Errors of Enchantment

At least that is what the folks over at the blog Urban ABQ believe. Apparently, we're also intellectually lazy. But is it true?

Yes, we at the Rio Grande Foundation oppose the taxpayer-financed Albuquerque streetcar, the taxpayer-financed Rail Runner, and the taxpayer-financed Albuquerque arena. But does that mean we oppose "everything?" I believe the evidence points elsewhere.

For example, we support the Heritage Marketplace development which has been killed by the City of Albuquerque. Also, we'd support the parishioners at St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church who were outlined on the front page of today's Albuquerque Journal. It turns out that the churchgoers would like to cook home-made food (tamales, menudo and homemade goodies like bread pudding and bizcochitosfor), but the City health regulators are forcing them to buy food instead.

The fact is that we at the Rio Grande Foundation support private sector efforts and realize that those who use and abuse government power by forcibly taking other people's hard-earned money via taxation are pushing ideas that would otherwise not garner financial (as opposed to political) support from enough people to be viable.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have been quite critical of the powers that be when it comes to economic development in Albuquerque. While some projects like the streetcar, Winrock Mall, and the downtown arena/convention center (to name just a few projects) receive special treatment in the form of tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies, other projects (like the Scientologists' proposed building downtown) are given the runaround.

Now, SunCal, a company that has been involved in the fights over TIDD's, has experienced the wrath of an Albuquerque government that seems to not care about jobs or economic growth at a time in which both are at a real premium. The New Mexico Business Weekly has an interesting article about SunCal’s Heritage Marketplace project, a 12-building, 20-acre, mixed-use development at Ladera and Unser NW.

According to the article:

SunCal and said two anchors were lined up for the project as designed by SunCal. To make the changes the city requires, it will add 15 percent to 20 percent to the project’s construction costs.

City planners had a different vision. They wanted the plan to conform to the city’s design guidelines, which call for open plazas with pedestrian and bicycle amenities in new shopping center developments. Strip center development is viewed unfavorably. The commission saw a more urban project with less parking and didn’t want the center to face heavily trafficked Unser Boulevard. SunCal argued it couldn’t attract retailers if their stores didn’t face Unser. Unser is a state road, Route 435, and new turn lanes are an issue.

So, we have a company, SunCal, that is looking to invest millions of dollars (without demanding subsidies) by building a new commercial development in Albuquerque and the City says "thanks, but no thanks" because the development doesn't fit the hopes and dreams of a few bureaucrats....don't you just love government?

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I presented on an issue I normally don't get to talk about at the New Mexico Restaurant Association's legislative panel today. Federal "card check" legislation will be a top priority of the next Congress, particularly if Obama is elected President. The following are my brief comments:

Passage of the “Employee Free Choice Act” is one of the Democrats’ top priorities in 2009. The legislation which is also known as “card check” was introduced in both the House and Senate as HR 800 and S. 1041.

So, what is “card check” and why is it important to the business community, especially restaurants? Today, employees are entitled to a private-ballot election when deciding whether they want union representation in their workplace. These elections are overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, which has numerous procedures in place to ensure fair, fraud-free elections.

1) If adopted by Congress and signed by the President, the “Employee Free Choice Act” would allow unions to abolish secret ballot organizing elections for unionization votes. Rather than giving employees the ability to make a private decision in a secret ballot (as is currently done) as to whether or not to unionize, a union would be certified if organizers could convince a majority of workers to sign union cards.

Unlike the current secret ballot system, the cards would be signed in public, often under the watchful eye of party bosses and others who might threaten and attempt to coerce people who would otherwise wish to contract privately with their employer. Abolishing the secret ballot exposes workers to the kind of intimidation high-pressure tactics which secret ballots are designed to avoid.

As bad as some of the controversies we are seeing in the election over allegations of fraudulent voter registration and voter intimidation, we can at least take comfort as voters in the fact that the particulars of how we vote is not public information that can be used against us. Union bosses wouldn’t like it very much if employers got to stand over their employees’ shoulders and watch how they voted, I don’t see why union organizers should be able to do that when they are organizing a union.

2) A second component of the “Employee Free Choice Act” is binding arbitration. This aspect of the law would require the federal government to appoint a mediator and impose a contract if management and labor cannot come to an agreement. It would allow either party (usually the union) to delay coming to an agreement in the hope of getting more in binding arbitration than they would get in bargaining.

Obviously, if one party in a negotiation has no desire to come to an agreement on a particular issue, this further tilts the likely outcome of the negotiation to the benefit of the unions.

3) Lastly, the legislation as it is now written would increase penalties for employers, but not for unions or others, who violate union organizing laws.

The Employee Free Choice Act passed the House 241 – 185 in March or 2007, but did not make it to the Senate floor for an up or down vote this Congress.

As far as New Mexico’s delegation is concerned, Wilson and Pearce voted against it and Udall voted for it. The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a memorial in support of the federal “Employee Free Choice Act” on February 4, 2008. I have passed out a roll call vote listing from the Foundation’s new legislative tracking site www.newmexicovotes.org. As an aside, I’d urge all of you who have business in Santa Fe to take advantage of this free and easy to use site. It is much more user-friendly than the Legislature’s site.

So, why are the unions pushing this issue right now? First and foremost, unions have shrunk dramatically relative to the overall workplace over the years. In 1973, private sector unions could count 25 percent of the work force as members. That number is down to about 7.8 percent of the work force currently. Public sector labor unions have not experienced the same decline with membership remaining consistently between 35 and 40 percent of the work force over the same time period.

The fact is that private sector unions are desperate for members and they want to use this fall’s Democratic electoral landslide to increase membership. Many elected officials and Democratic Party activists are enthusiastic about this legislation because strong union support could cement electoral gains for years to come.

Regardless of the political implications associated with this legislation, it is hard to believe that a party that calls itself “Democratic” would undermine a core tenet of the Democratic process, the secret ballot.

If you as a business owner are concerned about this issue, it seems doubtful that the House of Representatives will move to the right after this election. Nonetheless, with three new House members in New Mexico, it is probably still worth talking to them. The real action, of course, will be in the US Senate. Also, while New Mexico’s House of Representatives is on record as supporting the federal legislation, the Senate may not be as enthusiastic about passage of a Memorial.

Certainly, it would not hurt to explain what this legislation could mean to your employees. You can’t be afraid to approach your employees with information. After all, a recent Zogby poll found that union members themselves believed, by an 84 percent to 11 percent margin, that employees should be able to vote on union membership. You will likely receive a receptive audience if you provide non-biased information in a non-threatening manner about the potential negative impacts of this legislation and get your employees involved.

While it might seem that Congress will be more than happy to pass Card Check legislation, it will be easier to preserve the secret ballot in Congress than it will be to head off anti-democratic card-check unionization drives at your work site.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Barack Obama has clearly expressed his desire to redistribute wealth in American society. Unfortunately, while such sentiments may sound nice to the average voter, there are a number of major political and moral problems with such redistributionist policies. Who is to be in control of redistribution efforts and what right do they have to simply take from one group of individuals and give to another? How much redistribution is enough? After all, as this link shows, the wealthy already pay far more in federal taxes than the rest of us. Where does it stop?

Here is one blogger's humorous take on wealth redistribution and how it works when boiled down to the personal level. Stealing from the "rich" and giving to the "poor" sounds great in concept until your wealth is being taken away.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While it will take quite some time to discern the success or failure of the massive government intervention we have seen throughout the US economy in recent weeks, one policy -- the ban on short-selling -- has already been proven a failure. As the article points out, "The short selling ban hasn't stopped the decline in bank stocks. An index of the 34 U.K. financial stocks on the banned list has fallen 22 percent since Sept. 19, compared with an 18 percent drop for the FTSE 100 Index of the largest U.K. companies and 10 percent for the FTSE All-Share Index."

This is no surprise since government intervention in the economy caused this mess at the outset. As this article points out, it was government policy that created the Great Depression as well. Hopefully policymakers stop these interventions and let the economy run its course, but at this point there is no guessing what will happen next.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Cato Institute recently released its annual "Economic Freedom of the World" Index. The full study can be found here. Unfortunately, the news for the United States is not good. Since 2000, our score has dropped from 8.55 which was good for second in the world, to 7.86 which was good for only 10th in the world (check page 177 of the index for US rankings and scores). I can only imagine how the current financial crisis and massive government intervention in the economy will affect our relative level of economic freedom.

According to the authors, "Lower ratings in the legal structure area and for the
administrative costs of clearing customs were primarily responsible for the rating reduction of the United States." Sound money, size of government and regulation have all suffered in recent years as well. It would be simple to lay blame for this slide at the feet of President Bush as he has presided over this decline in freedom, but our nation's entire political leadership has been working to destroy economic freedom in recent years and I see no lights at the end of the proverbial tunnel.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In his posting below, Jim rightfully bashes Congress. I want to trash our beloved Albuquerque City Council too. During last night's meeting, Council approved $147 million in TIDD subsidies in order to redevelop Winrock Shopping Center. Abundant literature shows that TIDD and TIF are economic losers.

At the very same meeting, in a move that could have helped revitalize downtown -- yes, remember downtown, the area that is at the center of so many government planning experiments -- Council denied the Church of Scientology a permit that would have allowed them to get to work right away on moving into new digs.

The problem with putting government bureaucrats and politicians in charge of development is that they will subsidize their friends and contributors and they will obstruct those, like the Church of Scientology, that may be outsiders or hold unpopular views. Unfortunately, this is currently the way of the world.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The company that makes Miller Beer is owned by a South African company. The Coors Beer company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange and is jointly owned by a Canadian company. Now, shareholders of Anheuser-Busch brewing company are considering whether or not to allow InBev to acquire a controlling interest in the company.

Unfortunately, politics has reared its ugly head in what should otherwise be a decision based on what is best for the shareholders who own the company. Both of Missouri's senators, Republican Kit Bond and Democrat Claire McCaskill, oppose the deal. McCaskill says it is "patriotic" to do so. In a letter to Anheuser-Busch's board, he writes: "[D]o not hesitate to contact me to discuss ways that I and community leaders can work with you to improve the company without changing its ownership."

This is no place for politics. Americans benefit from foreign investment in companies that do business here. There is no reason for Congress or misguided economic patriotism to get in the way of a deal that Anheuser-Busch shareholders feel is best for them.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently I blogged about the negative impact recent minimum wage increases are having on teenagers and others on the fringe of the job market. I expanded and elaborated a bit on the argument in a full-length article in The New Mexico Business Weekly.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Albuquerque Journal chooses to run some pretty odd articles from time to time. I understand that articles dealing with local topics may not always be the most well-written, but at least they deal with topics relevant to Albuquerque or at least New Mexico residents. The Albuquerque Journal chooses to run some pretty odd articles from time to time. I understand that articles dealing with local topics may not always be the most well-written, but at least they deal with topics relevant to Albuquerque or at least New Mexico residents. This was the case on Sunday when it ran an article from Andrew L. Yarrow of the Baltimore Sun who argued that Americans who retire early from the work force are both "selfish and unpatriotic."

Why is that? For starters, Yarrow argues, people who retire at 55, 62 or even 65 have many good, productive years of work yet and those people should be contributing to the nation's economy and paying taxes. He goes on to make a few somewhat more valid points about our overburdened Social Security and Medicare systems and even discusses some incentives that could get older people to work longer.

While Yarrow makes some valid arguments about the problems with Social Security and Medicare, these are not really the fault of people who retire early. These programs are flawed in their very design and, if policymakers wish to alter their incentives, they must change them. The only way in which these people are being "greedy" is if they vote for and support policies that preserve the broken Social Security and Medicare programs rather than supporting market-based reforms that will benefit their children and grandchildren. Yarrow doesn't even touch on real reforms to either of these programs.

Ultimately, Yarrow's mistake is in approaching the entire issue from the collectivist perspective. In other words, he believes that Americans must work harder to strengthen the nation and preserve these government programs. He should be encouraging policymakers to find ways to alter these programs in ways that allow individuals to make the decisions that are best for themselves, without unfairly burdening others. That is the best way to ensure America's future strength and make sure that Americans live long, productive, and fulfilled lives.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 01:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With the Democratic candidates for President campaigning in Texas and Ohio ahead of Tuesday's primaries, both states have become the focus of attention. As the Wall Street Journal points out, the states have pursued very different economic paths and achieved opposite results.

On one hand, Texas has no state income tax and is a right to work state (no forced unionism). The result has been that Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

Ohio, on the other hand is not a Right to Work state and it imposes the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%).

So which state is New Mexico more like? Well, New Mexico is not a Right to Work state and, while our taxes may not be quite as high as Ohio's, our gross receipts tax places a special burden on businesses that is not found in other states. Unfortunately, until New Mexico reduces its tax and regulatory burdens, it will continue to be more like Ohio than Texas and from an economic perspective, that's a shame.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A week or so ago on this blog I discussed the stimulus package moving through Congress and argued that it was unnecessary and based on bad economics. Unfortunately, the President and Congress don't always listen to us, so we teamed up with the National Taxpayers Union -- a Washington, DC-based grassroots taxpayer organization -- to express our concerns. Read the coalition letter on the stimulus here.

Although I didn't mention it in my previous posting on the topic, one of the additional problems with such politically-motivated legislation is that individual members understand that and will tack on whatever spending or interest group goodies they can. We are now seeing that process at work.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has failed to gain the vaunted status of "front-runner" in either New Hampshire or Iowa that would generate the scrutiny that we've seen of say Mitt Romney's religious beliefs or Barack Obama's past drug use.

Nonetheless, in attempting to educate voters nationwide on Bill Richardson's record -- especially as it relates to the state's all-important energy industry -- I wrote this article for nationwide distribution.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I opened today's West Side section of the Albuquerque Journal to find two seemingly unrelated stories that actually point to one of the biggest problems in economic development here in New Mexico: the tight control government bureaucrats have over land use decisions. As I have stated in the past on this blog, politicians are increasingly taking over land use decisions that should rightfully be made by property owners and developers.

One of today's stories is about TIDD and the effort to prevent local governments from subsidizing some development at the expense of the rest of the city and county. Thankfully, Councilor Cadigan now supports stopping TIDD from being used on "greenfield" developments, most of which would happen on their own terms and without subsidy. This issue will be heard at the Council meeting Monday night.

The other article, also dealing with government micromanaging of land use, is about the owners of 80 acres in the South Valley who have been trying to develop the land into a shopping center. One might think that the political establishment would support economic development in the economically struggling South Valley, but the Bernalillo County Planning Commission seems to believe that pastoral poverty is superior to economic development.

The fact is that the subsidies for TIDD are bad, but the County Planning Commission is essentially stealing land from property owners by preventing them from using it for no better reason than personal preference. In both cases, allowing individuals acting in a free market to make decisions for themselves would be far superior to the political process.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Henry Morgan (subscription required) of Alamogordo is my hero. Why? Because he's sticking it to the man by letting customers smoke in his restaurant. As any smoker and most non-smokers know, New Mexico is now "smoke free" just about anywhere indoors. So, while I personally may not like smoking and under normal circumstances might avoid Morgan's restaurant because it allows smoking, that choice is, at least under law, already made for me by our friends in Santa Fe.

Of course, while advocates of fascism...er...I mean controlling all of our actions say that restaurants are not impacted by smoke free laws, the economic reality is not so pretty. More details on the economics of smoking bans can be found in this recent blog.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's been 15 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement became law and, while the agreement has been extremely helpful for Canada, Mexico, and the US alike, political opposition has stalled a few key provisions including the legalization of Mexican truckers in the US. While there is a lot of ongoing angst about immigration, the fact is that opposition to Mexican truckers is a function of the political muscle of the Teamsters and other labor unions who want to avoid competition and thus keep their wages artificially high. Unfortunately, the US Senate recently decided to allow the Teamsters to preserve their protected market.

As Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute pointed out regarding the recent Senate vote to again postpone implementation of the NAFTA provision legalizing Mexican truckers:

"The Senate majority claims to be protecting highway safety, but the amendment passed yesterday is really just a bald form of discrimination against our Mexican neighbors. The U.S. government can and should hold Mexican trucking companies to the same safety regulations we impose on American and Canadian truckers. But the Senate bill will exclude even qualified Mexican trucking companies from helping to bring goods to U.S. markets. The Senate amendment sends the message that our international agreements mean nothing in the face of political pressure from the Teamsters. The problem the Senate majority has with Mexican trucks is not that they are unsafe but they are driven by Mexicans."

Posted by Paul Gessing at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A state employee named Charles R. Ferguson had what may be the most courageous opinion piece I've ever seen in the Albuquerque Journal today.

The piece is fantastic, but the money quote is "Just think about this: if you walked into a business and demanded money from them, and told them to pay up or go out of business, the district attorney would have a field day charging you with extortion and racketeering. But stick a union label on that scenario and it's called 'fair share' or 'agency fee.'"

Obviously, a key component of economic freedom is for an employer and employee to agree to determine the terms of their relationship and not to have a third party (unions supported by the government) intervening. If New Mexico is ever to have such policies, known as "Right to Work," the Rio Grande Foundation will be a key factor in that success. Unfortunately, despite Mr. Ferguson's courageous words, we are a long way from achieving that freedom here in New Mexico.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The headline in today's Albuquerque Journal (subscription required) says it all: "Union to State Workers: Pay Up."

According to the story, "last month, the State Employee Alliance-Communications Workers of America sent letters to nearly 500 employees saying they faced termination proceedings unless they began paying dues." The story went on to note that "employees covered by the union's collective bargaining agreement with the state are required to pay dues, even if they're not union members."

There are so many angles to this story that I could easily turn this posting into a lengthy essay, but I will refrain, so here are some points to consider: 1) While the role of private-sector labor unions is certainly open for debate, at least they benefit when the private-sector economy grows. Government labor unions on the other hand could care less about the private sector and only want to make government bigger. 2) Competition in the private sector forces labor to compete as well (look at the airline industry as an example). Governments don't compete and there is no check whatsoever on government labor unions. 3) It is simply wrong to force a person to join a labor union in order to obtain employment, especially government employment as we are all taxpayers. 4) Adoption of Right to Work laws would allow individuals to join unions if they choose and to not join them if they don't want to. 5) New Mexico is not a Right to Work State, but it should be in order to prevent labor unions (as opposed to actual managers) from having the ability to hire and fire government workers.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The US Supreme Court recently ruled against the Washington Education Association's efforts to levy fees on public employees who choose not to join a union but are represented by the union in collective bargaining. George Will explains that had the Court ruled any other way, it would have allowed labor unions who have been unable to persuade people to join, the option coercing the unpersuaded.

Maybe someday New Mexico will rid itself of its "Little Davis-Bacon" which allows unions to unfairly set prices on construction projects.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Whole Foods recently struck a deal to purchase rival organic grocery Wild Oats. No big deal, right? It is a very big deal actually if you work for the Federal Trade Commission and you believe that consumers must be protected from a "monopoly" in organic grocery stores.

Leaving aside the debate over whether federal intervention to ensure competition in the organic food grocery sector is really a pressing national interest, I find the argument that the merger of these two companies is somehow "anticompetitive" quite unreasonable. If anything, the fact that Wild Oats has been losing money and yet was still able to find an interested purchaser implies that Whole Foods management sees ample room to grow the organics market and for new players to enter and expand their selections of organics.

In fact, prospects for growth and the obvious optimism expressed by Whole Foods might even spur other grocery chains like Kroger and Safeway to start doing even more in the organics sector...and where does Trader Joe's fit in to the discussion? Aren't they a competitor of Whole Foods?

The fact is that the grocery industry is highly competitive and (even after the purchase of Wild Oats) Whole Foods is a relatively small player, not a monopolist.

Hopefully the FTC will get a grip on reality before this gets tied up in court. Seems like another case of a bureaucracy looking for new dragons to slay when it might be better just to put down the sword.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although the focus of this great new book is about the relative absence of prosperity in West Virginia, it could just as well be about New Mexico. The book is receiving lots of attention in WV. Maybe we could get the authors to write about New Mexico too, since it ranks right down there with WV and gets lots of attention in the book.

The first four chapters explain why economic freedom (rather than government) promotes prosperity. Chapters 5 thru 14 lay out specific policy measures that promote prosperity. Notice, however, that New Mexico has been doing just the opposite of what these scholars recommend -- NM emphasizes playing favorites (chapter 8), does not emphasize tax competitiveness (chapter 5), does not reduce labor restrictions (chapter 10), does not quit punishing the working poor (chapter 11) and so forth.

This is a good read for those of you who want a better understanding of the relative weakness of NM's economy. Hat tip: Professor Lawson at Division of Labour.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 06:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin Martin, has waded into the debate over so called "a la carte" programming on cable television. What is "a la carte?" Essentially, the FCC wants to mandate that cable companies offer consumers the choice over what programming they do and don't want to receive when they pay for cable (or satellite).

Of course, most consumers understand the concept of "bundling" of services and how costs can be driven down under such pricing schemes, but that is not good enough for the bureaucrats who regulate what we see and hear in the media. Worse, the FCC itself admits that an "a la carte" regulation would cost consumers even more money than they are already paying for these services.

If politicians want to cut costs, they might want to consider reforming video franchising at either the federal or state levels. Creating more competition, not government regulation, is the only surefire way to cut costs.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had the opportunity to listen in on a conference call hosted by Senator Byron Dorgan and others including Savetheinternet.org who want to regulate the Internet. The plan is to enact legislation known by the touchy-feely name "net-neutrality," but what the term and the legislation these people support really would do is regulate to the point of socializing the Internet.

Interestingly enough, while several major companies that use large amounts of bandwith on the Internet are trying to pass the "net-neutrality" legislation, it was notable that a New Mexico company: NMChili.com was the major business presence on the conference call. From the looks of their website, they certainly don't seem like the kind of high-bandwith user that would benefit from "net neutrality" regulations, but many New Mexicans seem to embrace government regulation almost instintively.

Given the high stakes and the support for regulation among the left and even among some on the right, it is clear the issue is not going away. Listening in on this conference call made that clear.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Club for Growth is one of the groups that not only advocates for real fiscal responsibility, but has the resources to hold Members of Congress accountable for their actions at election time. New Mexico's delegation did not fare particularly well in their most recent congressional ratings.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out Rio Grande Foundation President Paul Gessing on KNME's show "In Focus." Gessing and the rest of the panelists discuss the use of eminent domain by the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Authority to take over the privately-run New Mexico Utilities.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, the Washington-based Heritage Foundation released its 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. This popular study analyzes the freedoms that exist or do not exist in countries around the world and ranks them.

Not surprisingly, the United States fares relatively well (4th worldwide) and freer countries are wealthier than those that restrict freedom. Perhaps the most relevant aspect of this study for New Mexicans is the fact that Hong Kong -- an island with few resources, but a great deal of economic freedom -- is much wealthier than Cuba, another island nation, but with greater natural resources.

The fact is that economic freedom, not natural resources -- Iran, Venezuela, and Nigeria each have rich oil supplies -- make countries wealthy. New Mexico, while blessed with natural resources, is not as economically-free as other states and is also poorer.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On Wednesday, Albuquerque City Council Member Michael Cadigan (and Water Authority board member) and Bob Gay of New Mexico Utilities faced off in the west side edition of the Albuquerque Journal over whether it makes more sense for a government agency or a private company, to manage the provision of water services to a large portion of the west side of Albuquerque.

Having read both sides of the argument, it is plain to see that this is yet another case of a government agency forcibly attempting to crowd private providers out of the market. I'll take Cadigan's points one by one:

1) The Water Authority has agreed not to raise New Mexico Utilities' (NMU) customers rates to pay for the acquisition. This is meaningless government doublespeak. The Authority could raise its existing customers' rates; it could wait and then raise NMU customers' rates to pay off debt; or, since it has access to government revenue sources, it could simply get the money from taxpayers by other means.

2) NMU has outgrown its water rights and will have to buy more. Again, this is meaningless. If there is a problem, it is a problem for NMU and provides no justification for the Water Authority to forcibly take over NMU.

3) NMU sells water for a profit and doesn't have the incentive to conserve. Heaven forbid, someone tries to make a profit by giving customers what they want. When Cadigan and the Water Authority go to Santa Fe and demand that urban areas -- not to mention 65% of New Mexico's population -- receives more than 10% of the state's water, then he can complain about NMU's business practices. Forcing 10% of New Mexicans to adopt draconian conservation measures is ridiculous when 90% of the water is used elsewhere.

4) NMU customers can't take advantage of the Water Authority's rebate program. Again, Cadigan and the Water Authority have control issues and simply want to be able to tell NMU how to run their business. I'd be interested to know if the Water Authority has ever sat down with NMU to figure out a way for the Water Authority to pay for these conservation subsidies?

5) The Water Authority has "improved" its service over the years. Once a government agency has control of the region's entire water supply, what incentive do they have to keep improving...perhaps they decided to improve in the first place because they looked bad when compared with NMU?

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Richard Branson and his company, Virgin, may someday launch spacecraft from the New Mexico desert and yet, he can't own an airline that flies within the United States because he's a foreigner. Aside from the fact that such regulations are unfair, they are harmful to American travelers. Competition is reduced and the variety of services provided is constrained. In fact, a study by consulting firm Campbell-Hill Aviation Group argued that Virgin America would save travelers $786 million per year.

So, what special interest might be behind such a misguided policy....why, labor unions of course! How typical of the labor movement. Instead of welcoming competition and the new jobs that would be created by additional airlines, the labor unions would rather stifle competition and stick travelers with the bill. And they wonder why union membership is collapsing.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times today reports on the latest release on population trends from the Census Bureau:

Measured by rate of growth, Arizona was first, followed by Nevada, Idaho, Georgia and Texas, Utah, North Carolina, Colorado, Florida and South Carolina. For 2005-6, Colorado and South Carolina displaced Delaware and Oregon. Arizona’s estimated population grew by 213,311 to 6.2 million, an increase of 3.6 percent. Most of the increase was driven by more people moving in from other states than leaving — most from California. But immigrants also contributed to the growth, as did more than twice as many births as deaths. (By comparison, in West Virginia, deaths outnumbered births.)

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 07:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rarely are the cutthroat politics of our nation's agriculture cartels exposed for average Americans to see, but a recent example of a California dairy man being crushed by the establishment dairy interests clearly illustrates how depression-era federal laws designed to keep the industry afloat in tough economic times are now used to eliminate competition and keep prices (and profits) artificially high.

Agriculture is undoubtedly one of the last great bastions of socialism in this country. Fortunately, groups like the Cato Institute are working to publicize how these policies hurt consumers and taxpayers alike.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alan Meltzer has written a fine tribute to Milton Friedman. He documents how the country and world have changed due to Friedman's courage and steadfastness in challenging the climate of opinion of the 1930's and 1940's:

Friedman’s four major successes were ending the military draft, floating the dollar and other currencies, removing interest-rate ceilings on bank deposits, and auctioning government debt. Each of these examples shows that a market solution is rarely the first choice of governments. Free-market solutions have a greater chance of success if officials gradually become familiar with the proposal and come to believe it can work.

And how it will continue to change:

In Free to Choose the Friedmans proposed to phase out Old Age and Survivors’ Insurance. They would honor existing obligations, repeal the payroll tax, and rely on voluntary decisions about savings and pensions. The United States has so far rejected every move to permit choice in the government pension program, but other countries have changed their programs in the direction the Friedmans advocated: Chile is a well-known example. Even Russia now relies heavily on private decisions after providing a public minimum. As the present generation of young workers moves toward retirement and recognizes the very low return they will receive on their public pensions, pressure for change will likely increase. Milton devoted a large part of his later years to urging education vouchers that would permit students or their parents to choose a preferred school. Despite strong opposition--especially from teachers unions--school choice has expanded. The charter-school movement is a widely adopted example of choice. It is not the Friedmans’ proposal, but it is a move in their direction.

Welfare reform has emphasized work and choice in place of welfare. The present system is not what the Friedmans proposed. They preferred a negative income tax--a cash payment to the poor that would replace all other programs. The closest we have come is the earned income tax credit that supplements incomes for the working poor. Welfare reform and the earned income tax credit reflect the Friedmans’ influence and their emphasis on personal incentives and individual choice in place of bureaucratic regulation.

Check it out.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out Arnold Kling's summary of Friedman's arguments for freedom. This is the best summary by far that I have seen since Friedman's passing. This is the superb kind of writing that I have come to expect from Kling.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 09:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Following up yesterdays article, the NY Times again features Larry Reed with emphasis on how free markets will free Africa from poverty.

Once again the reporter's overuse of the adjective "conservative" shows that he does not really understand what economic freedom is all about. Otherwise, though, an excellent article.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 02:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Good news this morning. Freedom is featured in the NY Times.

BOWLING GREEN, Ky. — Lawrence W. Reed is one of those people with so much passion for an unusual line of work that he invented a new occupation, and it has helped shape the conservative movement from here to the Himalayas.

My only objection to the article is their overuse of the adjective "conservative." We are not "conservative," we are market liberals. No nanny-state conservatism for this think tank.

Update: BTW, the NY Times misunderstands the basics of economic freedom, to wit: their deciscion to place article about Milton Friedman's death in the business section. Friedman specifically, and our think tank movement generally, tries to explain human interaction -- how the world works. We are not for or against busness; we assess both sides of a transaction whether it be in a free market or in a "political" market.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Larry Reed's recent visit to New Mexico was a big success. Diane Velasco of The Citizen covered the event and offered her own assessment of Reed's speech and the freedom movement in New Mexico. We appreciate the coverage and hope to continue expanding the circle.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 06:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)