That’s great, but the CID wants to move forward with a policy that the new state regulations must be 10 percent stricter than new national model codes (whatever that means). Of course, folks from the CID claim that this increased efficiency is all for free because customers will benefit from less energy usage, but I remain unconvinced.

Regardless, it seems to me that the CID has overstepped its bounds by dealing with energy usage and sprinklers in the first place. Building codes should be there to protect the public’s safety from buildings that are dangerous or will fall down, not to mandate the latest environmental regulations or sprinklers.

After all, shouldn’t you be able to build your building and experience savings without some bureaucrat — waiting in the wings with the force of law — telling you how to build? Clearly, a horribly inefficient building will be an energy sink and would not be a popular choice in the market, but shouldn’t building buyers and tenants have that choice? The same applies to sprinklers. If sprinklers are a major benefit, the insurance companies will price policies in such a way as to make it worth our while — much like those anti-theft devices on cars — why do we need the state looking over our shoulders?

I say, get the CID back to making sure basic safety measures are in place. Leave energy efficiency and the deluxe sprinkler systems up to the free market lest they completely kill New Mexico’s building industry.

In a press release, Richardson stated “This study illustrates the value of our film initiatives from the point of view of a state that has lost significant numbers of jobs and revenue because of intense competition from places like New Mexico.” This is supposed to be taken as a justification for New Mexico taxpayers picking up the tab for 25% of film production costs and interest-free loans. The problem is that ANY industry would move to New Mexico given such largess. That doesn’t mean that it is a net economic benefit for the state (or taxpayers).

Let me explain it this way. If we give enough money to a particular industry, we will see increased activity in that sector. Where Richardson and his cronies fall down in their analysis is in assuming that the $60+ million for the fiscal year that just ended would not have resulted in even more jobs and wealth creation than the film subsidies. Richardson naturally assumes that he knows best, but as Nobel Prize-winning economist FA Hayek pointed out, central planners always face the problem of inadequate information relative to their counterparts acting in a free market.

Whatever the studies show, it takes a great deal of faith in the forecasting abilities of Bill Richardson to believe that central planning on behalf of the film industry makes economic sense.

Read more of Tom’s recent writings and blogs over at Tom’s page at NewMexicoLiberty.com.

The question of fiscal restraint in the Berry Administration likely hinges on the issue of the downtown events center. As I write in this week’s Alibi, Mayor Berry should abandon the events center/arena project based on the simple fact that it represents an expensive entry into a declining convention center marketplace that a businessman like Berry would never invest his own money in. If you are as concerned as I am, drop the Mayor a line.

It looks like more (needed) belt-tightening is on the way for state government as (I hope) there is no appetite among legislators for tax hikes in an election year. If legislators want to get serious about solving the budget problem without raising taxes, they need look no further than here.

Attorney General Gary King is still considering whether to take his fight to force two nonprofits to register as political committees to the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s also exploring ideas for amending state law so that its requirement that groups disclose funding sources passes the constitutional test.

The two non-profits are left-wing organizations King wants to register are left-wing groups New Mexico Youth Organized, which is a project of the Center for Civic Policy (CCP), and SouthWest Organizing Project maintain that mailers like this one sent out two to three months before the 2008. I am not going to say whether the activities of these two organizations strays over the legal line or not, you’ll have to decide that yourself, but what I will say is that the Rio Grande Foundation has never come close to the lines these organizations have so clearly pushed.

Nonetheless, as Haussamen notes, King seems to believe that the Rio Grande Foundation should be a target of donor disclosure as well. That seems absurd and King has failed to gain traction in the courts, but it would seem that King sees our Watchdog activities as more of a threat than he does government corruption.

Of course, this isn’t all, visitors to the UNM Children’s Hospital may notice that there is a pavilion at the medical center named after Richardson and his wife, Barbara. It is unseemly for sitting elected officials to name buildings (or any other public works) after themselves. This has not previously been done in New Mexico, but under Richardson the attitude has been more permissive. Perhaps some legislators might consider changing the law to prohibit this practice?

Of course, as most New Mexicans know, the issue is also pervasive at the federal level with several buildings named after Pete Domenici throughout the state. That said, New Mexicans really only have control of how our own tax dollars are used. Can’t we stop politicians from naming buildings after themselves?

As Ladner points out, demography is not destiny when it comes to K-12 education. Children of all racial and ethnic groups — not to mention income levels — can learn given the right reforms.

Because the very modest cuts the city is trying to implement would be averaged into his pension, he is retiring. The retirement of one fire fighter is not like to inflict harm on the citizens of Albuquerque, but this contract is way to generous. Only 21 years of work and his pension is already locked in and generous enough that it makes sense for him to retire — in a very tough job market — and take his pension. Something has got to change.

Then there is the out-of-town carpenters union protest that landed on the front page of today’s Albuquerque Journal. First and foremost, protesting a church is pretty low in and of itself. After all, churches are not normally high-dollar entities like the carpenters union that can afford $20 million to build a new training center. But now the union protesters are, according to the article, using “loud, dirty language” within earshot of children attending school at the church and are disrupting mass.

While the carpenters union protesters have a Constitutional right to free speech, I see them as little better than the scumbags at the Westboro Baptist “Church” that protests military funerals.

Now, as it turns out, Yankees’ boss George Steinbrenner — not one of my favorites I might add — dies in 2010 which just so happens to be the only year for which the death tax is completely repealed. This stroke of luck (or genius, because with him you never know) will save his heirs as much as $500 million in estate taxes.

Hey, you might say, the government needs that $500 million. After all, we face trillion dollar deficits. In a just world Steinbrenner’s estate should be taxed to the hilt. Well, I politely disagree. How much economic wealth do the Yankees, the most valuable franchise in sports, generate? That is a lot of taxes too. Do we want the Yankees to be sold off for the simple necessity of paying a massive tax bill as happened with the Washington Redskins?

Certainly, I disagree with the massive taxpayer subsidy of Yankee stadium, but overall I think Steinbrenner earned his money fair and square, has been taxed on it, and the government should not get another bite of the big apple. That said, I doubt Obama has any interest at all in killing the death tax.