Tired of the budget shenanigans in Santa Fe? Grab a copy of the October issue of Smithsonian magazine. The cover story explores the battle over the migration of the jaguar (Panthera onca) back into the United States.

Author Richard Grant profiles “El Jefe,” the “fourth documented male jaguar to make the border crossing in the last 20 years.” Hudbay Minerals “intends to build a gigantic open-pit copper mine” in the cat’s territory, and eco-leftists are … well, you can guess how they’re reacting.

Grant deserves credit for explaining that it was legal action by the Center for Biological Diversity that had the federal government designate six units of “critical habitat” for jaguars. But he fails to mention the lawsuit filed by the New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, and New Mexico Federal Lands Council over the feds’ inclusion of New Mexico in the territory.

Last year, the three groups filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, claiming that the habitat designation subjects “private and public property to regulation which impairs Plaintiffs’ interests in fuel and fire risk reduction projects on forest lands, infrastructure projects, and development of range improvements.”

There is no evidence that any of the cats occupied Unit 5 (102,727 acres, in Arizona and New Mexico) or Unit 6 (7,714 acres, entirely in New Mexico) when the jaguar was listed as an endangered species, and thus, the parcels are “not essential for … conservation.” And as can be seen from the map above, the New Mexico “habitat” is far from El Jefe’s hunting grounds, in the Santa Rita Mountains in Arizona.

The outcome of the lawsuit remains anyone’s guess, but the compliant, written by attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation, makes a persuasive argument. Time will tell if jaguars re-occupy the Southwest in any significant way. But at this point, considering any portion of New Mexico “critical habitat” for the species appears to be another case of federal overreach.

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 September, of 14,498 projected jobs, 10,591 — 87.1 percent — were slated for RTW states:

As for the sub-metrics the Foundation scrutinizes:

* Sixteen domestic companies based in non-RTW states announced investments in RTW states. Five announcements went the other way.

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

* Domestic relocations were tied, with Velocity Resource Group moving from Illinois to Florida and Solid Gold Pet moving from South Carolina to Missouri.

* One foreign-owned firm relocated its headquarters — moving from Pennsylvania to North Carolina.

Marquee RTW investments included NCR’s expansion of its Atlanta campus (1,200 jobs), Finland-based Huhtamäki’s selection of Arizona for a manufacturing and distribution center (300 jobs), and UPS’s pick of Utah for an operations facility (195 jobs).

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.

The Legislature has convened in Santa Fe to address the massive budget shortfall. The Rio Grande Foundation has made elimination of New Mexico’s $50 million film subsidy program a cornerstone of its budget-cutting efforts. And, yesterday, a new study (the third) was released by the New Mexico Film Office which purports to study the economic impact of the subsidy program, this time on tourism.

Let’s recap: Study 1 found that “film production activity has produced an estimated $0.33 in state taxes for each dollar in production incentive granted.” In other words, the State loses 67 cents in tax revenue every time a dollar goes out the door to the film program.

Study phase 2 talked about employment data, but provided nothing really new about the economic impact of the program.

Now, we are told by industry supporters that phase 3 provides “definitive proof that movies make money for New Mexico.”

The latest report attempts to attribute a financial impact to the film industry in the areas of tourism and educational programs. The study makes some assumptions (high, low, and moderate), but how many people are making a special trip to come to New Mexico to see Walter White’s house from Breaking Bad? How much money is being spent here that wouldn’t otherwise be spent? And, more importantly, how many tax dollars are flowing into the State from film tourism? The new study’s assumptions are simply impossible to justify.

Lastly, the educational programs issue is just a red-herring.

Unfortunately, legislators are being asked to address a massive budget shortfall. Every interest group will say that their spending is ESSENTIAL. Fortunately, as principled liberals will point out, we know the film subsidy is one easy area to cut.

As legislators meet in Santa Fe to resolve the state’s hideous budget imbalance, one thing they might consider addressing is taxpayers’ tab for prescription drugs. A new report by the Legislative Finance Committee found that between fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2016, state spending on meds prescribed by healthcare professionals rose by 54 percent.

The report reviewed “prescription drug spending by 10 state agencies and entities,” including the Human Services Department (Medicaid), the Interagency Benefits Advisory Council, Department of Health, UNM and UNM Hospital employee plans, Albuquerque Public Schools, the General Services Department, the Corrections Department, and the Children, Youth and Families Department.

Given the governor’s profoundly unwise decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, it was no surprise that the healthcare program for “the poor” drove the spike in RX expenditures. Average recipients per month grew from 559,292 to 810,157. The annual number of prescriptions issued rose from 4.4 million to 6.6 million. Thus, total spending rose from $231.7 million to $423.7 million — an increase of 83 percent.

The DOH actually saw a decline in prescription costs, as did the CYFD. But the prison system’s bill ballooned by 160 percent. State-employee and retiree health plans were up 21 percent. APS’s costs rose 34 percent. UNM increased by 42 percent; UNMH by 76 percent.

Add it all up, and prescription drugs cost taxpayers $680.1 million in 2016. To put that amount in perspective, it’s more than 10 percent of the entire General Fund, and more than the estimated deficit for fiscal 2017.

The report makes a couple of vague cost-control recommendations, such as improving price transparency and using “a variety of options to increase negotiating power through collaborative purchasing agreements.” Missing, of course, is the suggestion that New Mexico finally right-size state government, and reap big RX savings through fewer employees and the elimination of ineffective, and sometimes counterproductive, welfare programs.

The Tax Foundation is out with its latest “State Business Tax Climate Index,” which is “designed to show how well states structure their tax systems,” as well as provide “a roadmap for improvement.”

New Mexico ranked 35th — not among the absolute worst, but far from the best. Unfortunately, each of the Land of Enchantment’s neighbors performed better. Utah ranked highest (9th), followed by Texas (14th), Colorado (16th), Arizona (21st), and Oklahoma (31st).

Disaggregating the index’s data, New Mexico performed best on the property tax — its burden was the lowest in the nation. Our sales tax (more accurately, the gross receipts tax) was 42nd. Not surprising, given the GRT’s high rates and mind-numbing complexity.

As authors Jared Walczak, Scott Drenkard, and Joseph Henchman note, for the top ten states, the “absence of a major tax is a common factor.” Wyoming, Nevada, and South Dakota lack both corporate- and personal-income taxes (with Nevada imposing its own type of GRT), while “Alaska has no individual income or state-level sales tax; Florida has no individual income tax; and New Hampshire, Montana, and Oregon have no sales tax.”

Serious simplification, and strong reduction, of New Mexico’s GRT would do quite a lot to improve the state’s ranking on the Tax Foundation’s index. Long-term, eliminating the personal-income tax — perhaps funded by a multi-year drawdown of the tens of billions of dollars in the state’s permanent funds — would yield even more benefits.

There WILL be a special session of the New Mexico Legislature after all and it will be tomorrow (Friday, September 30).

By far the most pressing issue is how to address the State’s serious budget challenges. The ONLY plan with any substance has been put forth by the Rio Grande Foundation. You can find it here and here.  There are zero tax increases, but we do include some new revenue from taxing and regulating cannabis. There is some low-hanging fruit like cutting higher education, reforming long-term-care insurance under Medicaid, and eliminating film subsidies and there are more challenging cuts.

The fact is that by almost any measure, New Mexico government is too big and spends too much money. It is time to cut back.

So, what WILL happen during this one day special session? Possibly, legislators will come to some agreement on dealing with the FY 2016 shortfall (FY 2016 ended on June 30 of 2016). This would just involve shifting some existing funds around (like tobacco settlement dollars) and closing out the books. You can’t raise taxes retroactively.

It seems highly-unlikely that Gov. Martinez will get any of her crime legislation (like re-instating the death penalty). Even if Democrats supported most of these “get tough” policies which I don’t believe they do, they are in no mood to give Martinez any big victories a month before an election.

It is also hard to believe that we’ll see any agreement on FY 2017’s more substantial deficits which are in the $450-$550 million range for the simple fact that Democrats want to raise taxes and Gov. Martinez doesn’t.

What does this all mean for the future? Will this special session last just one day? I believe so. There isn’t much agreement. There is no reason to keep people in Santa Fe so close to an election. Will there be another special session after the election? Possibly? Will there EVER be an agreement on New Mexico’s budget? That may depend on the outcome this November.

If the Democrats win back the House, their demands for higher taxes will likely be strengthened (but Martinez still holds a lot of cards). If the GOP retains the House and makes inroads in the Senate (like defeating Majority Leader Michael Sanchez or another incumbent or two), the Gov.’s “no tax hikes” position will be strengthened. A murky result and, well, the situation will remain murky. Only time (and November’s election) will tell.

Sometimes it seems that New Mexico’s economic-development cheerleaders live in an alternate reality. We all want New Mexico to be prosperous and wealthy, but anyone who believes that the state’s economy is doing well these days is simply not paying attention.

Gary Tonjes of Albuquerque Economic Development, writing in the Albuquerque Journal, touted New Mexico’s “business-friendly” environment, including corporate-welfare programs like LEDA and JTIP and their role in attracting business. He says that the Facebook win “sends a message to other employers that this is a great place for business.”

Unfortunately, the reality is far different:

• As of August, New Mexico’s 6.6 percent unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation;

• From 2004 to 2015, during the era of the “High Wages Jobs Tax Credit,” real median hourly earnings in New Mexico grew by less than a quarter;

• According to Forbes’s “Best States for Business” 2016 report, neighboring Utah, Colorado, and Texas rank 1^st, 5^th, and 6^th, respectively, while New Mexico is 47^th;

• CNBC has another “Top States for Business” index. On that one Utah, Texas, and Colorado rank 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd. New Mexico ranks 39^th.

And let’s not forget that New Mexico is facing massive budget deficits. Even if we wanted to spend more money to bring in more businesses, we don’t have the money available to do it.

It is easy to sympathize with Tonjes and New Mexico’s economic development cheerleaders. It must be a real challenge to compete with our more economically free neighbors. It is frustrating to see them growing while we remain stagnant and impoverished. But to say that throwing massive subsidies at one company and getting them to come here “vindicates” anything is just silly.

New Mexico has a long way to go to develop a private sector. Our leaders should be explaining what that means and educating the public, not encouraging complacency.

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.