As our friends at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) write in their report "7 Myths of Green Jobs," there is no agreed upon example of "green jobs," many supposedly "green" jobs are simply clerical positions that are necessary only to handle the red tape and regulations associated with dealing with government rules, regulations, and subsidies. There are several other myths associated with the supposed creation of "green jobs." Hopefully all 100 members of the United States Senate read a copy of this report before voting on Waxman-Markey.

Hall has his polling data correct as far as I can tell. Of course, if enough people sell a given product (even socialized health care!) as a cure for all our problems, large numbers of people will begin to believe. Especially when they never see the drawbacks to the system they are being sold. But, Hall is flat out wrong when he says "America's statistics on life expectancy and infant mortality are approaching Third World standards." According to this table, we are on par with Ireland, Denmark, Finland, and several other decidedly 1st world nations when it comes to life expectancy and our infant mortality is rate is far better than third world nations, especially when you account for the fact that there are significant differences in the way the nations collect this data which make the US look worse than it really is.

But these two data sets are largely irrelevant when it comes to socialized medicine and the system proposed by Mr. Hall. Can capitalism work in health care? Hall argues that it cannot, but he does not provide a single shred of data as to how socialized medicine will improve our current system. We at the Rio Grande Foundation always provide real, specific, market-based solutions to our problems.

Socialized medicine's advocates seem to think that the government has magical powers to allocate resources in an ideal manner that will make everyone happy and will do this all in a more efficient manner than exists now -- or could possibly exist were we to pursue market-based reforms. Fortunately, even Obama realizes that reality is in conflict with that fantasy. Hopefully political reality finishes the job in killing a drastic move towards further socialization of our health care.

During last year's campaign, then-Senator Obama acknowledged that his cap-and-trade plan would necessarily cause energy costs says to "skyrocket." What's worse, though, is that as proposed, Waxman-Markey will have an even greater impact on energy costs than Obama's plan.

If we're going to be placing such a heavy burden on Americans, there ought be a substantial benefit. Unfortunately, using our government's own climate model, analysis by the Cato Institute projects that Waxman-Markey alone would only reduce global temperatures 0.07°F by 2050, and 0.2°F by 2100.

At the town hall meeting, I asked Senator Udall if he supported the bill, and if so, how he justified all of the bill's economic pain for the tiny environmental gain. Senator Udall ignored the 'economic pain' aspect, and instead spoke about the importance of reducing foreign oil dependence and making New Mexico a center for renewable energy.

It's convenient, as Senator Udall has done, to ignore such ugly consequences and instead frame the bill as a green job creator. But even then, such claims are misleading. The bill is not simply just creating new green jobs--it's doing so at the expense of other jobs.

The full study is available here.

Parkman rightly points to the tax treatment of health care and how it influences consumer behavior as the single most-important flaw with America's health care system:

On closer scrutiny, the problems with this industry should be viewed differently, as purchases of health care are often inefficient with unnecessary transaction costs. Let me explain. They can be inefficient because consumers are not exposed to the true cost of the services they are receiving and, consequently, the benefits may not justify the costs. In addition, there are unnecessary costs associated with each transaction. In contrast to a simple credit card purchase at a grocery store, health care expenses covered by insurance require additional paperwork for the provider and then administrative scrutiny from the insurance company.

Both of these problems exist because of the inappropriate use of insurance with regard to health care. Normally, we buy insurance to convert uncertainty into certainty. For example, we pay a predictable premium for fire insurance with the understanding that we will be reimbursed if our house burns down. We have converted an uncertain event (the burning of our house) into a predictable event (a premium and reimbursement if there is a fire). Fire insurance is fairly inexpensive — because it is seldom used.

As Parkman concludes, "With more realistic prices, some of the problems facing the working uninsured will be reduced. There still may be a role for the government providing catastrophic coverage for those individuals and families...real health care reform does not come from promising cost reductions and expanding coverage. It comes from making processes more efficient."

Also up for discussion is renewable energy and the "cap and trade" bill moving through Congress. Call in at 505-265-1550 and make your voice heard. As usual, the podcast will be available in podcast format on Monday if not sooner.

The slides used in Bruno's presenation can be found here

Video of the presentation is posted below:

New Mexico fares poorly in the study beating out only Colorado, California, Alaska, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania in terns of the overall Extent of Investment Barriers (chart on page 30). Since the study relied on survey data, comments from those who actually do business in the various jurisdictions were a part of the data. Comments about New Mexico included:

Corrupt government. Furthermore, politicians want to stop development but they still want the income. The state should rely on one agency to police the oil and gas industry rather than every agency, county, and city, having a separate permitting procedure.

State government is extremely ‘anti-oil’; very hard to make a profit.

The study is an interesting read. Even more interesting will be the impact New Mexico's increasing regulatory burden will have on one of the state's most important industries and tax revenues over time.

Jim Scarantino and I will be discussing the findings of this study with its author Gerry Angevine on Saturday's show at KIVA AM 1550 starting at approximately 9:15.

Writes Dr. Torre Near:

We, as individuals, can do more to improve our lives, but the way the current system is set-up, we have no incentive. The person who exercises every day, is in the normal weight range, doesn't smoke, has less than two drinks a day and sees a doctor once every two years pays the same as the person who is fat, smokes, drinks, (who's) exercise is working the remote and (who) sees the doctor every two weeks and is in the ER four times a year.

It doesn't make sense. We have to change the system, and a national health care plan won't do that. There have to be incentives to be healthy, just like there are incentives in car insurance to buy a lower cost car, avoid tickets and stay out of accidents.

While the specifics recommended by Dr. Near are somewhat lacking in specifics, there are plenty of ideas in New Mexico and nationally. Hopefully, Congress will kill proposals for government-run or socialized health care and then focus on recommendations that increase individual freedom and personal responsibility in health care.

The unique aspect of Scarantino's latest article, "Friends in High Places," Anatomy of the SIC’s Bad Investment in Earthstone International" (which is available here) is that the SIC's analysts actually tried to stop this investment from happening, but they were overruled by the Governor who had a strong desire to get the owners of Earthstone (well-heeled political donors to the Governor) some significant funding. As Scarantino reports:

The SIC knew that Earthstone was a bad bet. But only two months later, on January 27, 2004, the SIC announced that it would extend Earthstone $9 million in a convertible loan. What happened?

Documents in the SIC’s files reveal that promptly after being turned down by the SIC, Earthstone’s representatives began contacting other members of Richardson’s administration, particularly Rick Homans, who was then Richardson’s Economic Development Secretary. So, Governor Richardson, who exerts total control over the SIC, an entity that manages billions of New Mexicans’ taxpayer dollars, forced the SIC to go along with the Earthstone investment.

Unfortunately, as Scarantino reports, the story does not end with the loss of 9 million taxpayer dollars. Despite having not built its factory and not providing any new jobs for New Mexicans, Earthstone recently received another $3.5 million from the SIC.

1) "Health care costs are out of control because our system rewards more care, not better care." Sure, resources in our current system are not allocated in an optimal manner, but Hayek pointed out the information problem more than 60 years ago. Will government do a better job at allocating resources than our current system under which more than 50 percent of health care spending is already done by the government?

2) "Uninsured rates are high, especially in New Mexico." So, how about reducing mandates or allowing consumers to purchase care across state lines?

3) "We must clearly define what a basic insurance plan must cover. We must also end the practice of insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions." I'm not sure where Bingaman gets off telling the rest of us what kind of health insurance options we should be able to choose from, but that mentality seems to pervade Washington and has for years. If I'm a college kid who wants just a catastrophic policy, is that "acceptable?" How about health savings accounts? Also, "guaranteed issue" will dramatically increase prices.

4) "Part of reform is making sure younger and healthier people are buying coverage." Of course, guaranteed issue will force these younger, healthier people to subsidize those who take less good care of themselves and are older. How do you force these people into the system and is it really fair?

5) "The bill we send to Congress should shift us from a system that emphasizes 'sick care' to one that emphasizes prevention." Of course this is a good idea. Perhaps if we deregulated the system so doctors and patients could contract with each other as one doctor tried in New York, we could achieve some of these laudable goals, but with insurance companies playing such an outsized role, this is not going to happen under any of the plans now under consideration.

6) Bingaman then argues for "Evidence-Based Medicine" but Twila Brase has demolished the case for that particular form of social control under which doctors are nothing more than assembly-line workers taking orders from the state.

7) Lastly, Bingaman argues that we need a "public option" to compete with private health insurance. This simply means that we will move quickly to fully socialized medicine over time. After all, government, subsidized with taxpayer dollars, does not "compete" on an even playing field with industry. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-subsidized option has many advantages and will ultimately "crowd out" the competition.

As the Tea Party movement grows and continues, organization will be key. To that end, our friends at the Michigan-based Mackinac Center have created a "Tea Party Activist Toolbox" which is full of helpful ideas for maximizing the effectiveness of the Tea Party movement. We at the Rio Grande Foundation stand ready to assist the Tea Parties throughout New Mexico in formulating policy and organizing to maximize their effectiveness.

Nowadays, the federal government -- in this instance the Corps of Engineers -- is more than happy to come in with hundreds of millions of dollars to move the town of Martin, Kentucky. Read the entire story from the Los Angeles Times here. All this for a town with a population of 633 according to the most recent census data. That is a subsidy of an amazing $138,000 per resident.

I don't know if anyone has polled these people -- wouldn't be too hard with a population so small -- but I'd think the Corps could probably convince them to move for $70,000 per person or less. And Obama wants to put the federal government in charge of health care and all energy-related decisions!

HT: PJ Chavez