Tomorrow, we can hope, will mark the beginning of the end of the fight over the “copper rule.”

In 2013, the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, acting under 2009 legislation passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic governor, approved regulations governing groundwater at copper mines.

The mining industry praised commissioners for establishing “strict, consistent, clear, and comprehensive design, operational and closure requirements for protecting the quality of ground water impacted by copper mining operations today and after operations cease.” Radical eco-activists squealed that the regulations were inadequate, “an abdication of the state’s responsibility to protect groundwater — and a move to hand over the public’s water to private companies.”

Predictably, the battle made its way to court. But last year, appellants — including Ted Turner, the Gila Resources Information Project and the attorney general’s office — were dealt a severe blow by the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, Michael E. Vigil, and Linda M. Vanzi ruled that copper-rule conspiracy theorists had “not demonstrated that the [rule] provides any basis for reversal. We conclude that Appellants’ attacks on the Commission’s findings as unsupported by sufficient evidence or as being contrary to law do not warrant reversal.”

Now, it’s time for the state’s notoriously left-leaning High Court to weigh in. For the sake of the state’s economy and the workers who owe their livelihoods to the enormous horde of copper resources in Grant County, let’s hope that a majority of justices agree with Sutin, Vigil, and Vanzi.

There’s no better time for a vacation — or “staycation” — in New Mexico than fall. Combine cooler temperatures with the state’s unique culture, history, and scenery, and it’s an absolute joy to get out and explore the Land of Enchantment.

But for tourists looking for deals on goods and services during their journeys, some cities, towns, and villages are worth avoiding. New Mexico’s destructive gross receipts tax is mighty hefty in some spots. Below is a chart of the eight communities with the worst rates — all exceed 8.4 percent. Watch your wallets, tourists!

The folks over at “Bust the Bailouts” have posted data on the average 2017 price increases facing consumers in each state. We have distilled that down to show how New Mexicans will be impacted relative to our neighbors. Unfortunately, individual health insurance policy holders in New Mexico will see price hikes averaging about 40%. Oklahoma’s rate hikes will be a bit higher, but neighboring states will see somewhat smaller increases.

Also, the following chart appeared in the Albuquerque Journal on Thursday. When passed in 2010, it was promised the Law would “bend the cost curve (downward).” Things never really went “as promised,” but since 2014, the medical price index has leaped dramatically-higher than the broader consumer price index. This was no surprise to the Rio Grande Foundation and other free market advocates, but it was sold as a cost saving measure. That has clearly not happened.

Awhile back President Obama used his “pen” to circumvent Congress and ordered his Department of Labor to suddenly demand that both private and public sector employers pay time and a half overtime to any worker earning less than $47,476 annually. Without legislation or Congressional approval, Obama essentially doubled the old threshold of $23,660.

The largest impact of this change if/when it goes into effect will be to force employers to shift large numbers of previously-salaried workers into the hourly worker category with all of the bureaucracy and red-tape that entails. This rule is estimated to cost American employers $592.7 million in compliance costs alone, but it would seem the costs in lost productivity and added record-keeping/bureaucracy will be much higher.

Thankfully, Gov. Martinez has signed New Mexico on to a lawsuit (with 20 other states) challenging this rule.

The Rio Grande Foundation has consistently said that wages and benefits should be negotiated between workers and employees, but government consistently gets in the middle of those negotiations. What might appear to be a beneficial government “thumb on the scale” on behalf of workers, ultimately results in destroyed jobs and fewer opportunities.

In light of the decision by Facebook to locate a data center in Los Lunas, Travis Fisher, an economist with the Institute for Energy Research submitted this letter to the editor to the Albuquerque Journal. It was not published, but we believe that the information contained within should be made public and are doing so here:

The September 2^nd story titled “Facebook or no, some say alternative energy plan could benefit NM” bought into an enticing but completely wrong premise: that it’s possible to power a large data center with 100 percent renewable energy—from a solar facility in this case.

Skeptical readers need only ask what happens when the sun goes down to see that there’s something fishy about what Facebook is selling. In truth, data centers run on power from the grid, which is generated by a mix of sources: natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar.

The myth of the all-renewable data center is beginning to take root. We have seen similar arrangements not only from Facebook itself in other states, but also from Amazon, Apple, Google, and other tech companies that purchase renewable energy as part of a company-wide environmental agenda.

Why should we care?

Well, if the all-renewable myth were a harmless public relations stunt, I’d have little reason to speak out against it. However, these tech companies use their good standing and popularity to lobby for energy subsidies and mandates. They operate both individually and under trade associations like TechNet (“the voice of the innovation economy,” an organization that is shameless in demanding that states keep their outdated renewable energy mandates).

Companies like Facebook also misinform the public about the cost and reliability of renewable power. If wind and solar are actually as low-cost and high-value as conventional sources, why do these companies keep pushing for subsidies and mandates? The author quoted an environmentalist who said plainly that renewables “are less costly than coal and nuclear.” False—unless massive subsidies no longer count as costs.

With respect to reliability, the very notion of running a large facility on 100 percent renewable power gives people the impression that renewables are reliable, or that it’s feasible to run an entire power grid on 100 percent renewable energy (it’s not). Another environmentalist said companies could “have all their energy needs provided by renewables.” False—unless Facebook literally plugs its all-hours data center into a solar facility. Good luck with that.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis has issued statistics on real gross domestic product for 292 metropolitan areas in 2015. Nationally, growth was 2.5 percent. But disappointingly, just one of New Mexico’s four metro regions exceeded the figure for metro regions as a whole.

Surprisingly, Santa Fe saw growth of 4.4 percent, but GDP was lower in 2015 than it was in 2010:

At 2.0 percent, Albuquerque performed second best, but GDP was still below what it was in 2012:

Las Cruces dropped by 0.4 percent, and was well below its 2010 mark:

Farmington, which had been growing in recent years, saw a dip of 2.0 percent, driven by tough times in the oil-and-gas sector:

Grab hold of whatever positive figures you can from the new data, but there’s no questioning the fact that New Mexico simply hasn’t clawed its way out of the Great Recession yet. When it does, perhaps the days of perpetual budget deficits and consistently dismal employment numbers will disappear.

A map showing unemployment rates by state for August 2016 can be seen below. New Mexico’s 6.6 percent rate is 2nd-highest in the nation (only Alaska’s is higher). The list from BLS can be found here.

Because of their economic similarities and the fact that West Virginia has embraced free market reforms like “right to work” and repeal of the State’s “prevailing wage” law, the Rio Grande Foundation has been tracking unemployment in West Virginia as compared to New Mexico (below). The gap between New Mexico with its rising unemployment rate and West Virginia where the rate is trending downward is stark:

ALBUQUERQUE — New Mexico’s behavioral-healthcare system is in crisis. This is widely acknowledged. The administration of Gov. Susana Martinez took dramatic steps in 2013 when she suspended Medicaid payments to nonprofit providers due to suspicions of fraud. Right or wrong, this move set up partisan infighting that continues to this day.

Certainly the crisis is severe. The drug and alcohol related death rates are twice the national average. More citizens have mental illnesses than the national average, and the prevalence of suicide is greater in the Land of Enchantment than in all but three states, and rising.

But what’s more depressing than the behavioral-health epidemic is the state government’s inconsistent and failed attempts to address the problem. A new Rio Grande Foundation policy paper, “Healing Minds, Helping Taxpayers Reforming Behavioral Healthcare in New Mexico” outlines the issue and offers real-world solutions to the problem.

• The Behavioral Health Collaborative has failed. Get rid of it.

• States with high-performing behavioral health systems do not necessarily spend more on substance abuse and mental illness (besides, New Mexico does not have more available to spend). The key is to use what funding is available in the most effective ways possible.

• An expansion of mental-health courts would be a wise investment. Diverting offenders with behavioral issues from jail to the mental health care system is proven to be effective.

• For those with a chronic condition who refuse help despite multiple arrests and/or hospitalizations, a stronger approach is need. Assisted outpatient treatment is a court-ordered plan that can include medication, tests, therapy, training, or counseling. In the words of the Treatment Advocacy Center’s Brian Stettin, AOT “leads to reduction of hospitalization and criminal acts,” and reduces the number of “people…getting treated in jails or prison for mental illness.”

• Finally, New Mexico’s behavioral-health workforce is inadequate – a harsh reality exacerbated by the governor’s decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. Training public employees in Mental Health First Aid and expanding the state’s system of peer support can help compensate for an insufficient number of professional caregivers.

“Reforming behavioral healthcare in New Mexico will be a long process,” said D. Dowd Muska, the Rio Grande Foundation’s research director. “But the kind of thinking that brought so many failures in the past shouldn’t be employed to forge a new strategy to combat substance abuse and mental disorders. The taxpayers and recipients of behavioral health services alike deserve more effective options.”

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

It’s about as wise an aphorism as you’re likely to hear, but when it comes to “Spaceport America,” it never seems to apply.

Last week the Las Cruces Sun-News reported that “construction of a southern road from the Upham exit off of Interstate 25 to Spaceport America could begin in April.” A memorandum of understanding must first be signed between the BLM and the New Mexico Spaceport Authority’s board of directors before work can begin. A construction contract could be signed as soon as February. Approval has already been granted for $14 million worth of severance-tax bonds to pay for the 24-mile route.

According to Davin Lopez, a Spaceport Authority board member and president and chief executive officer of the Mesilla Valley Economic Development Alliance, the southern road is essential for the spaceport, because it “is not only a center for innovation, it’s a destination too. We need access, and easy access.”

If Lopez has any evidence that the hundreds of millions of dollars New Mexico’s taxpayers have “invested” in the spaceport have produced any innovation, the Foundation would love to see it. Other than a smattering of launches by UP Aerospace’s sounding rockets, next to nothing has happened at the facility. No payloads have been sent into orbit. Not a single tourist has made a suborbital jaunt. SpaceX, Elon Musk’s game-changing launch company, is active in Texas and Florida. Ditto for Blue Origin, run by Internet billionaire Jeff Bezos.

Rather than double down on the boondoggle-in-the-desert, the state should embrace the proposal floated by Sen. George Munoz (D-Gallup) in 2015: Require the spaceport authority and the general services department, “in consultation with the New Mexico finance authority … [to] develop and put into place … a marketing plan that will advertise and promote the sale of Spaceport America to potential national and international buyers.”

For an instructive look at why government shouldn’t pick winners and losers in the marketplace, read “Tax credits hurt cash-strapped state,” which ran in Sunday’s edition of the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Reporter Bruce Krasnow explored a credit designed to “provide an incentive for urban and rural businesses to create and fill new high wage jobs in New Mexico.” The policy actually empowered employers to find “loopholes that were soon costing the state millions of dollars in lost taxes without creating … well-paying jobs.” Even worse, “among those who have cashed in are companies largely funded with taxpayer money to begin with. Lockheed Martin received a break of $4.8 million, and Los Alamos Technical Associates received $337,000. Both are part of partnerships that manage the national laboratories in New Mexico.”

But left unexamined in Krasnow’s article was the big picture: How have wages fared during the era of the High Wage Jobs Tax Credit? The answer won’t come as a surprise. Far from spurring the creation of “industry clusters” with lucrative compensation, the tax perk has failed to move the needle on New Mexicans’ pay. Between 2004, when the credit was enacted, and 2015, the median hourly wage in the state rose from an inflation-adjusted $15.31 to $15.54. That’s right — less than a quarter, in more than a decade.

Looking at our neighbors, New Mexico’s growth of 1.5 percent ranked second to Arizona’s rock-bottom performance of 1.2 percent. Oklahoma grabbed the top slot (6.1 percent), followed by Texas (4.1 percent), Utah (2.6 percent), and Colorado (2.6 percent.)

How many more times do policy analysts and reporters have to expose New Mexico’s economic-development gimmicky for the failure it is, before Santa Fe embraces deregulation, tax reform/relief, school choice, and a right-to-work law? We know what doesn’t work. Why not try something different?

As the Albuquerque Journal recently reported, New Mexico saw some modest gains in median income, but that is little consolation when one compares New Mexico’s performance to that of its neighbors (or the nation at large). Full data available here.

According to the data, New Mexicans’ median incomes grew faster than only two states: New Jersey and Idaho between 2014 and 2015. Obviously, New Mexico trailed the national average dramatically with a growth rate less than 1/3rd that experienced by the nation as a whole. Despite both New Mexico and Texas allegedly being reliant on the same oil and gas industry, New Mexico’s median rate of growth was 1/4th that of Texas.

New Mexico has always been poor, but it is clear that if something doesn’t change quickly, New Mexico is going to fall further behind its neighbors and the nation as a whole.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold – William Butler Yeats

New Mexico’s budget is in crisis, and like a mushroom, the public is being kept in the dark and fed manure.

The Rio Grande Foundation has been out in front on the budget issue, discussing it since the 2016 legislative session concluded. We have applauded Gov. Susana Martinez for pledging not to raise taxes and have put forth a variety of budget cuts that would more than fill the current $600 million deficit.

Unfortunately, rather than having an open and honest discussion about the difficult decisions facing our state, both sides seem more content to sling mud and bury their heads in the sand.

The reality is that New Mexico government is far too big. We can’t afford it. According to Ballotpedia, the state spent $8,197 per person in 2015. Neighboring Texas spent $4,098, about half of New Mexico’s total. New Mexico’s spending far outpaced each of our neighbors, even Colorado – the latest “purple-state” model for some New Mexico liberals – which spent $6,048 per person.

So there is room to cut, and kudos to Martinez for demanding those cuts. It sure beats Democrats’ blanket statements that K-12 and higher education (57 percent of the budget) are “off the table.” But it is now time for specifics from all sides. The governor, House Republicans, Senate Democrats and the various liberal and conservative interest groups should be plotting a path forward. After all, we are all in this together. It is time for a serious discussion about the forward part.

The Rio Grande Foundation has a detailed plan. It is available at our website for all to see. It includes things that Democrats might like, including legalizing and taxing marijuana sales, eliminating corporate welfare programs and addressing athletic department subsidies.

Our plan also includes things Republicans might like, including cutting K-12 spending, especially on administration, reducing the proliferation of branch campuses in higher education and eliminating film subsidies.

New Mexico’s Higher Education Payrolls

The Rio Grande Foundation strongly supports open government and transparency. To that end, the Foundation regularly requests public records and posts them online in an effort to make public records more publicly-available. It is our position that all colleges and universities should take the initiative to post this information on their websites (and some do).

The list below is payroll listings from each school for 2015:

Central New Mexico Community College (from their website)

Clovis Community College

Doña Ana Community College

Eastern New Mexico University

Highlands University

Luna Community College

Mesalands Community College

New Mexico Junior College

New Mexico Military Institute (part 1)

New Mexico Military Institute (part 2)

New Mexico State University (from Las Cruces Sun-News)

Northern New Mexico Community College

San Juan College

Santa Fe Community College

University of New Mexico (from their website)

Western New Mexico University

Dan Lewis, president of the Albuquerque City Council, offers some good and bad ideas today in an op-ed in the Duke City’s daily. But one proposal is stellar: “The Albuquerque Public School District has been plagued by scandal and failing outcomes for too long. Parents, teachers, and community advocates for our children have found that it is near impossible to hold district bureaucrats accountable. Now is the time to deconstruct this large unaccountable school district into multiple smaller districts. City leaders can stand up for our students and teachers by helping bring about the best kind of oversight — local accountability.”

Government education in America has a myriad of problems. But bigness is one of the biggest. A 2006 paper by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that in “the 50 years between 1930 and 1980, the number of school districts in the United States declined from almost 120,000 to 15,000 (a number that remains unchanged from 1980 through the present). During approximately the same period, the number of schools fell in the U.S. from over 225,000 to less than 100,000. Despite a 70 percent increase in the nation’s population, the number of school districts decreased by 87 percent and the number of schools decreased by 69 percent.”

What’s all that consolidation achieved? Not much — student-proficiency levels are lousy, and educrats’ labor productivity has been negative.

So Lewis’s idea deserves a serious discussion. But why stop at deconstructing APS? Statewide, school districts suffer from another problem: Local taxpayers don’t have enough “skin in the game.” More than two-thirds of K-12 government education in New Mexico is funded from state revenues. Only Idaho, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Vermont have larger shares.

Education economist Caroline Hoxby has found that “both students and taxpayers are better off under locally based systems of school funding and school control.” Shifting funding away from state sources, and toward property taxes and local GRTs, would be another way to foster the local accountability Lewis seeks.

On Election Day, voters in Santa Fe County will be asked if they support “a countywide gross receipts tax for behavioral health services that would increase the aggregate gross receipts tax rate by up to one-eighth of one percent (0.125%).”

There’s no question that mental disorders and substance abuse, in the county, and throughout the state, are at epidemic proportions. (The Foundation will soon issue a paper on the subject.) But there’s ample reason for Santa Fe County voters to express skepticism, not support, for a new tax. An example to the south is instructive.

In February 2015, the Bernalillo County Commission approved a one-eighth percent GRT hike. A press release claimed the revenue generated would be dedicated to “proven ways to better manage the high cost of addiction, homelessness and mental health problems. These issues impact families throughout the community and drive up the cost of public services, especially at the Metropolitan Detention Center.”

At the time of the vote, a skeptical commissioner warned that it was “important that the county seek collaboration from the city, state, University of New Mexico Hospital, nonprofit and private sectors before throwing $20 million of your hard-earned tax dollars at a problem and effectively striking out alone.” A colleague agreed, lamenting that there was “no plan for how that money would be spent, managed and leveraged with other government and private resources. No plan for how we use the money set aside for mental health services to create positive and lasting results in our community.”

Over a year after the tax increase took effect, the Albuquerque Journal editorialized that the county was “still working on that plan for new services to spend it on,” but had shifted “a small part of that new revenue to backfill a county budget shortfall,” and devoted “$1.3 million from the new tax revenue to pick up the cost of an existing housing program that helps inmates coming out of jail, freeing up $1.3 million for basic county operational costs.” In addition, “new program proposals are not even in the pilot phase because staffers are still working with other agencies on how to carry them out.”

No one would argue that behavioral health in New Mexico isn’t in dismal shape. But it’s not at all clear that tax hikes are a desirable way to tackle the problem.

I’m not sure why New Mexico’s congressional delegation — seemingly led by Sen. Heinrich — had the pleasure of announcing that Facebook will be building a new data center in Los Lunas, but that’s the big news today. And, considering that one of New Mexico’s leading economic development consultants said yesterday that the State was facing “an economic death spiral,” we’ll take all the good news we can get.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have raised concerns about the subsidies and tax breaks as well as the impact the facility will have on the electrical grid, but at this point all we can do is hope that Facebook’s presence in the Land of Enchantment has a positive impact on the broader economy.

We know that New Mexico is in dire need of new private sector jobs and that Facebook will provide a few hundred short-term construction jobs and about 50 “permanent” jobs, but long-term the emphasis must be on implementing broad-based free market policies like “right to work,” repeal of our “prevailing wage” law, and tax reform (to name just a few) that make our State more attractive to small businesses and entrepreneurs. Doling out massive subsidies and tax breaks on a “one-off” basis is not a good approach.

Will New Mexico “Like” this Facebook deal years from now? We’ll see. but given the problems we currently face, some optimism is in order.

Congratulations to the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology for being named College Factual’s best value for physics, engineering, chemical engineering and mechanical engineering, computer science, and physical sciences. Tech landed in the second slot for mathematics. It was #3 for computer and information sciences, and #5 for electrical engineering.

But the school’s stellar performance is offset by an ugly reality: New Mexico is not creating the high-tech jobs needed to keep grads in the state. In 2014, Tech’s president told reporter Mike Bush that “70 percent of his graduates are forced to travel to states such as Texas, Arizona and California for employment.”

It’s likely that nothing has changed since then. The Brookings Institution recently updated its analysis of “advanced industries,” and as the Albuquerque Journal’s Winthrop Quigley noted, despite Sandia National Laboratories, Intel, and the University of New Mexico’s attempts to “license its technologies to local entrepreneurs,” employment in the sector “declined 1.4 percent from 2010 to 2013 and grew not at all from 2013 through 2015. The output of those industries declined 0.6 percent from 2010 to 2013 and declined 2.3 percent from 2013 to 2015. Nationally, output grew 2.7 percent from 2013 through 2015, and employment grew 2.46 percent.”

Quigley examined Albuquerque data, but the statewide picture is just as grisly. Employment growth, between 2014 and 2105, was worse in only Wyoming, Alaska, and Vermont. (The top five states for job-creation all have a right-to-work law.) New Mexico’s overall output during the year was negative — and just one other state saw a decline.

Build a solid science-and-technology university, but fail to adopt economic-development policies that will offer the school’s grads job opportunities. It doesn’t get dumber than that.

The “Panhandle Import Reduction Initiative” will hold a rally on September 27 in Carlsbad, to support its effort to reimpose a quota on foreign oil.

Those interested in New Mexico’s economic health should attend the event — and stage a counter-protest.

The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association is opposed to the initiative’s agenda, as are the Texas Oil and Gas Association, the South Texas Energy and Economic Roundtable, the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association, and the Permian Basin Petroleum Association. The organizations understand that free trade in black gold can be disruptive, but is preferable to the allocative inefficacy that results from protectionism founded on specious, Eisenhower-era claims about “national security.” Besides, U.S. exports are on the rise. As USA TODAY reported last month, “U.S. crude oil is increasingly finding markets around the world.” Japan is a customer, as is Italy, China, Israel, Panama, and Switzerland. What happens if countries decide to impose quotas of their own?

Yes, low prices have curtailed petroleum production — not just in New Mexico, but nationally. But the rollback is a setback, not a catastrophe. New Mexico’s production peaked in May 2015, and has fallen by 10.2 percent since then. That’s less than the national decline. U.S. production maxed out in June 2015, and is down 11.8 percent. Despite Saudi Arabia’s attempt to destroy the fracking-enabled boom in U.S. petroleum, producers are holding on. It hasn’t been pretty. But protectionism is no “solution” to pain in the oil patch.

Daniel Fine, an ex-MITer now with New Mexico Tech’s New Mexico Center for Energy Policy and the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, is a “founder” of the Panhandle Import Reduction Initiative. So it appears that taxpayers are subsidizing a policy proposal that’s sure to damage the state’s economy. That needs to stop, now.

A few years ago, all we heard from New Mexico’s “progressive” community of activists and politicians was that New Mexico needed “universal pre-kindergarten.” But with little fanfare, as illustrated in recent opinion pieces by Allen Sanchez and Sister Juanita Gonzales, both of whom represent St. Josph’s CHI, the discussion seems to have shifted to tapping the permanent fund for home visits.

Is this shift happening because Gov. Martinez has been expanding pre-K programs already, without tapping the permanent fund? It seems logical that when a “conservative” Republican is doing what you want already, the obvious strategy is to move on to another item on your wish list (home-visits).

Interestingly, despite all the recent hoopla about tapping the permanent fund for home visit programs, no legislation to that effect has even been introduced in the Legislature. HB 25  was introduced by Rep. Madalena in 2015. The bill would have set up a home visit program under Medicaid, but it wouldn’t have tapped the permanent fund to do so. The fiscal impact report also leaves much to be desired as all it says about future expenditures is: “Unknown, potentially significant.”We knew that though….

While Sanchez and Gonzales appear to be opportunists, using the recent deaths of children in our State to advance their agenda, there are many issues that need to be discussed before New Mexico policymakers start down the path of major spending on “home visitation.”:

1. ObamaCare is dramatically-increasing spending on these programs. What has the experience/evidence been?
2. How much will home-visitation programs cost?
3. The idea of government bureaucrats showing up at your door to “help” you parent isn’t necessarily attractive to some folks (for good reason). Has the “home-visit” program been abused and what can be done to prevent abuse?
4. Before we move into home-visits, it might be worth studying the impact of recently-expanded pre-K. After all, we ARE in a serious budget situation. Is pre-K effective in NM where it hasn’t been in other states? Maybe pre-K spending should be shifted over to some pilot programs on home-visiting rather than just tapping into the permanent fund?
5. What will the impact of this be on the permanent fund which has been impacted by low oil and gas prices?

The National Museum of Nuclear Science and History “is the only Smithsonian Affiliate Museum in the city of Albuquerque.” Chartered by Congress in 1991, it is “the official Atomic Museum of the United States.”

The NMNSH is a cool place to visit, but it deserves special commendation for offering programs “specifically for homeschool students ages 5-15 … bi-weekly in September and then monthly throughout the school year.”

KRQE’s morning show recently interviewed the museum’s David Gibson, who demonstrated a “Science Is Everywhere” experiment.

Let’s hope that many homeschooling families take advantage of the museum’s programs. How many students are homeschooled in New Mexico? No one know for sure, but the Coalition for Responsible Home Education estimates between 11,210 and 14,947 — meaning taxpayers, by avoiding the cost of government schooling, are getting a break equal to as much as $150 million.

But more importantly, as Brian D. Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute notes, homeschooled students “score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests,” perform “well, typically above average, on measures of social, emotional, and psychological development,” and “are commonly involved in activities such as field trips, scouting, 4-H, political drives, church ministry, sports teams, and community volunteer work.”

A key component of the education-freedom movement, homeschooling has much to offer, both in New Mexico and throughout the nation. Kudos to the NMNSH for recognizing, and lending a hand to, the state’s homeschooling community.

Americans, across the partisan spectrum, support the licensing of so-called mid-level dental practitioners like dental therapists. This is the finding of new polling data from the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation.

Conducted at the end of June, the ATRF poll found that 79% of likely voters support the creation of mid-level providers that could perform dental care services such as basic extractions and hygiene plans

And, despite what seems to be a gaping philosophical gulf between conservatives and liberals, red-states and blue-states in this Election Year, support for dental therapists and mid-level practitioners was remarkably consistent (and strong) across partisan lines.

Grover Norquist, the national anti-tax activist who often draws the ire of left-wing activists, has explained why he and his organization supports these reforms.

In an interview with Wendell Potter at the Huffington Post, ATR president Grover Norquist went further in explaining his organization’s interest in the issue:

“When I asked Norquist recently why he has gotten involved in the fight to expand the dental workforce to include mid-levels—often called dental therapists—he told me it’s because, in his view, opponents are engaging in tactics to preserve a profitable status quo at the expense of millions of Americans. To him, this smacks of “crony capitalism” in which businesses and professionals exert influence on government officials, usually through campaign contributions and lobbyists, to get favorable treatment.”

Of the opportunities these new mid-level dental practitioner positions present, Grover went on to note:

“It’s going to have significant pay off, not only for people trying to move ahead in their careers and for consumers who need dental care” but also for dentists, who, Norquist notes, will be able to spend more time doing more complex, higher end procedures.”

“Taxes haven’t gone up since 1993. That’s the last time we’ve raised alcohol taxes.”

Get used to hearing that argument. A lot.

“Alcohol Taxes Save Lives & Money” is lobbying to raise New Mexico’s taxes on alcohol by 25¢ a drink. The organization claims that “given our budget deficit, it makes sense to require the drinkers causing [alcoholism] problems to pay for a portion of them, rather than cutting the jobs and services provided to all New Mexicans.”

Regardless of when alcohol taxes were last hiked — is there ever a good time to implement a bad idea? — the more interesting question is how New Mexico compares to its neighbors. And a quick look at the Tax Foundation’s invaluable maps on alcohol taxes reveals that the Land of Enchantment is already overtaxing adult beverages.

New Mexico is tied with Utah for the highest beer tax in the region:

New Mexico has the highest wine tax (Utah does not levy a tax, since it controls wine sales within its borders):

New Mexico ranks second to Utah’s almost comically high tax on distilled spirits:

No one disputes the state’s depressing alcohol-abuse statistics. But as the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity’s Jason Stverak noted: “Research by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has found that hardcore alcohol abusers are affected little by increases in price, which have a greater effect on light and moderate drinkers.”

So don’t buy the spin that a higher per-drink tax is a low-impact way to close budget deficits and combat alcoholism. It’s just another way for the state’s political establishment to avoid the serious work of right-sizing New Mexico’s bloated budget.

ALBUQUERQUE — New Mexico policymakers will meet in Santa Fe later this month to address major budget deficits. The Rio Grande Foundation has previously outlined several specific ideas for policymakers, but none of New Mexico’s political leaders have outlined a detailed plan to address the issue to date.

In this brief, “Long Term Care: Much-Needed Cost-Savings for New Mexico,” the Rio Grande Foundation and the Center for Long-Term Care Reform add another potential area of cuts to the mix totaling as much as $100 million in savings to New Mexico in the area of Medicaid.

These cuts should appeal to both Democrats and Republicans alike. For Democrats, it is worth noting that reforms to Long-Term Care under Medicaid would reduce Medicaid’s generosity towards affluent senior citizens looking to shield their assets. For Republicans, $100 million in savings would contribute significantly to making good on Gov. Martinez’s efforts to close the budget deficit without raising taxes.

As discussed in the brief, Gov. Martinez and the HSD should work with the state legislature and the federal CMS to:

(1) Cut the home equity exemption to the federal minimum (currently $552,000);

(2) Maximize estate recoveries to bring in an extra $5 million per year in non-tax revenues;

(3) Curtail long-term care financial eligibility loopholes wherever possible, and

(4) Educate the public that long-term care is a personal responsibility for which everyone one needs to plan, save, invest or insure.

(5) Promote the state’s Long-Term Care Partnership Program

While reforming long-term care presents a current opportunity at Medicaid savings, absent reforms, it is another area that could have dramatic, negative impacts on New Mexico’s budget. Long-term care costs skyrocket after age 85. New Mexico’s 85-plus population is only two percent now (28^th nationally), but it’ll be three percent (10th) by 2032, about when their Trustees say Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent.

Concluded Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, “New Mexico policymakers face some tough decisions in closing the gaping budget gap, but ending the fleecing of taxpayers by the Medicaid planning industry should be an easy move.”

The Foundation is tracking 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 August, of 14,537 projected jobs, 10,591 — 72.9 percent — were slated for RTW states:

In the sub-metrics the Foundation scrutinizes, RTW maintained its impressive dominance.

Eighteen domestic companies based in non-RTW states announced investments in RTW states. Just one announcement went the other way.

RTW prevailed in foreign direct investment, too. Seventeen projects are headed to RTW states, with one to occur in a non-RTW state.

RTW job creation was particularly impressive given that two enormous distribution centers in non-RTW states were announced last month — QVC in California and Under Armour in Maryland. (Each will employ 1,000 workers.)

Marquee RTW investments included Charles Schwab Corporation’s pick of Texas for a regional campus (1,200 jobs), Deutsche Bank’s expansion of its Florida office (350 jobs), and Honda’s decision to hire 250 new workers at its South Carolina manufacturing facility for all-terrain and side-by-side vehicles.

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.