The BEA has just released per capita personal income statistics for 2004. The bad news: New Mexico still ranks 47th among all states and the District of Columbia. The good news is that we are growing faster than in the past. Our growth of per capita personal income over 10 years ranks 32nd (no longer at or near last).
Why the improvement? Some of it is just plain luck. Our energy sector is enjoying high prices. We have a large government component that is resistant to the national downturn over the past four years.
Former Governor Gary Johnson probably deserves some credit. He mananged to hold the line on taxing and spending for 8 of the 10 years while most other states were not so fortunate. They are coming down to meet us. Unfortunately, that will probably not last because of our current spending binge.

The new tax bill does nothing to help beleagured service providers in NM. Read it and weep.

“[NEW MATERIAL] CREDIT–GROSS RECEIPTS TAX–GOVERNMENTAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAX–CERTAIN SALES FOR RESALE.–
A. A taxpayer may claim a credit against gross receipts tax or governmental gross receipts tax due for each reporting period beginning after June 2005 in an amount equal to ten percent of the receipts from selling a service for resale multiplied by:
(1) three and seven hundred seventy-five thousandths percent if the taxpayer’s business location is within a municipality; or
(2) five percent if the taxpayer’s business location is in the unincorporated area of a county.
B. A taxpayer may claim a credit pursuant to Subsection A of this section only if:
(1) the buyer resells the service in the ordinary course of business;
(2) the resale is not subject to the gross receipts tax or the governmental gross receipts tax; and
(3) the buyer delivers to the seller documentation in a form prescribed by the department clarifying that the service is purchased for resale in the ordinary course of business.
C. A credit permitted pursuant to this section does not apply to receipts from selling a service to a governmental entity or to a person who is a prime contractor that operates a facility in New Mexico designated as a national laboratory by and act of congress.”

We now have suffered from 3 sessions of out of control spending. Here is a quick “back of the envelope” calculation of Big Bill’s spending problem. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, at the current rate of increase real spending will have increased by almost $400 million (in 2005 dollars) by the end of his first term. Contrast that with the increase during two terms for Governor Johnson: $360 million (in 2005 dollars). Our governor has managed to squander the opportunity to provide the needed tax relief that will lead NM to prosperity.

Check out this great post by Michael Munger at Division of Labour. He describes how gas prices have behaved over time in real (inflation adjusted) terms.
Another way to look gasoline prices is to ask: how much gasoline will an hour of my labor purchase? In 1981 the average New Mexican could obtain 5.2 gallons of gasoline for one hour of labor. This year she could obtain 7.4 gallons of gasoline for one hour of labor, 42% more than in 1981(nominal price data from DOE, nominal wage data from BEA).
We never like it when the price of gasoline, or anything else, rises. The average New Mexican would be much happier being able to purchase 10 gallons of gasoline for one hour of labor, as was the case less than one year ago. But let’s put the price of gasoline in perspective; this is not the end of civilization as we know it.
BTW, government itself is responsible for keeping gasoline prices higher than necessary.

According to Chuck Muth:
In Arizona, folks who donate money to a scholarship program allowing kids to attend schools other than the government mis-run re-education camps are allowed a tax credit for such donations. The ACLU, naturally, sued to kill off this school choice program, maintaining that it was a violation of the religion provision in the First Amendment.
Yesterday, Federal District Court Judge Earl Carroll tossed out the ACLU lawsuit. The program was defended in court by the libertarian Institute for Justice.

My colleague at George Mason, Bill Butterfield, (an excellent blogger, incidentally) recently wrote about a conversation we had while strolling down Bourbon Street in the Big Easy.
Bill writes:
“My problem with libertarians is that they overly discount meddlesome preferences. They claim they have none, which is the source of their sense of moral superiority. But meddlesome preferences are preferences just the same, everyone has them and they must be included in any attempt to maximize utility from a policy perspective.”
I would not claim that libertarians are without meddlesome preferences. I, for instance, would love to meddle in a lot of the decisions of others (for example, Fox should not be allowed to cancel “Arrested Development”!).
That said, the libertarian perspective is that we should honor individual rights (more precisely, “negative rights”). To do so, the rest of us are obliged to refrain from certain activities—including meddling.
A few examples: You have a right to life. I, therefore, am obliged not to kill you. You also possess a right to property, so I shouldn’t be allowed to take your iPod.
Though I may have a “meddlesome preference” for invading your rights and taking your property, I have a stronger preference for having my own rights respected and keeping my own property. Being a member of a liberal (libertarian) society, means that I agree to forfeit my right to act on my meddlesome preferences in exchange for living in a society in which no one else is permitted to act on their meddlesome preferences. For most of us, I think the trade-off is well worth it (the rest, of course, are free to join restrictive religious groups or even secular communes).
The economist in me would point out that well-defined, exchangeable rights in property provide entrepreneurs an incentive to take account of the preferences of others. Most people–even libertarians–want to live in neighborhoods without strip clubs. The home developer who appreciates this will make a profit. The developer who sells a unit to Larry Flint’s Strip Club in the middle of a residential neighborhood will not become a wealthy man.
I would much prefer to live in a system based on personal rights which restrain the meddlesome preferences of my fellows than in a system ruled by the meddlesome whims of the median voter.

From P.J. O’ROURKE: “There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell.”
There is the huge up-front cost. Also, and “less obviously, there’s all the money spent locally keeping local mass transit systems operating.” For example, the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis is estimated to cost $19 for each ride. At that rate “commuting to work will cost $8,550 a year. If the commuter is earning minimum wage, this leaves about $1,000 a year for food, shelter and clothing. Or, if the city picks up the tab, it could have leased a BMW X-5 SUV for the commuter at about the same price.”
Since the state taxpayers would be picking up the tab for Belen-Albuquerque train riders, let’s do something really cool and lease them BMW’s instead.

Thoughts of Micha Gisser on the pre-K debate:
When it suits the political ambitions of the voucher enemies, they will find all the reasons in the world to justify allocating state money to Pre-K as legally “kosher.” They not only support private participation in the Pre-K project, they also justify participation of faith-based preschools. In fact, Dan Pearlman, legal counsel for the state Children, Youth and Families Department, said “faith-based preschools could receive state money if they agree not to use religious programming for the 2 and 1/2 hours the state was footing the bill.” I oppose the Pre-K Bill, but its flip side, if it passes, is that it creates a precedent for passing a voucher bill that will include private and religious schools.

FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
– James Madison
Thanks to Mickey Barnett for the pointer.

Our own Matt Mitchell has been seen finding first hand empirical evidence of the benefits of economic freedom.

You may have heard that our former friends at the Cato Institute (just kidding, Ed) have gushed over Big Bill’s tax cutting and spending restraint. According to Cato’s report card for the governors, “Bill Richardson is, bar none, the best new Democratic governor in the nation–for that matter, he is one of the best new governors of any party.”
But Cato is wrong. The Guv is a net tax increaser and his spending has far exceeded the rate of inflation plus population growth. How did they get it wrong?
On the spending side they used bad data (National Association of State Budget Officers). If you would like to see the truth look here. And the general fund budget is going to grow as least another 6.7% in Fiscal Year 2006. Some spending restraint!
On the tax side they completely missed the stealth increase in the gross receipts tax rate. They also missed other tax and fee increases.
Why is our tax and spend governor getting a free pass from the media and now from one of the best think tanks on the planet?

Check out John Trever’s cartoon of March 4, 2005. We could even add a little revenue enhancement to fund P-P-K. It’s for the kids.

I am not making this up. Check out this anti-voucher rant by Diane Denish? And by the way, she is wrong about head start.
I don’t care if she is kinda cute, she and her army of “advocates” will not end up helping the kids.

Today from Chuck Muth: “Despite unanimous support in the state House for dumping President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law – and likely passage in the Senate – Utah’s Gov. Jon Huntsman bowed to pressure from the White House and delayed action on the bill for another month…during a special session to be called just to address this issue. Uncle Sam really knows how to twist arms and break legs when he wants to. And Utah taxpayers will pick up the tab for the unnecessary special session.
At the heart of the matter is the simple principle that the federal government should be strictly limited and the states should be responsible for matters such as education. What’s amazing, under the circumstances, is this comment yesterday from federal Education Czar Margaret Spellings: ‘Ultimately, education decisions are made at the local level, and that’s how it should be.’”
But consider what was said 10 days ago. Are you surprised?

Did you see John’s thoughtful opinion piece in Friday’s Albuquerque Journal (subscription)? “The Valle Vidal is a beautiful section of the Carson National Forest. Substantial natural gas production is being obtained from the adjacent and possibly more beautiful Vermejo Park Ranch. It is believed similar production could be obtained from Valle Vidal.”
Why is it that production, such as drilling for oil or gas, seems easily to coexist with “environmental” uses of land in some cases but not in others? The answer lies in who owns the land. When it is owned privately, its owner has incentive to evaluate production-environmental trade offs. The owner does not want to take excessive risk that the land might be spoiled. The owner simply wants to make best use of the land for its value in the enjoyment of natural beauty, its value in energy production and the threat to its value from environmental harm.
When land is owned by the government, however, these tradeoffs are politicized. Environmental interest groups such as the Sierra Club seem totally unwilling to consider alternative uses or magnitude of risk from environmental harm. These same groups permit production on land when they actually own it.
If you are interested in how ownership incentives improve the natural beauty and enjoyment of land while permitting alternative uses and improving the environment look here or here. Look here for an innovative public land management idea being tried in the Land of Enchantment!

“Things that can’t go on forever, won’t.” Unfortunately, the Guv wants more of the same: “‘We’re talking about people (being hurt by the cuts),’ Richardson said at a news conference at the National Press Club. ‘We’re talking about human beings who are the most vulnerable.’”
I wish he would think about the perverse incentives of Medicaid. Why can’t we give these human beings incentive to help themselves? Why does he insist on such inefficient government intervention?

They just don’t get it. Why do they think “the siren song of collectivist solutions” is going to make things better? There is no empirical evidence either specifically (for example, here or here) or generally to support them. Their wandingerous arguments mainly consist of flippant remarks and personal insults.
I think Milton Friedman best sums up John’s points (subscription) in Capitalism and Freedom:
“…conditions have changed. We now have several decades of experience with government intervention. It is no longer necessary to compare the market as it actually operates and government intervention as it ideally might operate. We can compare the actual to the actual. If we do so, it is clear that the difference between the actual operation of the market and its ideal operation – great though it undoubtedly is – is as nothing compared to the difference between the actual effects of government intervention and their intended effects.”
—Milton Friedman, 1962
Whether it be light rail, pre-K or all the other past and current interventions of government, why do they think the actual effects are going to be anywhere near their indended effects. Aren’t they just engaging in wishful thinking?

Now we find out that the Pre-K initiative was designed by professional educators! And here I have been complaining about our gullibility.

Thanks to Walter Williams:
“After the first three years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. … Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. … That is the most you will ever pay.”
– 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security

Did you notice from this story (subscription) in yesterday’s Albuquerque Journal that Department of Economic Development Staffers are prohibited from visiting the Roundhouse during the session? “Secretary Rick Homans said the intent of the directive was to ‘make sure we don’t start getting our wires crossed. We don’t think legislators like it when they see a lot of state employees hanging around the Roundhouse.’ He also said the governor’s office ‘has been very clear about us being very disciplined in how we communicate with the Legislature.’”
This is good political strategy for an administration that seems bent on dishing out political favors in the form of corporate welfare. Matt clarified some of the losses from the game of political favor seeking yesterday. You can expect more commentary on corporate welfare and seeking of political favors in the near future.

Here is an enlightening story of rail mass transit from the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area of North Carolina. Will New Mexico pay attention? Thanks to Craig Newmark for the link.

I just saw The Aviator. It is every bit as good as you have heard–maybe a little better. The film is being lauded for its historical accuracy. (Though, as is often the case with Hollywood, they left out some of the more interesting aspects of reality. For instance, Hughes’ obsession with germs probably stemmed from his bout with syphilis which was entirely ignored in the movie.)
What I particularly liked about the film was how it portrayed the distressingly all-too accurate relationship that often exists between industry and government. Throughout the film, Hughes competes with Pan American’s Juan Tripp over airline market share. This, of course, would be great for the consumer if the contestants played fair. Instead, Tripp, and to a lesser extent Hughes, compete for unfair assistance from government.
To gain market-share in a free market, firms have to please the consumer–get him to voluntarily choose their product over their rivals’ product. But gaining market share is much easier when you have government on your side. Using government’s legal powers of coercion, firms can force their competitors’ prices up (for instance, with a tariff), or lower their own costs (say, with a subsidy from the taxpayers). In many cases, firms have been able to use government to simply outlaw their competitors by obtaining a legal monopoly. This is more than unfair, it is hugely costly. Intelligent, hard-working people like lawyers, accountants and lobbyists spend their time and money vying for an unfair advantage rather than thinking of new ways to please the consumer.
People often blame the firms and their executives for this unseemly behavior. What The Aviator does so well is to show that this is a government problem not a firm problem. At one point in the film, Howard Hughes is under intense interrogation from Maine’s Senator Owen Brewster. Brewster, known in real life as “the Senator from Pan Am,” had an interest in destroying Hughes’ TWA. Under oral examination, Hughes admits to dolling out gifts to government officials in hopes of gaining their assistance. But as Hughes points out, this is simply the way the government-entwined airline industry works. If you don’t take advantage of government’s unfair help, your competitors will.
The problem is not that business asks for hand-outs. After all, we can’t very well outlaw the desire for wealth. The real problem is that government obliges! This we can outlaw! So, see the movie and learn some economics.

Yesterday’s report is that Utah may be about to opt out of the No Child Left Behind abomination (thanks to Chuck Muth for the pointer). If they do opt out they are saying “thanks, but no thanks to $116 million in federal aid.” “state policy-makers are fed up with federal control of education and dictates.” The Utah legislature appears to be unanimous in wanting to opt out. According to the report, “eight other state legislatures — in Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia — are considering challenges to No Child Left Behind.”
One can only hope that this is the beginning of the end for the fraudulently titled “no child left behind” act.
The Washington Times further reports today that state legislators are demanding more flexibility.
Unfortunately, in response the Department of Education seems to have abandoned all principles of federalism: “The Bush administration warned that the national conference’s action ‘could be interpreted as wanting to reverse the progress we’ve made.’ ‘We will not reverse course,’ said Ray Simon, U.S. assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education. ‘Children must be challenged to reach their full potential, not told to settle for someone else’s lowered expectations.’” The administration is going to regret its top-down, one-size-fits-all centralized control.
When is New Mexico going to opt out of NCLB?

Chuck Muth reports yesterday:
“School administrators at Austin High School in Austin, Texas, latched onto this new obesity fad/crisis and decided to remove all the candy vending machines on campus. In light of the decision, some enterprising students have stepped into the breach and filled the need.
‘The candy removal plan, according to students at Austin High, was thwarted by classmates who created an underground candy market, turning the hallways of the high school into Willy-Wonka-meets-Casablanca,’ reports the Austin American-Statesman. ‘Soon after candy was removed from vending machines, enterprising students armed with gym bags full of M&M’s, Skittles, Snickers and Twix became roving vendors, serving classmates in need of an in-school sugar fix. Regular-size candy bars like the ones sold in vending machines routinely sold in the halls for $1.50.’
The paper notes that some kids are said to be making $200 a week selling black-market candy in the school’s halls and bathrooms.”
Questions about when this happens in New Mexico:
Will it be exempt from the food tax? After all, candy is a prepared food. Looks like Tax and Rev may have to begin hallway patrols.
How about the entrepreneurs? Aren’t they contributing to the obesity of minors? Looks like APD will have to step up their hallway patrols.
Are these entrepreneurs licensed? Looks like the PRC may have to begin hallway patrols.