Green Jobs?

Obama and the other advocates for massive new taxes and regulations on energy usage are claiming that their legislation will result in the creation of millions of new "green jobs." Unfortunately, the reality is not so rosy.

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.

The "Single-Payer 'Solution'"

I'll give him credit, John R. Hall, writing in today's Albuquerque Journal, knows how to push people's buttons in support of universal health care. His argument goes something like this: Obama supports it, doctors support it, the American people support it. The only ones who don't support "universal" health care are the big, nasty insurance and drug companies, not to mention the media. Oh, and by the way, our current health care system is killing us and our babies and free market capitalism is a failure.

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.

Senator Udall on Cap-and-Trade

Senator Udall held a town hall meeting today in Albuquerque, and I asked him an important question about the the cap-and-trade bill (Waxman-Markey) that has already passed in the House and will be voted on in the Senate.

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.

New Mexico Public Employees Overreach: Part II

As I blogged recently, New Mexico's government employees are suing the state in an attempt to head-off reduced pension benefits and longer work requirements prior to retirement. The Rio Grande Foundation has previously exposed New Mexico's bloated state and local government bureaucracy. I pull the items together in this new opinion piece.

High Speed Rail: Railroading New Mexico Taxpayers

The Rio Grande Foundation has introduced a new study from prominent transportation expert Randal O'Toole who has analyzed the limited positive impact high speed rail will have on Americans and New Mexicans in particular in terms of mobility and the tremendous impact such "investments" will have on taxpayers. Read more in the study release here.

The full study is available here.

A New Mexico-based Academic Gets it Right on Health Care

Professor Allen Parkman is a Professor of Management at University of New Mexico. In a recently-published opinion piece that appeared in the Albuquerque Journal, he explains in simple, clear detail, why health care costs have spiraled out of control over the years. As he puts it with regards to Obama's proposed reform of our health care sector, "History suggests that any cost reductions will be hard to obtain and expanded coverage will be very expensive."

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."

"Reform Health Care, but to what end?"

All too often, those who want to increase the amount of regulations and level of government in the health care sector are considered to be "reformers," a term generally associated with improving on the flaws of a current, broken system. Several recent articles and letters appeared in the West Side edition of the Albuquerque Journal arguing on behalf of such policies. In my response to these big-government advocates, I argue that moving toward a free market in health care would represent a set of "reforms" that is far more likely to address the flaws inherent in our current system.

This Week on Speaking Freely: Talking Tea Parties and Oil and Gas

This week on "Speaking Freely" on AM 1550 from 9am to 10am on Saturday, Jim and Paul will be interviewing the leaders of the Albuquerque Tea Party movement about the July 4 tea party being planned. In addition, we will be discussing this new study which I recently blogged about on New Mexico's difficult climate for those who would like to drill for oil and gas within the state's borders.

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.

Vic Bruno Presentation posted online

Rio Grande Foundation board member and commercial real estate expert Vic Bruno recently presented his thoughts on the intersection of public policy and the Albuquerque commercial real estate market. His presentation focused on the current economic situation as it is affecting Albuquerque and how past events and policy decisions led us to where we are today. He also addressed how we move forward and ways that policymakers and individuals acting in the commercial real estate market can thrive in this new paradigm.

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

Video of the presentation is posted below: