the first weekend in December in Tucson and the second weekend in Cincinnati. My first hand observation is that Albuquerque’s average gasoline price is roughly 10 cents per gallon less than in those two cities.

I really dislike using the word “idiot.” This is supposed to be a civil forum. But what better description is there? First it was the bridge to nowhere; and now this. For you wishful thinkers: does this do anything to alter your trust in government? Just curious.

Quebec’s Pre-K initiative costs 33 times more than it was projected to cost; and it has not increased preschoolers readiness for school. I wonder when New Mexico will stop its wishful thinking and do something useful for the kids.
Hat tip: NCPA.

I am no fan of Newsweek. It frequently gets a lot wrong; but to the extent that this story about our president is accurate, it is quite distressing. Bruce Barlett weighs in here.

Anybody for a $9.50 “living” wage? Then we can really do some damage!
Check this for damage already done by the $8.50 “living” wage (thanks to NCPA for alerting us):
Aaron Yelowitz of the University of Kentucky found that Santa Fe’s
minimum wage had significant and negative effects on the labor market.
Even more troubling, he found that the negative effects of the wage
hike were concentrated on the least-skilled members of the economy —
the very individuals the increase was intended to help.
He found:
o The likelihood of unemployment for employees in Santa Fe
went up by 3.3 percent.
o For less-educated employees, however, the results were much
higher, with their likelihood of unemployment
increasing 8.3 percentage points.
o The usual hours of work fell by 1.0 hours for the full
sample and 3.2 hours for less-educated individuals.
o There was significant evidence to suggest the displacement
of adult employees by unmarried high school age
employees.
These are all unintended consequences that should give pause to
any claims of success of the ordinance, says Yelowitz.
Source: Aaron S. Yelowitz, “How Did the $8.50 Citywide Minimum Wage
Affect the Santa Fe Labor Market? A Comprehensive Examination,”
Employment Policies Institute, December 6, 2005.
We told you so.

http://riograndefoundation.org/papers/living_wage_misguided.htm

Alaska has (or had) its bridge to nowhere; New Mexico has its train to nowhere. It will be interesting to compute how much this ultimately costs the taxpayer per rider.

Unfortunately for NM taxpayers our Guv is poised for an enormous increase in spending during the 30-day session that begins next month. Among the proposals is a big expansion of the pre-kindergarten program. Our public schools don’t work very well. Why do we think that pre-k will work? It hasn’t worked in Georgia. It won’t work in New Mexico. See Reason Foundation’s commentary on a similar proposal for California here.

Here is a great idea for New Mexico. If you don’t think eligibility requirements for various welfare programs are complex, then you should spend a little time navigating around here and here and here. Get the idea about the cumbersome system that Texas’s streamlining is attempting to reduce?
As an added benefit Texas style streamlining may give us insights into how to fix incentive problems. For more on welfare incentives look here (pp. 12-19).

Check out this perspective in January 1999 — no mention of price “gouging.”