The Santa Fe New Mexican‘s Bruce Krasnow claims that there are “encouraging signs” on the jobs front in New Mexico, because “initial unemployment claims … dropped to below 900 for four of the last seven weeks,” which was “the best showing for the state economy since the summer of 2007.”

Okay, great. But viewed from other perspectives, the Land of Enchantment is still lagging behind, bigtime. Errors of Enchantment has devised a new tool to benchmark where New Mexico stands, compared to its neighbors in the Southwest. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts a regular analysis of 12-month employment growth in the nation’s metropolitan statistical areas. We’ll be looking at New Mexico’s four MSAs, compared with the 49 MSAs found in the state’s five neighbors: Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.

As depicted in the chart above, right out of the gate, the results aren’t good. Average job growth from March 2016 to March 2017, for the non-New Mexico MSAs, was 1.5 percent. Las Cruces nearly attained the regional pace, at 1.4 percent growth. But Albuquerque (0.5 percent) and Santa Fe (0.2 percent) fared far worse, and Farmington dropped by a depressing -3.2 percent. Looking at the entire country, only Casper, Wyoming (-6.9 percent) and Houma-Thibodaux, Louisiana (-5.8 percent) performed more dismally.

The good news is that for the last five years, employment in New Mexico has been on a generally upward path (See chart below.) But the state has yet to regain its pre-Great Recession peak, and as the BLS data show, neighbor MSAs are doing much, much better. The Land of Enchantment remains desperate for proven, powerful policy tools to boost economic development. How much longer do we have to wait?

The following is an “invitation” that was passed around on social media in advance of May Day (May 1). It shows the depth and breadth of the liberal organizations working to influence public policy in the Albuquerque area.

It appears, however, that one group that advocates for liberal economic causes is missing: The Catholic Church (RGF president Paul Gessing, author of this post, identifies as a frustrated Catholic). In the Albuquerque Journal today Archbishop John Wester made an argument for pre-K that was both factually-challenged and snarky towards the Albuquerque Journal editorial board which editorialized against the Santa Fe soda tax.

The Bishop of Santa Fe, John Wester, who seem to be more lobbyist than religious leader endorsed the Santa Fe soda tax, opposes taxing groceries, supports tapping the permanent fund for pre-k, and even supports the left-wing hobby horse “net neutrality.”

I’m fine with churches engaging in policy debates although I question the policy knowledge and acumen of officials in a Church led by a man who doesn’t even understand what the term “Libertarian” means.

And, despite the Church having a network of high-quality schools in place, they won’t lift a finger to promote school choice.

David Horowitz isn’t for everyone. But the neoconservative provocateur spoke an unquestionable truth during a recent address at NMSU. As reported by the Las Cruces Sun-News, he claimed that “the university is a ‘one-party’ state,” sharing, with other American campuses, a “lack of political diversity.”

No kidding. Last week Errors of Enchantment noted the Medicaid myth-perpetuation of UNM’s Kelly O’Donnell. But other examples are easy to find. After the presidential election, Andrea L. Mays, a UNM “lecturer,” whined that “women and people of color are again politically expendable to restore the social and economic power of white men.” NMSU economist Christopher Erickson has argued, inaccurately, that there is no strong evidence for the economic-development value of a right-to-work law. And UMN’s Bureau of Business & Economic Research is a reliable mouthpiece for the state’s Big Government status quo.

The bias extends to commencement speakers. On Saturday, Santa Fe Community College grads will hear from Cindy Nava, a Democratic Party activist. For a glimpse at her thinking, check out “18 Amazing Women Fighting for Latinas Everyday,” her cloying valentine to Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Michelle Lujan Grisham, and other “courageous women leaders” who are “devoted to unifying and empowering Latinas throughout this nation.”

It’s time for this nonsense to stop. No, we’re not advocating censorship. Scholars (and pseudo-scholars) have the right to write and say whatever they please. The issue is balance. Taxpayers annually fork over an enormous sum to the state’s system of higher education. They, the students whose expenses they subsidize, the media, and elected officials need to hear from all perspectives — anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, paleoconservative, neoconservative, centrist, liberal, socialist, and yes, even communist.

Got an example of a left-wing professor blathering on about “social justice” or “income inequality” in your corner of the Land of Enchantment? Heard about a liberal giving a commencement address? Let us know. We can’t stop the bias immediately. But we can document the one-sided ideology infecting the state’s government colleges and universities, and spread the word that New Mexico deserves better.

Despite the governor’s opposition, the Democratic majority in Santa Fe still wants a higher state gasoline tax. (With some GOPers along for the ride.) And on June 5, city councilors in Albuquerque will consider whether the city will become the Land of Enchantment’s first local-government entity to impose its own gasoline tax.

Here we go again.

The Rio Grande Foundation has produced a wide variety of research on transportation and fuel-tax issues. We’ve explained how current “infrastructure” projects are artificially inflated for favored interests, how revenue from gasoline taxes is diverted to unrelated expenditures, and why the private sector needs to become more involved in roads and highways.

But there’s another aspect of the debate worth exploring: Are “green” vehicles paying their fair share?

As the Pew Research Center notes, with “the rise of fuel-efficient vehicles, many states are looking for alternative sources of money to build and maintain their roads, bridges and other infrastructure.” The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 10 states (Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming) tack an additional registration fee onto electric and/or hybrid vehicles.

Why should “clean” vehicles pay up? Because the notion that gas taxes somehow correct for the negative environmental externalities of conventional engines is baseless. Even the EPA admits that when compared with “1970 vehicle models, new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are roughly 99 percent cleaner” in the release of “hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particle emissions.”

Eco-concerns aside, the gasoline tax was never a perfect user fee to maintain and expand roads and highways. Buy fuel for your lawnmower or ATV or generator, and you’ll pay the tax, even though the machines don’t impose any wear and tear on asphalt.

A true user fee would track the number of miles traveled, as well as the weight, of each vehicle. Revenue would be collected electronically, at the end of every month. The system would replace — repeat, replace — the taxes now levied on gasoline and diesel by government at the local, state, and federal levels. And it would neither favor nor penalize any type of fuel used. Gasoline, diesel, natural gas, electricity, or hydrogen wouldn’t matter.

But to get to a such a policy, revenue-ravenous pols would have to stop thinking that the “answer” to every transportation “problem” is a higher gasoline tax. Yes, that’s asking a lot. But as the recent vote on a tax for sugar-sweetened beverages in Santa Fe showed, greedy government can go only so far before citizens push back.

Congrats to the Taos students behind “See Something Save Someone.” The app, designed to prevent youth suicides, was made available for download on Google Play last week. While it’s embroiled in an unfortunate legal controversy “over project roles and rightful ownership,” the app’s value isn’t in doubt — earlier this year, it was one of just eight “Best in Nation” winners of the Verizon Innovative App Challenge.

But good news about a home-grown app should never lead to the kind of mindless, “New Mexico is on the technology map” happy talk that often accompanies coverage of STEM anecdotes. The fact is, when it comes to writing software for mobile devices, the state is far behind.

Last week Apple released a lengthy analysis of its employment impact in America, noting that since the launch of its App Store in 2008, “U.S. developers have earned over $16 billion” from selling to customers around the world. The company, using data compiled by the Progressive Policy Institute’s Michael Mandel, listed “jobs attributable to the App Store ecosystem” for each state. Errors of Enchantment ran the numbers, and not surprisingly, New Mexico was hardly a star in our region. Despite the political establishment’s constant touting of local, state, and federal “investment” in tech resources here, the Land of Enchantment ranked at the bottom in app jobs per capita. (See chart above.) Hip and Millennial-dense Colorado landed in the top spot, but note the performance of Utah. There’s nary a federally funded research and development center in the Beehive State, and college attainment is significantly lower than in its neighbor to the east. But Utah scored well, even making it onto Mandel’s list of the 25 states with the most total app jobs. What does it know that New Mexico doesn’t?

Recently, Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing had the privilege to do a short “Story of the Day” video for School Choice Media.

While New Mexico’s Legislature has utterly failed to act on school choice in recent years, Arizona’s Legislature recently enacted “alternative teacher certification.” As noted in the debate, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (of Arizona), the now retired justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was not considered qualified to teach civics in high school under Arizona law. The same remains true for retired scientists at the National Labs who might want to teach physics in New Mexico schools.

New Mexico’s Legislature attempted some reform when Republicans controlled the Legislature, but the unions fought it and ultimately killed it in the Senate. This is yet another way in which New Mexico is falling behind its neighbors. Watch the minute-long clip below:

#StoryOfTheDay by Rio Grande Foundation’s @PaulGessing: #Arizona Senate Bill Allowing Alternative #Teaching Certifications #Teachers, #Education, #EducationReform, #EdReform

A post shared by Choice Media (@choicemediatv) on Apr 27, 2017 at 7:36am PDT

Click here for registration form.

William Perry Pendley is the president and Chief Operating Officer at Mountain States Legal Foundation. He is also author of five books: It Takes a Hero (1994); War on the West (1995); Warriors for the West (2006); Sagebrush Rebel (2013), and Summary Judgment (2015).

Mountain States Legal Foundation is a public interest law firm with a special emphasis on the American West and land use/property rights issues. Its mission is to provide high-quality, effective legal representation for those fighting to own and use property, limited and ethical government, individual liberty, and the free enterprise system.

Pendley in particular is knowledgeable and passionate about land-use issues in the West. After eight years of President Obama and his efforts – along with the radical environmental movement – to lock up ever larger swaths of land, President Donald Trump is moving in the opposite direction.

What are some of the issues with federal land management and how does the ever-increasing federal estate impact private property rights? What can New Mexicans do to support their President? What are the legal ramifications of this battle? Lastly, how can we fundamentally reform the system of lands ownership in the West to prevent future abuses?

• Location:  Marriott Pyramid Hotel located at: 5151 San Francisco Road NE, Albuquerque, NM  87109.
• When:  Monday, June 12, 2017, 12:00 noon to 1:00pm.
• Cost:  Seating is limited and can be purchased at the discounted price of $30 until Monday, June 5, 2017; $40 after that.

This event is co-sponsored by the Rio Grande Foundation and New Mexico Business Coalition.

Click here for registration form.

Since January 2015, the Foundation has tracked announcements of expansions, relocations, and greenfield investments published on Area Development‘s website. Founded in 1965, the publication “is considered the leading executive magazine covering corporate site selection and relocation. … Area Development is published quarterly and has 60,000 mailed copies.” In an explanation to the Foundation, its editor wrote that items for Area Development‘s announcements listing are “culled from RSS feeds and press releases that are emailed to us from various sources, including economic development organizations, PR agencies, businesses, etc. We usually highlight ones that represent large numbers of new jobs and/or investment in industrial projects.”

In April, of 12,954 projected jobs, 8,210 — 63.4 percent — were slated for right-to-work (RTW) states:

While RTW states prevailed for the 28^th straight month, compulsory-unionism states fared rather well, scoring above average. But their performance warrants two significant caveats. A massive Amazon investment in New Jersey — 2,500 jobs — represented 52.7 percent of the jobs to be created in non-RTW states. (The online retailer is expanding rapidly in every corner of the country, and doesn’t appear to care much about RTW vs. non-RTW.) In addition, Missouri is a special case. The Show-Me State passed a RTW law earlier this year, but it does not go in effect until August. Yet Missouri accounted for 21.2 percent of non-RTW employment.

As for the sub-metrics the Foundation scrutinizes:

* Seventeen domestic companies based in non-RTW states announced investments in RTW states. Just three announcements went the other way.

* RTW prevailed in foreign direct investment, too. Sixteen projects are headed to RTW states, with three to occur in non-RTW states.

Marquee RTW investments included:

* Kentucky, which recently became RTW, landed the “new headquarters complex” for Interapt, “a tech development startup focusing on business innovation services and workforce development” that plans to hire 250 workers

* BeijingWest Industries, a China-based company “that designs and manufactures brake and suspension systems for the automotive market,” will hire 411 at its “first U.S. production facility,” to be built in Indiana

* Alabama — a real aerospace state — is slated to receive 800 new jobs, as part of Rocketdyne’s consolidation plan that will see the elimination of 1,100 positions in non-RTW California

Methodological specifics:

* All job estimates — “up to,” “as many as,” “about” — were taken at face value, for RTW and non-RTW states alike.

* If an announcement did not make an employment projection, efforts were made to obtain an estimate from newspaper articles and/or press releases from additional sources.

* If no job figure could be found anywhere, the project was not counted, whether it was a RTW or non-RTW state.

* Non-border-crossing relocations were not counted, border-crossing relocations were.

Voters in the liberal bastion of Santa Fe, in record numbers (for a special election), turned out to reject a tax on sugary drinks that proponents planned to use to fund a new pre-k system by a decisive 58 to 42% margin.

Said Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing of voters’ overwhelming rejection of the sugary drinks tax, “Santa Feans sent a clear message to elected officials in Santa Fe and throughout New Mexico that solving our problems is not as simple as a new tax and a new government program.”

“Furthermore,” noted Gessing, “New Mexicans’ backs are against the wall. Unemployment remains highest-in-the-nation” and the tax-hikers keep pushing for more. It is ironic that the first people to raise their voices and say ‘enough is enough’ are voters in one of the most liberal cities not just in New Mexico, but in the nation.”

Gessing noted that, “While activists in Albuquerque and Las Cruces were eyeing similar ballot measures in those communities and liberals in the New Mexico Legislature have long pushed to tap New Mexico’s “permanent fund” to pay for expanded pre-k, the decisive results of this vote would seem to throw cold water soda pop on similar efforts.”

Concluded Gessing, “New Mexico has a long way to go to turn its struggling economy around, but last night, Santa Fe voters avoiding doing further harm.”

Source: “The Impact of the American Health Care Act on New Mexico Medicaid and the New Mexico Economy”

Another taxpayer-subsidized economist has produced an analysis concluding that Medicaid expansion in New Mexico has been just nifty.

Kelly O’Donnell was once the research director of the far-left advocacy group New Mexico Voices for Children, and later worked for Bill Richardson’s administration. (In 2010, she told the Albuquerque Journal that she liked to “compose dirty haiku while driving.”) Now she’s a research professor with UNM’s Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy. Last week, she released “The Impact of the American Health Care Act on New Mexico Medicaid and the New Mexico Economy.” The eight-page “study” paints an apocalyptic scenario, warning that under an Obamacare repeal, if the state ditches its expansion of Medicaid and “loses federal funding from per capita caps,” the Land of Enchantment “would lose $11.4 billion in federal revenue, compromising 31,800 jobs, $1.6 billion in wages and salaries and $759 million in state revenues by 2026.” Stuffed with faulty assumptions and egregious omissions, the document is another example of why the state’s stable of government-university “scholars” desperately needs some ideological diversity.

As is always the case with left-wing promotion of government healthcare, O’Donnell uses words such as “coverage” and “insure” in relation to Medicaid. It’s a serious, and credibility-crushing, error. Calling Medicaid “insurance” doesn’t make it so. Medicaid is welfare, and thus, operates very differently than a policy an individual or employer purchases from Molina, Aetna, or Humana. The program’s health “benefits” are vastly overstated by its enthusiasts. And while O’Donnell, predictably, claims that expansion addresses the uncompensated-care problem, she does not admit that subsidies are subsidies — either way, taxpayers are on the hook.

Her economic-development argument for Medicaid expansion is equally weak. Healthcare employment has been rising in the U.S., and New Mexico, for decades. (As the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics noted a quarter-century ago, the “indispensable nature of its services, the steady pressure of demographic change, and the means by which health care is purchased, account for [the] industry’s unusually strong employment growth.”) Contrary to O’Donnell’s assertion, no analysis has been able to decisively demonstrate that continuing employment gains in healthcare are due to Medicaid expansion.

Finally, O’Donnell fails to note that Washington is broke, with $19.8 trillion in publicly held and intragovernmental debt and much, much more in unfunded liabilities. Fiscal reality will eventually induce sweeping cutbacks to entitlement programs. New Mexico would be wise to get ahead of the inevitable, and start transitioning to bolder, better healthcare policy today.

Finding the best reforms for a broken, unsustainable system, not propping up false notions about the “multiplier effect” and perpetual aid from Washington, should be subsidized academics’ priority. Taxpayers deserve it.

A report released in January by the Rio Grande Foundation detailed how Santa Fe Mayor Javier Gonzales misled the public in his quest for higher taxes to fuel government spending in his city. Now, his political allies and proponents of his regressive beverage tax are taking his deception to new heights with two misleading claims in a single television spot, which features a Santa Fe restaurant owner.

The first misleading claim is that “The tiny two cent per ounce tax is the only way to fund Pre-K.” The PAC running the ad was forced to change this text, which initially declined to mention that the tax was per ounce. A two cent per ounce tax on hundreds of beverages is anything but tiny. The tax on many beverages will cost as much as the beverage itself. And on some products, such as powder lemonade or iced tea mixes, the tax alone will be more than 200 percent the price of the product. Even a tax-lover like Mayor Gonzales can’t call that a “tiny” tax with a straight face.

The second misleading claim is that Santa Fe is “not getting the money from the state” for pre-kindergarten. An analysis of public records conducted by the Rio Grande Foundation found that this is simply not true.

Santa Fe Public Schools have received $5.75 million dollars for pre-k since 2014. State funding available to SFPS has increased by 275 percent in the last three years alone.

United Way of Santa Fe County also receives state funding for its pre-kindergarten program. Their funding from the state has increased by 60 percent since 2014, receiving a total of almost $1.4 million in the last three years.

What have Santa Fe Public Schools and United Way of Santa Fe County done with the $7.1 million in taxpayer dollars meant to fund pre-k? We’re not sure, but they haven’t used all of these additional funds to enroll new kids.

Despite receiving millions of dollars in new and additional state funding, Santa Fe Public Schools and United Way of Santa Fe County are serving fewer kids than they were three years ago.

United Way of Santa Fe County’s enrollment went from 96 students in 2014 to 68 in 2017 – a decline of 29 percent – even though their state funding increased by 60 percent.

At Santa Fe Public School, the $5.7 million it received over the past four years resulted in 11 fewer kids enrolled than in 2014.

Before pushing a massive tax increase that targets the poor and middle class, Mayor Gonzales should have looked to see what Santa Fe Public Schools and United Way of Santa Fe County are doing with the massive influx of state cash for pre-kindergarten programs.

If the need for pre-kindergarten in Santa Fe is as dire as the mayor and his political allies claim, there are probably kids in his community wondering, “Where’s our share, Javier?”

You can see the misleading ad here:

The Rio Grande Foundation almost never runs guest submissions, but we felt the following article was both powerful and important. The article relates to the Santa Fe soda tax which will be voted on tomorrow. Find out where you can vote here.

I am not big soda

My name is Sam Pick I am the owner of a Kaune’s, an independent grocery store that has been in business in Santa Fe for 120 years. Our store serves a cross-section of our community, from busy families stocking on basics like cereal and paper towels, to workers from nearby offices grabbing take-out lunch. We take pride in being a neighborhood gathering place and providing value to all of our customers.

When Kaune family’s was first established back 1896, it introduced Santa Fe to an exciting new product: Coca-Cola. Now, all these years later, our store is faced with the prospect of a huge beverage tax that would more than double the price of popular beverages like soda, iced-tea, juice drinks and sports drinks. If passed, this tax would have devastating effects on our business and countless others in Santa Fe.

Some supporters of the tax claim that “Big Soda” – the companies that produce the beverages that would be taxed – is fighting the tax just to protect their bottom lines. They have claimed that these companies would simply absorb the cost of the tax themselves. But make no mistake—it is the small businesses and consumers that will bear the brunt of this tax. Frankly, I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about whether the beverage producers make a profit or not. I’m worried about staying in business, protecting my employees’ jobs and providing good service and fair prices to my customers.

It’s not just my store and other businesses that would suffer if the beverage tax passes. Many hard working people in our city will no longer be able to afford their favorite drinks. We aren’t just talking about a few cents here and there: this beverage tax would raise retail prices on these drinks by an average of 38%. Your typical 99-cent 2-liter bottle would jump to $2.35, and a canister of powdered lemonade would skyrocket in cost from $6.98 to an eye-popping $28.74. These increases will put a big dent in my customers’ budgets and many of them will likely choose to shop online or outside the city for better prices. And if they’re buying their beverages elsewhere, they’ll probably buy their groceries there too—and that means lost revenue for businesses like mine.

If that happens, I would likely have to lay off some of my employees, many of whom have worked here for years and are like family to me. In a city that is as expensive as Santa Fe is these days, this would be devastating for them and their families, and for the continued growth of Santa Fe economy.

Like so many of my fellow Santa Feans, I’m all for providing quality Pre-K education for our city’s children. But taking money out of the pockets of hard-working working people and hurting local businesses is not the right way to do that.

A small victory was gained this week for truth and justice when Albuquerque Public Schools decided to restore middle school athletics. Regardless of one’s perspective on whether middle school sports is a “core” function of the education system, the fact that APS was trying to blame “inadequate resources” for cutbacks was a sham (as the Rio Grande Foundation pointed out).

What can we take away from this controversy? For starters, “business as usual” cannot continue at APS. It needs to be challenged for the good of our children and due to New Mexico’s sluggish economy and poor performance. We are spending too much to get too little from our State’s largest school district.

Another lesson I’d like to hammer home is that Gov. Martinez finally stood on principle on exactly the right kind of issue. Her previous hard-line stances on drivers licenses and teacher evaluations were on shaky ground (both politically and policy-wise), but in calling out APS, Martinez had the data and the moral high ground. She won. If only she had done this more often and more consistently on issues critical to turning New Mexico’s economy around.

She may be a “lame duck,” but this battle clearly showed that Martinez still has some fight in her. Now to make the principled case against raising taxes in an already struggling economy….

Last fall, Errors of Enchantment noted that New Mexico taxpayers were being forced to pay “dues” to the Aerospace States Association (ASA), “an organization of Lieutenant Governors and state appointed delegates” created to “promote a state-based perspective in federal aerospace policy development and support state aerospace initiatives that enhance student/teacher education outreach and economic development opportunities.”

We looked at the data, and found that all the corporate-welfare schemes implemented to promote aerospace in the Land of Enchantment were yielding zilch in results. But with Lieutenant Governor John Sanchez now the ASA’s chairman, a refresher course is necessary.

New Mexico is not an “aerospace state.” As the figures below, courtesy the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, indicate, employment in the sector is almost too small to measure — and dwarfed by comparable jobs in neighbor states.

Okay, that’s not entirely fair. New Mexico has a small population, and we have fewer citizens than each of our neighbors. That’s why a metric called “location quotient” is so helpful. It’s a ratio that allows “an area’s distribution of employment by industry, ownership, and size class to be compared to a reference area’s distribution.” The U.S. LQ is usually set at 1, with a score “greater than 1 [indicating] an industry with a greater share of the local area employment than is the case nationwide.” Below are the aerospace-employment LQs for New Mexico’s neighborhood.

Nationally, 25 states beat New Mexico on LQ employment, including places that aren’t known much for aerospace, including Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Alabama, and Vermont.

Great weather, low costs, and lots of open land. New Mexico should be a natural for aerospace. But no right-to-work law, a complicated and cumbersome GRT, a bloated and unaccountable “public sector,” and militant education-establishment resistance to change and choice surely contribute to the industry’s unwillingness to locate facilities here. Until broad and deep policy changes attract aerospace investment, it’s absurd for taxpayers to subsidize — and the lieutenant governor to chair — the ASA.

Gov. Susana Martinez has vetoed ALL funding for New Mexico’s institutes of higher education. This is not “just” the $700+ million from the General Fund. When all federal and state sources of revenue are factored in, the total is $3 billion.

We believe that much of this money (nearly all) will ultimately be reinstated. But, it got us thinking: why do states spend so much money on higher education in the first place? Impoverished New Mexico spends more than most states on higher ed with little to show for it. Should states spend ANY money at all on higher education? Our friends at the free market Michigan-based Mackinac Center give five good reasons “no.”

Here they are (look at the full link for data and justification of each point):

1) There is no link between higher education subsidies and economic growth, and none between college degrees and job creation.

2) More subsidies equal more waste.

3) When comparing earning power between college graduates and non-graduates, correlation is not causation, and the actual cost of college matters.

4) Ensuring that everyone has college schooling would not enhance the labor market — it would dilute a university degree.

5) Higher education may be the next bubble to burst.

I’d add an additional point: Spending on higher education benefits those who are likely to make more money than those who don’t. As the left-wing Demos policy group notes:

Using state taxes to fund public colleges is an exceptionally regressive policy on two fronts. First, college students — both entrants and graduates — are disproportionately middle-income and upper-income (especially traditional students)…Consequently, across-the-board public tuition subsidies direct more money to the upper classes than the lower classes, something other college financing regimes — income-based repayment, means-tested grants, to name just a couple — do not do.

Second, state taxes are generally regressive…

Yesterday, the federal government approved another exporter to ship “domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries that do not have a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States.” Golden Pass Products LLC was authorized to sell “up to the equivalent of 2.21 billion cubic feet per day” from its terminal in Jefferson County, Texas.

The nation has just 20 FTAs, so the vast majority of the planet’s LNG customers can be reached only after the U.S. Department of Energy grants permission, once it determines that the transactions will be “consistent with the public interest.”

Bureaucrats have signed off on two dozen such authorizations so far, and many more applications are pending. That’s good news, since the sky’s the limit for the LNG marketplace. Cleaner than coal, and vastly cheaper and more reliable than “green” sources, natural gas is the present, and the future, of efficient and affordable energy. (Earlier this year, even Japan, not much of an enthusiast for buying U.S. goods and services, took delivery of its first tankful of American LNG.)

What does the LNG boom mean for New Mexico? As gas fields closer to export terminals increase their shipments abroad, basins deep in the interior will pick up the slack for domestic consumption. That’s a very, very positive development for the Land of Enchantment. While production of petroleum here has risen, natural gas production has trended downward in the last decade. (See graph below.)

The U.S. will soon be a net exporter of natural gas — something said to be impossible by the “we’re running out of resources” cult not too long ago. New Mexico is well-positioned to benefit from the change. That means better times in the San Juan Basin, where Farmington posts one of the worst unemployment rates in the nation. (At 9 percent, joblessness there ranks #375 out of the 388 metro regions tracked by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.) Something to smile about in a state that’s grown used to a steady stream of depressing economic/fiscal stats.

Yesterday, the Albuquerque Journal asked, “What’s happening with New Mexico?”

Reporter Ellen Marks laid out the dismal statistics. The Land of Enchantment has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, “job growth … has slowed to a crawl,” and the state “has fewer jobs now than it did at the start of the recession in December 2007.”

New Mexico’s peak actually came a bit later, in February 2008, but it’s clear that the jobs situation here is abysmal. It’s been a few months since Errors of Enchantment looked at the list of states that have yet to surpass their pre-Great Recession employment levels. Since then, three underachievers — New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maine — have scratched their way into positive territory. Five states are still falling behind.*

As the graph above shows, Wyoming’s in truly terrible shape. The Cowboy State is down 7.1 percent since its apex. Next comes Connecticut, land of perpetual tax hikes. (The latest round is sure to work!) But close behind, in the third slot, is New Mexico — behind 1.63 percent since jobs crested, nine years ago.

In addition to noting our “stagnant economy,” the Journal‘s piece offered a curious look into the thinking of the state’s taxpayer-funded pooh-bahs of “economic development.” Jeff Mitchell, director of the University of New Mexico’s Bureau of Business & Economic Research, offered the standard — and self-serving — talking point that places with “well-educated labor forces are doing well.” (That’s far from true in every case, but never mind.) But he also averred that, as Marks put it, “the Great Recession … brought deep and structural changes to the state’s economy.” The economist claimed that “something’s changed, and no one really has a good answer or response to the problem.”

The Rio Grande Foundation begs to differ. The latest edition of Rich States, Poor States, published by the American Legislative Exchange Council, notes that states that tax and spend less “experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more.” So New Mexico, with a cumbersome gross receipts tax, severe addiction to federal spending, no right-to-work law, a vast welfare state, scary unfunded liabilities, and out-of-control “education” expenditures, is at a distinct disadvantage. (See the graph below for a look at how the state fares on ALEC’s variables.)

Sadly, free-market, limited-government policy options aren’t palatable to the pols who appropriate the funds for Mitchell’s salary. So, not surprisingly, he and his subsidized colleagues don’t make the case for right-sizing the public sector and empowering entrepreneurs as well as workers. New Mexicans who want to spark a sustainable revival of their state will have to look elsewhere for the tools needed to restore opportunity and prosperity.

* Forty-seven states experienced the same employment trend during and after the Great Recession — peak jobs just before the downturn struck, followed by a significant dropoff, then a climb back toward the previous level. But Michigan, Alaska, and West Virginia encountered different conditions, and are thus difficult to categorize. Jobs were disappearing in the Wolverine State well before the Great Recession struck. The Last Frontier lost only a small number of jobs in the downturn, then rebounded quickly, but has since fallen beneath its peak, driven by declining petroleum-linked employment. The Mountain State faced similar circumstances, rapidly regaining its employment level only to see jobs disappear in the coal industry in recent years. For these reasons, the three states are excluded from this analysis.

Source: New Mexico Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, 2005 and 2015 editions

Student “leaders” at the state’s government-run universities “firmly believe that access to higher education is more important than ever in New Mexico.” Then they should be delighted that between 2005 and 2015, more students attended the state’s postsecondary institutions, and more degrees/certificates were awarded. In addition, spending grew — substantially.

Data from the state’s comprehensive annual financial reports show that in the 2005 fiscal year, inflation-adjusted expenses on higher education stood at $2.424 billion. A decade later, the sum had grown to $3.042 billion. (See graph above.)

Another useful statistic is the share of higher-ed spending covered by “charges for services.” In 2005, 64.9 percent of expenditures were paid by tuition, fees, and the like. In 2015, that share had plummeted, to 51.5 percent.

So not only is spending up, significantly, but students are carrying a lighter share of the system’s overall costs. Something to remember, as the governor and legislators face off over her “wholesale elimination of the funding for higher education.”

The Rio Grande Foundation has clear and specific views on economic policy. We support concepts like “right to work,” school choice, and others that reduce government’s role in the economy and in picking winners and losers. There are valid critiques of any and all policy recommendations, but in a recent debate at NMPolitics.net RGF president Paul Gessing provided a detailed response to one naysayer.

Like so many New Mexicans, Art Terrazas grew up and was educated in New Mexico, but left the state for better opportunities elsewhere. From his perch in the D.C. area, home to 5 of the nation’s 6 wealthiest counties, Terrazas recently criticized several ideas put forth by the Rio Grande Foundation.

His critiques don’t hold up under scrutiny and his only actual policy recommendation, pre-K expansion, is already under way in New Mexico (the permanent fund hasn’t been tapped as some would like, but spending has grown dramatically under Gov. Martinez). Pre-k investment has also been tried with mixed results by the federal government (Head Start), and implemented in several states with mixed results.

What does Mr. Terrazas have to say about our particular ideas? Let’s start with “right to work.” For starters, “right to work” is hardly anti-union. Rather, workers should be able to choose to be part of a union and pay dues or be able to opt out.

Americans are flocking to “right to work” states. Between 2010 and 2016, states with “right to work” laws saw population growth of 6.2 percent, while states without them grew by 3.3 percent.

Terrazas asserts that California is among the “healthiest economies” nationwide. It is true that California has a strong technology sector and a private sector that New Mexico sorely lacks, but there has also been an ongoing exodus from California in recent years. It is hardly a model for other states to emulate, let alone New Mexico.

Prevailing wage (Davis-Bacon) repeal is another issue Terrazas takes issue with. I believe that construction workers on schools and roads should be paid based on market conditions. Terrazas believes that unions should collaborate with government to set wages. I think we’d be better off with more and better roads and schools built at a reasonable cost. Terrazas believes that one group of workers should be shielded from economic conditions at the expense of the rest of us (taxpayers) and our children.

This pattern of choosing special interests over taxpayers and market forces is what has made New Mexico poor in the first place.

When it comes to school choice, Mr. Terrazas really illustrates his ignorance of market processes. He highlights the limited number of private schools in Las Cruces as an obstacle to choice, but fails to realize that if parents and students are empowered to choose the school they prefer options will arise to fill that demand. And, since schools of choice must compete to serve their customers, those schools will face pressure to improve quality and student outcomes.

Terrazas talks a big game about “needing to try new ideas,” but the reality is that the Rio Grande Foundation is looking at what works elsewhere and is attempting to apply it to New Mexico.

Fast-growing Texas, Arizona and Utah are surrounding states that have “right to work” laws in place. Texas has no income tax while Colorado’s Constitution strictly limits spending growth. Surplus dollars are returned to the taxpayers and all tax hikes are voted on.

In the area of education, Arizona has long been a leader in school choice, getting better results at a much lower cost than New Mexico. Even more exciting is Arizona’s recent adoption of a cutting-edge school choice concept called “Education Savings Accounts.”

This new program will allow parents to withdraw their children from public district or charter schools and receive a deposit of public funds into government-authorized savings accounts. That money can then be used to pay for private school tuition and fees, online learning programs, private tutoring, community college costs, higher education expenses and other approved learning services and materials.

I think it will be a huge success that further separates Arizona from New Mexico in terms of educational outcomes. Unfortunately, New Mexico’s sole form of school choice (charter schools) is under attack in the Legislature. A moratorium bill barely failed on the House floor, with a few Democrats joining Republicans to stop it.

I suspect that if Terrazas actually put forth his own reform plan, it would be nothing more than a grab-bag of tired, left-wing ideas that have been tried and failed. I’d love to be proven wrong and I’d love to debate those ideas with him.

It is time for dramatic change in New Mexico. The Rio Grande Foundation may not have all the answers, but I’d sure like to see New Mexico try a few of them before it’s too late.

Paul Gessing is the president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

The debate over APS’ budget and whether they are spending their money in the highest and best service of their students is white hot. We at the Rio Grande Foundation consider this discussion long-overdue and important particularly given the likelihood of ongoing budget challenges in New Mexico.

It is very difficult to directly compare APS’ spending to that of districts outside New Mexico (school funding differs dramatically by state), but both the Census Bureau and the National Education Association have some information that we believe sheds considerable light on the issues, especially since APS accounts for such a large portion of the State’s student population.

Dowd Muska outlined some specific reform ideas recently.

We do know that according to the US Census Bureau, New Mexico schools spend a lot on administration relative to other states:

We also know that New Mexico schools spend a good deal per-pupil more than surrounding states:

Lastly, according to the NEA’s 2016 “Rankings and Estimates,” report (chart H-19), New Mexico’s capital spending is at the high end of national averages ranking 6th-highest in the nation (5th if you eliminate Washington, DC) in terms of capital spending per student:

APS’ role in all of this is up for discussion and debate. We strongly believe that APS has room to cut in some of these areas (as do other districts in New Mexico), but we are pleased to be having this long-overdue discussion and encourage Gov. Martinez to stick to her guns.

Source: “Clean Energy Momentum: Ranking State Progress,” Union of Concerned Scientists

When a far-left, eco-hysterical organization says you’re not measuring up when it comes to “driving clean energy,” that’s good news for ratepayers and taxpayers.

So New Mexicans can take comfort in the fact that their state is not a high achiever on politically correct power, “vehicle electrification,” and cutting carbon-dioxide “pollution.”

“Clean Energy Momentum: Ranking State Progress,” issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, names California as the top state making “clean energy happen.” Other “winners” include Vermont, Hawaii, Oregon, and Iowa.

The analysis suffers from the usual flaws one finds when greens examine energy issues. It touts the addition of solar and wind facilities, without mentioning their unimpressive capacity factors, risk to birds and bats, and massive taxpayer subsidies. It extols the growth of electric automobiles, while ignoring the fact that “fossil” fuels still power more than 99 percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet. It accepts the data supplied by green-power “trade associations” without question. It perpetuates wildly overblown claims about the linkage between asthma and conventional power plants. And despite the supposedly dire threat posed by carbon dioxide, it makes no note of the role nuclear power plays in avoiding emissions.

Fortunately for the Land of Enchantment, the state ranks in the top ten in only one of the analysis’s 12 metrics. New Mexico scores fairly high in solar and wind employment per capita — #7 for the former, #10 for the latter. But that’s it. It’s not a star in “renewable” electricity generation or growth. It’s not much for electric-vehicle adoption. And it has not set an “economy-wide target” to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to 2005 levels.

“Clean Energy Momentum” offers a solid overview of eco-oriented virtue signalling, but it’s bad economics, bad engineering, and yes, bad science. New Mexicans should feel pride, not shame, over failing to win the UCS’s praise.

Source: Labor Market Review, New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, March 31, 2017

Southern New Mexico graduation rates continue to rise, from 49 percent in 2007 to 80 percent last year. However, so do unemployment rates for the area, from 4.5 percent in February 2007 to 7.6 percent in February of this year.

A skilled and robust workforce should lead to lower employment, but why hasn’t that been the case in Doña Ana County?

That’s a very good question, and Jason Gibbs, of the Las Cruces Sun-News, should be commended for asking it.

But the problem runs far deeper than the unemployment situation in Las Cruces. The statewide graduation rate has risen in the last decade, too. And since February 2007, the number of students enrolled in government-run universities has grown, despite insignificant population growth in the Land of Enchantment. If more education makes a state more economically competitive, why does the state suffer from lousy job growth and the worst unemployment rate in the nation?

While the education establishment’s powerful, and well-funded, lobbying machine touts its activities as key to “economic development,” reality is far more complex. Transportation infrastructure, tax rates, the existence of a right-to-work law, energy prices, regulations — a state’s attractiveness to executives, investors, entrepreneurs, and innovators is a function of many factors.

In the Foundation’s ongoing analysis of RTW vs. non-RTW states, we’ve noticed that many places that don’t score particularly well on educational attainment/achievement (e.g., South Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Texas) are among the best job-creators. Nevada’s another interesting example. No state was smacked harder by the Great Recession. But while not known for stellar scholastic achievement, the Silver State has vanquished its horrific peak unemployment rate of 13.7 percent, dropping to the national figure today. (And the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center, the largest industrial park in America, continues to lure companies.) A low cost of doing business, no income tax, no corporate tax, and a RTW law have surely played major roles in Nevada’s stunning comeback.

As for states that are hip-deep in all types of degrees, it’s easy to find economic basket cases. Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey are desperate to reverse outmigration and job stagnation, despite highly educated populations.

The bottom line? Education alone can’t get it done. (Richard Vedder’s work on the subject is more than convincing.) New Mexico needs to look elsewhere to boost economic development.

There has been a lot of criticism of Gov. Martinez in the wake of her use of the veto pen in the wake of the 2017 legislative session. Tough economic times are not fun and New Mexico (unlike most other states in the union) remains in the midst of tough times.

Democrats in the Legislature recently spoke out saying “enough is enough” referring to budget cuts and there have been increasing calls for the Legislature to override certain vetoes.

On can argue the merits or demerits of many of the dozens of vetoes, but the big ones on the budget and tax hikes are rightfully getting the most attention. Those vetoes are the only thing standing between us and even worse economic conditions than we face now.

By any measure, New Mexico government spends more, often much more, than its more economically-successful neighbors. Yet, as a recent Wallethub report noted, New Mexicans get a poor return on their investment. Before raising taxes, it is time to make our government work better for its citizens and taxpayers.

But, if we want to preserve the level of government services we have, we need to grow the economy in order to pay for it. The Legislature has repeatedly refused to loosen regulations that would grow the economy.

• Right to Work is an idea that, in the world of state policy, has spread rapidly in recent years with Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri all embracing it in just the last few years;

• There is a lot of talk in Santa Fe about reforming the broken capitol outlay process, but repealing New Mexico’s “prevailing wage” law would free up about 20 percent of state public works dollars for other uses or for additional job creation (and better schools, bridges, and roads);

• School choice won’t have a large initial impact on the economy (same with the left’s pet project pre-K), but work force quality is undeniably an issue in our State. A better trained workforce produced by a choice-driven school system will do wonders for our State long-term and will give thousands of New Mexicans the tools they need to get out of poverty.

Each of these proposals were introduced in and moved through the New Mexico House when it was under Republican control. Unfortunately, each of these (and more) freedom-enhancing legislative ideas got nowhere when Democrats under Democrats.

So, New Mexico faces slow or no economic growth, high unemployment, budget deficits, and few prospects for turning this around outside of a miracle in the oil patch. One may quibble with many of Gov. Martinez’s moves and even her lack of a clear vision for New Mexico, but big-spending Democrats want to hit the accelerator as New Mexico heads towards the economic cliff. At least Martinez is scrambling to hit the brakes.

It is laughable that Democrats blame the Governor (or even the free market ideas of the Rio Grande Foundation as Santa Fe Mayor Javier Gonzales did recently). New Mexico is consistently ranked among the least economically free states in the Union. Our ideas have never been tried in any serious way in New Mexico.

For better or worse, New Mexico will soon realize the reality of “Stein’s Law”: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

New Mexico cannot continue to rely so heavily on federal largesse and mineral revenue. It must develop a strong private sector independent of government. This takes time, an educated/motivated workforce, and a favorable business climate. Governor Martinez did her best to stop dozens of policies that would have done great damage to our already poor business climate this session.

One can argue about the Gov.’s leadership style or her ability and willingness to compromise with Democrats, but without her veto pen this session, New Mexico’s already poor economic conditions would be much, much worse.

Paul Gessing is the President of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

Wisconsin, once a bastion of “progressivism,” continues to make policy shifts that would enrage “Fighting Bob” La Follette.

On Monday, Governor Scott Walker signed Senate Bill 3. The legislation bans government from adopting project labor agreements. That means public-sector entities soliciting bids for construction can no longer “enter into, adhere to, or enforce any agreement that requires, as a condition of employment, that the bidder or bidder’s employees become or remain members of, or be affiliated with, a labor organization or pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses of any kind or amount, or provide anything of value, to a labor organization or a labor organization’s health, welfare, retirement, or other benefit plan or program.”

According to Walker: “Accountable government means ensuring our taxpayers receive quality service. By forbidding state and local governments from requiring contractors to enter into agreements with labor organizations, we’re promoting healthy competition between contractors. At the end of the day, this means the contractor ultimately chosen for the project is the one that has demonstrated excellent service and will work at good value for Wisconsin taxpayers.”

It’s a pipe dream, given the current makeup of the legislature, but it would be nice to see such a ban enacted in New Mexico. As the sign above, outside the Loma Colorado Main Library in Rio Rancho, indicates, the Land of Enchantment is far from immune from the union-rewarding sweetheart deals.

As the New Mexico chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors noted, PLAs “increase construction costs by as much as 20 percent,” and discriminate against the vast majority of the state’s contractors, which are not unionized. Lawmakers who claim to be concerned about the fiscal crises facing government at all levels in our state should follow Wisconsin’s lead.

Public-employee compensation reforms, repealing most of the state’s prevailing-wage mandate, a right-to-work law, and now, a PLA ban? The Badger State continues to move forward on key fiscal/economic innovations. Can New Mexico make the same claim?