An excerpt:

The thing, the state itself, is inherently a threat to liberty. It may be a necessary threat, something we have to live with, but it is a threat nonetheless.
It is really a matter of nature. Think about it: you can’t blame a dog for eating out of the garbage. That is what dogs do. Can’t ask yourself, “Why? Why isn’t my dog a good dog? I can imagine a good dog, one that doesn’t eat out of the garbage. Can’t we just get a better dog?”
No, no you can’t. All dogs eat out of the garbage, and all states coerce unjustly. It’s what they do.

This is a speech that will make you think. Read the whole thing.

In this article, Walter Williams is once again on target in his discussion of the folly of minimum wage hikes.
New Mexico’s politicians should heed his sage advice.

Here is a particularly good article about the nonsense that passes for leadership in both major parties. Only a small minority have been willing to stand on principle: Congrats to Steve Pearce for standing tall and voting against the federal price gouging bill.

The lack of basic economic knowledge in this country is unbelievable. Politicians who should know better (they have easy access to top notch economists) are showing no principle at all as they purport to do something about high gasoline prices. New Mexico is right in there with the worst of them. Here is a great quote from Michael O’Hare describing the situation:

…politicians treat an election, or an office, as the worst thing one can lose, and promise to fix everything with a trick that won’t require any actual work by us; we vote for people who tell us fairy tales that would excuse us from any heavy lifting if they were true, and excuse us from confronting downers and grownup responsibilities if we pretend to believe. This game is being played at a really frenzied level around gas prices, and the mix of ignorance and plain mendacity both parties are wallowing in is–this is really amazing–neck and neck with the immigration performance in the theater next door.

HT: Asymmetrical Information
Update 5/5/06: Kudos to Steve Pearce who was one of the few who voted against the federal price gouging law sponsored by Heather Wilson.

If you have not done so already, check out our new website — nice work by Paul and Ovation Solutions (Pat Riley and Barry Epstein).

In the most recent outrage over the abusive use of eminent domain, the Village of North Hills in New York is attempting to seize a private golf course. Amazingly, the mayor of the town attempting this heist has said that the government should be able to take over the course simply because, if public, it would be “a nice amenity.”
With everything else going on in the world, it is easy to forget that less than one year ago the US Supreme Court decided that any government should be able to take anyone’s property, for most any reason, at any time they like. We cannot rest until every state and the federal government has acted to restore individual property rights.

There is a reason for my lack of posts recently; I got caught. Sorry, ladies, if you want to snuggle up under a radical right wing you’ll have to look elsewhere.

Arnold Kling wonders: Imagine that Mitt Romney were about to sign legislation that said that from now on, all citizens of Massachusetts may leap from the edge of a cliff, flap their arms real hard, and fly. All I can say is, “Try it and see what happens.”
He goes on to raise his specific objections to the new Massachusetts Health Plan:

1. Because it is a political compromise it is not a clean experiment. It is certainly not a market-oriented healthcare reform, but neither is it pure single-payer. I would like to see them try single-payer, since they are hot to do so. Instead, their experiment has been disowned by single-payer advocates, who will blame its failure on the fact that the private sector was left standing.
2. It completely denies that there is any need to re-consider the cost-effectiveness of health care procedures in order to address the issue of affordability of healthcare. All of the painstaking research I did for my book suggests that if there is anything to be done to significantly slow the growth in health care spending, it has to involve cutting back on discretionary spending, particularly on specialists and high-tech diagnostic procedures.
3. A market-oriented health care system would have health insurance policies with high deductibles. For the most part, this plan goes in the opposite direction.
4. It projects a myth that policy wonks can, with sheer cleverness, come up with a way to make health care affordable for everyone. It overstates the benefits of wonkish solutions like electronic medical records. Again, I take great pains in my book to point out that we will have to make difficult decisions to address health care, rather than use wonkish tricks.
Suppose that five years from now, everyone in Massachusetts has health insurance and the cost of the state subsidy is minimal. In that case, I am wrong about the program, and I will gladly admit it. Meanwhile, since none of the critical details have been implemented, I am in the awkward position of telling people who really want to fly that I think they will wind up smashed at the bottom of the cliff.

Read the whole thing here.

Check out Paul’s great article about the socialist interlopers from ACORN in today’s ABQ Journal (SR). Some excerpts:

But bowing to ACORN’s demands without so much as a fight is exactly what this radical outfit wants and, like an unruly child who throws a tantrum until his parents give in, ACORN will view this “compromise” as a sign of weakness. It will quickly move to impose the rest of its far-left agenda on Albuquerque residents and businesses.
First and foremost, ACORN and its activists are, by and large, not locally based, so most of them don’t really care what happens to Albuquerque’s economy once they have their “victory.” ACORN was founded in Little Rock, and has offices spread around the country and Latin America.
While portraying itself as a humble advocate for the poor, ACORN actually promotes an agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology and government handouts.

Here is a picture of the relative size of state and local governments relative to the private sector in our region. It is the ratio of the state and local government component of gross state product to the private component. Note how the prosperity driving force of markets is crowded out by big government in New Mexio:

How much of a difference does the heavy hand of big government make? Check this picture of disposable income for the same states in our region:

I wonder if we will ever get this?

Massachusetts’ new universal health care plan reminds me of a quote from P.J. O’Rourk that goes, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.!” Let’s hope New Mexico has the sense to postpone being a Massachusetts copycat until we see how the new law pans out. We know that Tennessee’s big-government attempt to universalize health insurance was a disaster.
Thanks to Grace Marie Turner for sending us this excellent assessment of the law:
April 13, 2006 The new Massachusetts health plan has dominated the policy conversation over the past week, causing more division among conservatives than liberals.

The law, designed to make the state the first in the nation to achieve universal health coverage, was signed on Wednesday by Gov. Mitt Romney. He was flanked at the invitation-only ceremony by the Democratic leaders of the Massachusetts legislature and by Sen. Ted Kennedy, a long-time advocate of universal health coverage.
The biggest concern among conservatives is the requirement that every individual in the state must purchase health insurance or face financial penalties.
Mandates are almost impossible to enforce, even with the fines and other enforcement provisions in the law. Further, the state must specify what kind of insurance people are required to buy and how much they should pay, taking away the ability of markets to freely compete and for people to purchase the coverage of their choice.
We were also concerned about the back-door employer mandate. The legislature wanted to force employers with 11 or more employees to pay a $295 annual fine for any employee without health insurance. The Governor vetoed the provision, but leaders of the heavily Democratic House and Senate have said they will override.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called the veto disingenuous, saying the law was crafted with concessions and compromise. “To change anything will disturb the delicate balance that made this law possible,” DiMasi said. Note to employers: $295 is only the beginning.
While many conservative groups, like the Pacific Research Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, have been highly critical of the plan, The Heritage Foundation has been very involved in helping the Governor craft the legislation. The Governor credits Heritage with creating the new FEHBP-like insurance connector to offer insurance options and collect and distribute premiums. Bob Moffit of Heritage stood behind the Governor at the signing ceremony. [Harry’s note: yes, you read that correctly; Heritage is partially behind this abomination.]
An integral provision is the requirement that every employer with more than 10 employees – think your local automotive garage – must offer a Section 125 cafeteria plan so employees can use pre-tax money for their insurance premium contributions.
And that’s only the beginning of the reporting requirement, mandates, penalties, and other enforcement provisions in the new law, for example:
The law requires every employer and employee in the state to sign “under oath” a Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure form, testifying to whether the employer has offered insurance and whether the employee has accepted or declined.
It creates at least 10 new boards and commissions to create and run the new health system, such as the Health Care Quality and Cost Council, the Payment Policy Advisory Board, and the Health Access Bureau.
New and existing state agencies will be checking on individuals’ insurance status, monitoring their income to see if they qualify for subsidies, and tracking individual health habits (like smoking and wellness activities) to determine their insurance rating category.
There also is a major expansion of Medicaid and S-CHIP to cover children up to 300% of poverty, and the state makes it clear that it is doing all it can to maximize collection of federal matching funds to help finance the new plan.
My biggest concern is over the financing. The state says it is just moving money around – redirecting about $1 billion in uncompensated care money to subsidize health insurance for those under 300% of poverty (about $50,000 a year for a family of four).
But there is nothing in the law to keep health insurance costs from soaring. Policies offered through the new health insurance Connector must have first dollar coverage and include all of the 40 coverage mandates on the books, with none of the provisions that are working in the private sector to engage consumers as partners in managing health costs. Estimated premiums are unrealistically low and will quickly lead to higher taxes and “assessments” on individuals and employers.
Nonetheless, newspapers around the country are falling over each other in their effusive praise of a Blue state, led by a Republican governor, building a bridge across the political chasm to go where no other state has gone before.
Gov. Romney’s term ends this year, and he is likely to be spending a lot more time in Iowa and New Hampshire than in Massachusetts as this plan gets up and running. But I worry that he has laid the foundation for what can become a very intrusive, onerous, and expensive health plan for Massachusetts. Other states, which are firing up their Xerox machines now, should wait to see how this works out before rushing to follow the Bay State’s lead.

The 2006 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators has been released. Find it here.

Here is good reporting that you will want to check regularly.

Recently, I had the privilege of serving on a panel convened by Human Events Magazine that was assigned with the task of naming the 10 worst government programs. Other panelists included such luminaries as Larry Kudlow of Kudlow and Cramer fame, Walter Williams, one of the best-known economists in the country, and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (among others). The votes are now tallied and here is what we came up with. This was a weighted vote that included some 50 federal programs. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the panel’s choices, but it is a good listing and should provoke discussion.

The House has voted 218-209 for more restrictions on our freedom of speech. National Review editorializes:

We’re old enough to remember when the Republican mainstream was against restricting campaign finance. That was about four years ago. Way back then, House leaders were decrying McCain-Feingold as damaging to the GOP’s electoral fortunes and probably unconstitutional. How times change. The current crop of House leaders, acting with the White House’s blessing, is set to introduce legislation this week that would restrict the ability of so-called 527s — nonprofit groups named for the section of the tax code under which they operate — to raise money for political causes. Quite apart from the unseemliness of this about-face, the legislation deserves to be defeated. It is both politically unwise and, more important, an objectionable restriction on speech.

Tom Udall was the only New Mexico representative to stand tall against these restrictions. Jeff Flake and John Shadegg of Arizona and Ron Paul of Texas were among the 18 Republicans who are not shamed.

Education reform is an integral component of the Rio Grande Foundation’s mission. Of course, “reform” means different things to different people. Vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools are all possibilities and are worthy of varying levels of support. While New Mexico does not allow vouchers or tax credits, it does have a charter school law. That said, the complying with state and federal rules and regulations is no picnic for the charter school movement. This article gives you one man’s experience in navigating those tricky waters.

I was deeply saddened this morning to learn of the death of legal scholar Bernard Siegan. Here is a tribute to him by Mark Brnovich compliments of the Goldwater Institute:

Bernard Siegan Remembered
The impact of a property rights champion
by Mark Brnovich
March 31, 2006
I met Professor Bernard Siegan during my first year of law school. He had been rejected for an appointment to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the year before and his spirits were dampened. The toll of political fights often takes place off camera, but it can be tremendous. Judge Bork’s memory still looms large in the national debate, but people often forget how the godfather of property rights, Bernie Siegan, was “Borked” by the same group of Senators.
Professor Siegan’s small office was packed with books about constitutional law and economic theory, a field of study in which he had been a giant contributor. As a lowly 1L, I was awed to be sitting with the author of The Supreme Court’s Constitution, Other People’s Property, Economic Liberties and the Constitution, and Property and Freedom.
I told him that his writings had a tremendous impact on me and that I couldn’t wait to take his con law class the next year. Taking a long shot, I asked him if he needed a research assistant. He looked surprised and told me that he was a “falling star” and recommended attaching myself to another professor. But I pressed on and he reluctantly began a tutelage that has had an enormous impact on my life.
Professor Siegan’s groundbreaking work focused on the negative impact of zoning regulations. In Land Use Without Zoning, he explained how Houston thrived without restrictive zoning regulations. To him, government planned “solutions” often resulted in higher housing costs, with the poor and middle classes usually taking the hardest hits.
Professor Siegan often pointed out that it was little wonder that the Constitution contains so many direct and indirect references to the importance of protecting property. Article I, Sections 9 & 10, provide that no state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contract. Respect for the supremacy of property can also be found in constitutional provisions prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in the 3rd amendment and the 4th Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Of course, the 5th and 14th Amendments both explicitly provide that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The Framers—strongly influenced by the writings of John Locke, William Blackstone, and Edward Coke—had created a system designed to maximize human freedom by protecting the means to acquire and maintain property. Professor Siegan wrote extensively about this, highlighting the important role that property rights played in human liberty. He understood that attacks on property rights were a threat to political liberty.
Professor Siegan’s message wasn’t simply an academic exercise. His books Drafting a Constitution for a Nation or Republic Emerging Into Freedom and Adopting a Constitution to Protect Freedom and Provide Abundance were blueprints for countries emerging from communism. Copies of his books were available in Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Spanish and many other languages. He was determined to see young nations recognize that economic growth was dependent on respecting property rights and establishing the rule of law.
A few months ago, I was in San Diego and met Professor Siegan for lunch. His body was tired, but his mind was still very sharp. We talked about his days at the University of Chicago and his work at the University of San Diego and the impact it would have on future students, lawyers, and judges. He wanted to talk about China and how impressed he was with their GDP and that they were moving to secure more property rights. He was trying to put together a conference to explore economic and property rights developments in China. If anyone could speed along China’s road to respecting economic and property rights, it would be him. Unfortunately, he ran out time.
Professor Siegan, always the gentlemen, insisted on paying for that lunch, pointing out that he was the professor and I was the assistant. Noting that conversation we had at our first meeting over 15 years earlier, I pointed out that his legal star had never fallen. To the contrary, his work serves as a guiding star for any serious scholar seeking to find the original intent of this nation’s founders.
Mark Brnovich is the former director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Studies.

I am thrilled to see GMU’s basketball team make it to the final four. But did you know that (unlike its basketball team) its Department of Economics has long been in the top tier? For more on Professor Buchanan look here. If you really want to understand economics, Don Boudreaux and Russ Roberts display clear explanations here. And, of course, many of you have probably heard Walter Williams on the radio.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal we learn that the state is receiving more money for education from the feds (SR). Nonetheless two-thirds of our school districts will receive less money!
That’s not all; APS feels it requires a tax hike to fund new school construction(SR). I wonder what they are doing with all the extra tax revenue from our recent growth?

Speaking of Henry Hazlitt, here is a nice tribute to one of Hazlitt’s inspirations, namely Professor F.A. Hayek — the greatest social scientist of the 20th century.

Get ready New Mexico. Maybe we should look at it as economic development for critter control companies; but with apolgies to Henry Hazlitt, of course.
HT: NCPA

Charles Murray has an interesting new idea to fix welfare. In essence, he proposes that everyone receive a lump sum welfare payment. The lump sum nature of the payment would virtually eliminate all adverse incentives to which welfare recipients are subject. And it would get much more money back to the people by eliminating the Gargantuan welfare bureacracies. Of course, the taxes needed to fund the lump sum payments would still punish productive behavior. But reducing the destructive effect on recipients would be a real advance.
For a detailed discussion of the destructive incentives of federal and state welfare programs in New Mexico look here (pp. 12-18).

My name is Paul Gessing and I am the new President of the Rio Grande Foundation. I have been in New Mexico working for the Foundation for three full weeks now and am finally getting around to introducing myself on this blog. I moved here from Washington, DC, where I headed up the lobbying efforts of the nation’s largest and oldest taxpayer advocacy organization, the National Taxpayers Union.
Although I spent more than eight years in Washington and am not a “native” of New Mexico, I am not a stranger to the “Land of Enchantment.” Most of my mom’s side of my family is from either Albuquerque or Santa Fe. I spent a great deal of time here over the years visiting my extended family. Although I have traveled around the state during many of these trips to visit Taos, the Very Large Array, and Farmington to name just a few, I look forward to getting to know the rest of the state.
As I work to move both the Rio Grande Foundation and the state of New Mexico forward, I will consistently look to our neighbors for guidance — specifically Colorado, Arizona, and Texas. Each of these states have uniquely positive political dynamics that are worth emulating ( they also happen to have healthy and well-run state level free market think tanks). Colorado, for example, is home of the Independence Institute, and the most effective spending limit in the country, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Texas is home to Texas Public Policy Institute, and the state has no income tax to chase productive citizens away. Lastly, Arizona is home to the Goldwater Institute. That state it is also the home of the greatest amount of educational freedom in the nation according to researcher Jay Greene.
In the months and years ahead, I will make it my life’s work to put New Mexico on a more free market path, thus raising the standards of living for all of the state’s citizens. The Rio Grande Foundation, and the state free market think tank movement are amazing and effective vehicles for these ideas and I look forward to coming up with new ideas for New Mexico-specific problems and bringing existing ideas that have proven effective elsewhere, to the state. I am looking forward to this unique and challenging opportunity!

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund (sr)gives us this update today:

Justice Won’t Be a Regular at Motel 6
Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s home has been saved from possible
condemnation by his neighbors in Weare, N.H. Some locals and a few
well-heeled outsiders were furious that he formed part of the 5-4
majority in last year’s infamous Kelo decision. Because that ruling
effectively expanded the rights of governments to seize property for
private use through eminent domain, Kelo critics launched a campaign to
seize the farmhouse that serves as Mr. Souter’s local home and replace
it with a hotel that would bring in more property-tax revenue.
Yesterday, residents of Weare voted by 1,167 to 493, a 70% majority, in
favor of a measure that asked local officials not to use their power of
eminent domain to seize Justice Souter’s home and instead urge the state
legislature to pass a law forbidding Kelo-type seizures. All in all, a
sensible measure although the irony that voters had to pass such a
proposal was not lost on Logan Darrow Clements, the Los Angeles
businessman who came up with the idea of building the “Lost Liberty
Hotel” on Mr. Souter’s property. “The vote makes Souter the only person
in the United States with special protection against his own ruling,” he
told reporters.
But efforts to afford other Americans that same protection are
proceeding smartly at the federal, state and local level, led by the
Institute for Justice’s “Castle Coalition.” The U.S. House has passed a
bill to bar federal funds from being used to make improvements on any
lands seized for private development. One of its key supporters is
liberal Democrat John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary
Committee. He notes that the NAACP, Operation PUSH and the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights all believe that “this court opinion makes it
too easy for private property to be taken,” a practice that has been
“used historically to target the poor, people of color and the elderly.”
One person who felt herself targeted was Wilhelmina Dery, an 88-year-old
resident of the New London, Conn. neighborhood that was at the center of
the Kelo decision. The city had teamed up with the drug company Pfizer
to promote building a modern “urban village” in Ms. Dery’s neighborhood,
which would have forced her out of the home in which she had been born
in 1918. Ms. Dery and her neighbors may have lost their Supreme Court
battle, but they appear to have won the war. In the wake of the Kelo
uproar, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has promoted an alternative that
would create an “enclave” to protect all 15 homes while the Pfizer
project is built around it.
Unfortunately, Ms. Dery did not live to see it. She died quietly at home
last Sunday after a long illness. “She was a wonderful lady and I’m glad
we were able to grant her final wish,” Scott Bullock, an attorney for
the Institute for Justice, told an audience at a Smith Family Foundation
eminent domain debate last night here in New York. “Her courage in
taking on New London in an effort to save her home will be remembered by
many of the more than 10,000 other families and businesses who face
eminent domain proceedings every year in the United States.”