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.

Government is bureaucratic and slow. This goes without saying. But it also fails to keep up with reality. After all, millions of entrepreneurs are out there experimenting (and usually failing) to get rich by coming up with “the next big thing.” Government responds to political pressure and is filled by people who want to hang onto their jobs, not find the newest innovation.

Two recent examples come to mind from Albuquerque that involve government enacting or putting forth policies that run directly counter to societal trends and technology:

1. Albuquerque Rapid Transit: The new bus system along Central is now underway whether the locals like it or not. Interestingly, while Mayor Berry and the City embrace buses, a mode of travel that is nearly 100 years old, the City of Pittsburgh is now home to the first-ever self-driving Uber cars. As if to mock Albuquerque’s embrace of old tech, Singapore has announced that it has self-driving taxis. I’m sure the millennials will be VERY impressed by Albuquerque’s new bus system though.
2. Mandatory Paid Sick Leave: A local ballot measure could be on Albuquerque ballots as soon as November depending on what happens at Thursday’s Bernalillo County Commission meeting.Interestingly, the trend among employers (also benefiting employees) runs in the opposite direction according to the article, “Why so many employers are getting ride of paid sick days.”

As the article notes:The decision to group all the PTO together started as a way to ease the administrative duties of tracking individual sick and vacation schedules, Meridith Burrows, The Cheat Sheet’s vice president of human resources, said in an interview. However, it also matches the culture of the company, whose entire staff works remotely from destinations all across the United States and abroad.

“We’re a flexible company, and this is just one more way that we can flexible,” Burrows said. Bundling PTO together also has another advantage, in that most employees avoid last-minute days off unless they are truly sick. If they know they’re planning to be away or might need the personal day after an active weekend, it’s within their ability to ask off ahead of time, without worrying about using sick days versus vacation PTO.As a media company that balances the demand for new content with the needs of its employees, that extra heads-up is helpful, Burrows said.

“Why would we want to encourage last-minute reporting like that?” she asked. “We’d rather know that information up front.” Restricting personal time off to sick days just encourages people to be dishonest — or to feel like they’re not believed when they actually do need a sick day. “We don’t want people to have that feeling,” Burrows said. “It’s not treating people like the adults that they are.”

Treating people like adults, what a novel concept! Rather than telling them how to live or telling them which days to take off an how, perhaps it is time for Albuquerque’s policymakers to treat us like adults?

There have been several news accounts lately on government-run higher education in New Mexico. Let’s sort it all out.

The Albuquerque Journal reported that UNM awarded 5,674 degrees last academic year — a record. But consider these caveats: The four-year completion rate “was on track to exceed 20 percent for the first time in years,” and the school “trimmed the number of credit hours required to earn most bachelor degrees from 128 to 120.” And don’t forget that with the state’s economy stuck in neutral, many of the newly degreed will will be seeking employment beyond New Mexico’s borders. (The state has never shown any interest in tracking how many of its subsidized college grads remain in the Land of Enchantment.)

In an interview with the Santa Fe New Mexican, Rep. Jimmie Hall (R-Albuquerque), the vice chairman of the Legislative Finance Committee, had some sobering words for higher education’s administrators: “I will be very blunt. Everybody who has talked to me — constituents, lobbyists, legislators and staff — has said, ‘Take it out of higher ed.’” The lawmaker was referring to how best to deal with the state’s severe budget crisis.

Austerity, to some degree, is already in place. In the current fiscal year, $828.5 million in “recurring general fund revenues” were appropriated to the Higher Education Department — a 2.4 percent cut from the previous fiscal year. More is likely on the way. But the system’s supporters should consider the words of ENMU President Steven Gamble, who admitted last week that his school “got through a 21 percent budget cut several years ago.”

As the Foundation has recommended, campus sprawl offers a prime opportunity to reduce costs. While we’re not often in agreement with the New Mexican’s editorial page, today it noted that the state’s “colleges and universities have grown in too haphazard a manner, with little thought to preventing duplication, stopping vanity growth or focusing on needs rather than wants.” The paper offered some stinging examples of the sprawl problem: “Did The University of New Mexico need a westside campus, just a 40-minute drive from the main UNM campus in Albuquerque? Or how about New Mexico Highlands University? It has seven branches — Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe, Española, Farmingon, Raton and Roswell. There are branches upon branches, with the growth akin to the adobe houses built one room at a time, with a lack of central planning.”

Higher education has long been a sacred cow at the legislature — shielded from accountability, and regularly infused with new wads of cash. The dropout and remedial-training issues have been ignored, and few have been willing to question policies that essentially subsidize the quality of other states’ workforces. But staring down a river of red ink, lawmakers might finally be willing to subject the state’s universities and colleges to an overdue right-sizing. Taxpayers would be grateful.

With New Mexico facing budget deficits in excess of $600 million, one might be led to believe by some left-wing advocates that state government simply doesn’t have money to do the basics these days.

James Jimenez of NM Voices for Children blames “tax cuts” (too little money) for everything from the ” backlog of rape kits” to the backlog of applications for medical marijuana ID cards.

The reality is that New Mexico’s government is hardly starved for cash. The State spends far more per-capita than do its neighbors (nearly double what Texas spends). Original data available here, see the chart below as well:

Allen Sanchez represents CHI St. Joseph’s Children and the Catholic Church as a lobbyist in Santa Fe. He had an article in today’s Albuquerque Journal that I consider nothing short of outrageous in which he attempts to connect the deaths and abuse of dozens of New Mexico children over the last decade or so to the latest government “solution” to the problem which is tapping the permanent fund to create a system of home visits. He claims offhandedly that “home visiting programs have been proven to prevent child abuse,” but offers zero evidence for that statement.

Indeed, the only evidence Sanchez brings forth is a statement by Dr. Victor Strasburger, professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico, “Poverty seems to be the common denominator.” In other words, New Mexico’s lousy economy may be the issue, not some new government program he’s pushing (a point we’ve made in the past).

It all strikes me as, to quote Rahm Emmanuel “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

There is no doubt that New Mexico children face real problems (like the rest of the state). The liberal Voices for Children didn’t even include “home visits” as a factor in its report ranking 49th for children. That said, here is a partial list of all the myriad issues facing New Mexico kids that have NOTHING to do with yet another government program:

1) Poverty;
2) Breakdown of two parent family;
3) Welfare dependence;
4) Drug abuse;
5) Family culture of abuse;
6) Failing education system;
7) Failing economy/lack of jobs;
8) Social isolation;
9) Failing criminal justice system;
10) Lack of religious faith/participation

These are just a few of the very serious issues that impact New Mexico’s children. Some of them can be fixed rather easily by public policy reforms. Some of them are very difficult to address at all. What do you think? Any additions to the list? It is particularly troubling to me that Sanchez attempts to justify his preferred government program as a simple solution to what by all accounts is a very challenging and multi-faceted problem.

Supporters of Albuquerque Rapid Transit have reason to rejoice — despite significant opposition from a broad coalition of Duke City residents and business owners, construction on the project got underway yesterday.

It was a bitter pill for ART opponents to swallow. But however nasty and personal the dispute has gotten, the saddest thing about the mayor’s transit “vision” is the distraction it’s been from Albuquerque’s core problems. Economic development is a good place to start. In April 2008, there were 398,600 jobs in the city. As of June, there were 385,900. That’s right: No gain, in more than eight years.

Quality-of-life issues are another concern. There’s a lot to like about Albuquerque, but the city has more than its share of violence, property crimes, panhandling, and graffiti. A snazzy new transit system won’t do much, if anything, to improve public safety and livability.

Regardless of where the ART story goes from here, let’s hope that city officials can redirect their energy toward making Albuquerque the growing, dynamic, forward-thinking, and safe place we all want it to be.

For a full exploration of the project’s failings, here’s the Foundation’s ART study from last year. And this op-ed explains why the legal case against ART — far from settled yet — is strong.

Kudos to reporter Bruce Krasnow for covering the latest news about Obamacare’s carnage here in New Mexico.

In 2017, insurers will be asking for big increases for individual plans. Blue Cross’s hike, based on its 2015 rate, will a whopping 93.2 percent. The lowest increase, 15.7 percent is for Christus. (Small-group plans will see hikes of between 31.6 percent and 2.5 percent, with United actually cutting its rate by 3.9 percent.)

Krasnow noted that Presbyterian, like Blue Cross, is dropping out of the state’s exchange, and that’s growing more common: “Vox Media reports that there is just one insurer signed up to sell in 687 U.S. counties in 2017 on the HealthCare.gov marketplace. That’s nearly four times the number of counties that had just one offering in 2016.”

Luckily, no county in New Mexico has fallen to monopoly-provider status — for now. But there’s no question that Obamacare continues to be a disaster for individuals and businesses in the Land of Enchantment. Not all bad policy ideas originate in Santa Fe!

New Mexico’s economic development community is desperate. We get it. With the state mired in high unemployment, facing massive deficits, and few “easy” opportunities for economic growth, the idea of having a marquee company like Facebook place a data center in Los Lunas is very attractive. It certainly makes for some much-needed good press.

Unfortunately, according to a New York Times piece which analyzed these data centers, massive data center projects to rural areas, receiving millions of dollars in tax cuts and rebates but only bringing a few dozen new jobs — and most are not even local hires.

Also on the subject of Facebook’s data center, the Salt Lake Tribune quoted Iowa State University economic development expert Robert Swenson as saying, “You’re not just overbidding, you’re just outrageously overbidding. I don’t know how to say it any other way other than: What’s wrong with you folks?.”

Swenson also is said it’s not uncommon for a company like Facebook to get two cities to fight over each other to get a sweeter deal.

The incentives being offered to Facebook to come to Los Lunas are nothing short of astonishing and (again) call into question the necessity and economic impact of economic development subsidy programs. A Local Economic Development Act (LEDA) grant of up to $10 million is being offered. That’s in addition to a sales-and-use tax rebate worth up to $1.6 million annually along with billions of dollars in industrial revenue bonds which essentially eliminate property tax payments although Facebook has offered to make some direct payments in lieu of taxes of $50,000 to $100,000.

And this doesn’t even include the water being used or the unsteady “renewable” electricity being put on the power grid in exchange for Facebook having steady electricity service from traditional sources.

The fact is that as nice as it would be to have Facebook located in our community, New Mexico policymakers are desperate for good news. That is a dangerous position to be in whenever you’re negotiating.

Last week’s release of the “consensus revenue estimate” by the state’s financial officials included several documents with some very revealing information about where New Mexico finds itself eight months into 2016. Here are some stats worth noting:

* As the above chart indicates, fiscal 2016 revenue for the general fund was down 8.4 percent, and fiscal 2017 is predicted to experience only 0.6 percent growth.

* Weak employment bears much of the blame for poor revenue-creation. Total jobs grew by just 1.2 percent in 2016, with increases in employment in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces offset by “losses in the rest of the state.”

* Since 2006, there has been essentially no job growth in the finance/insurance sector, nor in the retail industry. Construction work is down 20 percent, and manufacturing has dropped by 25 percent. The mining-and-logging sector, which includes oil and gas, “peaked in November and December of 2014 with 29,000 jobs,” but current employment is 18,800, representing the loss “of more than 10,000 mostly high‐wage jobs.”

* Personal income fell by 1.7 percent in fiscal 2016. The average hourly wage rose by just 11 cents.

* According to Moody’s, gross state product declined by 1.1 percent. BBER claims the loss was 0.6 percent.

* Risks to New Mexico’s economy include a national recession and further declines in oil-and-gas prices. A big budget threat is the type of entity that may be hired to run Sandia National Laboratories. If Lockheed loses its contract to a nonprofit organization, “up to a $100 million annual loss in state revenues” could occur.

It’s all pretty frightening stuff. The good news is that there’s no time like the present for elected officials to realize that New Mexico faces an economic and fiscal apocalypse — and finally take concrete steps to build a vibrant, sustainable private sector in the Land of Enchantment.

With massive deficits facing New Mexico, the debate over what spending should be “on the table” or “off” has begun. Democrats say all education spending should be sacrosanct. Several Democratic Senators went so far as to urge higher teacher pay.

As US Census data clearly show, the state spends far more heavily on administration than even the next-highest state:

New Mexico also spends rather heavily on education relative to its neighbors. As seen in the chart below (derived from the same Census data), New Mexico considerably outspends its neighbors on a per-pupil basis.

Performance has not been forthcoming. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for New Mexico legislators and education bureaucrats to consider studying what our neighbors are doing to obtain better results for less money.

It’s the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service, and the media are providing quite a lot of coverage of the celebration.

The NPS has a huge presence in the Land of Enchantment — not surprising, given the number of scenic and cultural wonders here. But while the attractions draw visitors to the state, it’s important to remember that government management has its drawbacks. Exhibit A: The recent disaster over the elevators at Carlsbad Caverns National Park. It’s tough to envision a private-sector entity screwing up to that degree.

Management issues plague the entire NPS. As the Property and Environment Research Center’s Terry Anderson notes in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, “a backlog of maintenance projects, including deteriorating roads, buildings and sewage systems … will cost $12 billion to fix. Each year the NPS goes to Congress asking for funding for its operating budgets but almost always gets less than it requests. Between 2005 and 2015, the federal budget grew by 39%, yet the NPS operating budget increased by only 1.7%. Meanwhile, park attendance in 2015 reached a record 305 million visits.”

Anderson recommends that Washington “take parks out of politics and politics out of parks by giving the gift of operating-budget autonomy.” Federal appropriations could then be directed toward the maintenance backlog.

From the Chaco ruins to Fort Union to Glorieta Pass Battlefield to the Gila Cliff Dwellings to White Sands, the NPS controls many of New Mexico’s priceless treasures. But the bureaucracy’s far from perfect, and some simple, but substantial, reforms would improve the system, both here and around the nation.

Several states have embraced reforms including “right to work” in recent years. “Rust belt” stalwarts like Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin have adopted such laws to great effect. But, comparisons to New Mexico are difficult. They are industrial powerhouses despite recent problems.

And then there is West Virginia which adopted “right to work” and repealed its prevailing wage law earlier this year. These reforms are also top priorities for conservatives in New Mexico.

And West Virginia is a lot like New Mexico. Just ask the Albuquerque Journal’s Winthrop Quigley. Both states are physically beautiful, culturally and geographically isolated, historically-Democrat-dominated, poorly-educated, and poor.

At the Rio Grande Foundation we believe that incentives matter. We believe that good policies CAN overcome cultural and geographical challenges. It takes time and progress may not be steady, but over time, incentivizing work and removing obstacles to it will result in more work and greater prosperity. The results so far relating to unemployment seem promising.

Since February of this year, West Virginia’s unemployment rate has dropped dramatically from 6.5 to 5.7 percent while New Mexico’s remains stuck at 6.4 percent;

The number of unemployed in West Virginia has dropped 10% while in New Mexico the number has gone up slightly;

The chart below illustrates the unemployment trends in the two states. While  more time needs to elapse, it certainly seems that West Virginia policymakers have begun to move their State’s economy in the right direction.

In Santa Fe, reports the New Mexican, a “City Hall reorganization will create a stand-alone Economic Development Division, removing it from the Housing and Community Development Department.” In addition, the “city is launching a search for a full-fledged economic development director, a job that will pay between $70,387 and $120,640 annually.”

Santa Fe certainly needs an economic-development boost. As the chart above indicates, it has fewer private-sector jobs now that it did eight years ago.

But with Mayor Javier Gonzales touting Santa Fe’s “living wage” and “absolutely booming” film industry, is there any hope of reality-based policies? Let’s hope so. One suggestion, Mr. Mayor: Do something about your city’s whopping 8.3125 percent gross receipts tax.

Here’s something you won’t be hearing from the New Mexico Film Office: Research has, once again, confirmed that giveaways to Hollywood are a sucker’s bet for taxpayers.

Michael Thom, an assistant professor at USC, has published new findings on the “incentives” that states provide to film and television productions. He “looked at job growth, wage growth, states’ share of the motion picture industry and the industry’s output in each state,” and found that on average, “the only benefits were short-term wage gains, mostly to people who already work in the industry. Job growth was almost nonexistent. Market share and industry output didn’t budge.”

Thom’s first study, published in the American Review of Public Administration, concluded that between “1999 to 2013, the average annual percentage change in film production employment remained at or slightly above zero — even in California and New York, the headquarters of the entertainment industry.”

The professor’s second analysis, published in the journal American Politics Research, looked at “why states kept or terminated their incentives.” Dead-enders, he found, refuse to acknowledge reality: “After a state has invested tens of millions of dollars, no politician wants to acknowledge that the program is a waste of taxpayer money.”

Amazingly, despite its small size, New Mexico was one of the biggest-spending subsidizers of Hollywood. At $490.3 million, the Land of Enchantment bestowed more largesse on the industry than Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Illinois!

Thom’s research is a welcome addition to the mountain of evidence demonstrating the failure of taxpayer “incentivizing” of the entertainment business. Let’s hope it gets some serious attention — from elected officials from both parties — in Santa Fe.

The Foundation has repeatedly exposed the specious reasoning behind the left’s campaign to make tax cuts the culprit for New Mexico’s budget woes. Neither cutting the income tax nor reducing the corporate tax caused the big deficits we face today. This is a spending-driven fiscal crisis, and if the state’s projections on Medicaid expansion are to be believed, there will be red ink for many years to come.

In February, Medicaid-expansion apologist Lee Reynis, a UNM professor, cited data from the Human Services Department in a presentation on the fiscal impacts of Medicaid expansion. In fiscal 2017, which began July 1st, the federal government stopped covering 100 percent of expansion expenditures. Thus, the cost to New Mexico taxpayers will be $44.5 million. And as the chart below indicates, the gaps only increase.

Add it all up, and in the current and next four fiscal years, New Mexico-derived revenue will have to rise by $777.9 million to pay for Medicaid expansion. Again, that’s just the gap for the broadening of the program. It doesn’t include the shortfalls that are likely to result from growing “demand” by those who meet the pre-expansion eligibility criteria. Neither does it address the “woodwork effect,” whereby “people who could have been covered by Medicaid before, but for some reason had not signed up for it, and may not have even been aware they could do so,” join the rolls.

Barring a massive injection of tax revenue — unlikely in the short term, given the state’s moribund economy and misguided growth policies — New Mexico’s books will need to be balanced with smart cuts. The Foundation explored many promising expenditure reductions in a recent paper. Another idea worth examining is rolling back Medicaid expansion. It’s been a fiscal nightmare and has not served as a “stimulus.” Governor Martinez’s worst policy decision is overdue for some serious scrutiny — and probably, a complete reversal.

It is no surprise, given the gaping hole in New Mexico’s budget, that Democrat politicians are blaming Gov. Martinez and especially “tax cuts.” See Alan Webber’s piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal as well as Sen. Cisco McSorley’s piece from New Mexico Political Report.

The current talking point among many on the left is that “the Gov.’s tax cuts” were a failure and they caused the deficit. The bill in question was HB 641 sponsored by Democrat Rep. Moe Maestas which passed in the waning seconds of the 2013 session. It was overwhelmingly supported by House Democrats and opposed by all but one Republican although the Senate vote was bi-partisan.

It was a complicated bill with several components, but it DID reduce the corporate income tax by an estimated $70 million as of FY2017. That said, we were not big fans of the “compromise” at the time and had serious concerns about the politics of “owning” the bill down the road.

Fast forward to this year and I’d say those concerns have been borne out. The myriad shifts and slight tax cuts haven’t done much to improve New Mexico’s economy, but they have become a useful tool for liberal politicians to attack Martinez. Sen. McSorley, for example, voted “yes” on the bill.

Notably, the corporate income tax was estimated to “cost” about $70 million in revenue annually. While that sounds like a lot, it is about 10% of today’s budget deficit. That hardly makes it a driving factor. Should those cuts be re-imposed? Not unless the entire bill, including the local tax hikes, is reconsidered.

If Democrats want to blame Gov. Martinez for decisions that are exacerbating the State’s budget woes, perhaps they should consider the fateful decision to expand Medicaid? Unfortunately, as bad as the budget picture is now, Medicaid expansion will only worsen the budget picture in the years ahead as New Mexico is placed on the hook for more of that program’s cost.

According to the libertarian Cato Institute’s new “Freedom In the 50 States” report which ranks the states by “policies that shape personal and economic freedom,” New Mexico is at the “top of the heap” when it comes to personal freedom. This is a small bit of welcome news for beleaguered New Mexicans who are used to seeing their state at the bottom of most lists.

The report defines personal freedom to include, “gun policy, alcohol policy, marijuana-related policy, travel policy, gaming policy, mala prohibita and miscellaneous civil liberties, education policy, civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement statistics, marriage policy, campaign finance policy, and tobacco policy. That is good news and the Rio Grande Foundation has worked actively and successfully in the area of civil asset forfeiture policy.”

Unfortunately, while New Mexico does a good job on personal freedom, its fiscal and regulatory policies rank 42nd and 38th respectively. That poor showing on “bread and butter” economic issues goes a long way towards explaining the State’s economic and budget woes. Interestingly, it would appear that Americans value economic freedom (fiscal and regulatory) more than personal freedom as neighboring Texas scores a poor 49th in “personal freedom,” but scores well in economic freedom. Notably, Texas is seeing massive population and economic gains while New Mexico is losing population and hemorrhaging red ink.

Click here to go to the index itself and check out the map below:

The various economic policy categories are outlined and defined below:

The fiscal policy dimension consists of categories for state and local tax revenues, government employment, government spending, government debt, and fiscal decentralization. Each of these categories consists of a single variable. The variables are measured for each fiscal year: FY 2010, the latest year for which data are available, encompasses the period between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. Taxation and debt are measured for each fiscal year.

The regulatory policy dimension includes categories for the liability system, real property rights (eminent domain and land-use regulation), health insurance freedom, labor market freedom, occupational freedom, cable and telecom, and miscellaneous regulations that do not fit under another category. Regulations that seem to have a mainly paternalistic justification, such as homeschool and private school regulations, are placed under the personal freedom dimension.