The mail-in election in Albuquerque is turning into a debacle with more than 10 percent of votes being thrown out due to lack of signatures. Democrats are saying “count every vote” and are naturally critical of City Clerk Amy Bailey.

Of course, we were critical of the process at the outset and recognize that voting entirely by mail is problematic and should probably be abandoned entirely.

Rather than just blindly counting every vote in what is clearly a problematic process, how about just tossing the entire election out and putting the issue on the ballot at a time when turnout might be more respectable and when voters can show up in person? Just a thought and throwing out the election seems to be no further beyond the bounds of city law than “counting every vote” in a way that clearly violates the law.

Albuquerque’s City Council has signed on with $1.5 million of taxpayer money in support of a “hub” economic development concept from Florida. On one hand, we totally understand and appreciate Mayor Berry’s efforts to do something to spur economic growth independent of the federal government in Albuquerque.

Unfortunately, we remain skeptical about the likelihood of an investment of $1.5 million of city tax money (or more as the project develops) having the kinds of impacts seen in Florida. Rather, we’d like to see New Mexico’s liberal legislators wake up and realize that Florida’s success is driven by:

1) Having no personal income tax;
2) Being a “Right to Work” state;
3) An improving education system in which reforms (instituted by leaders like Hanna Skandera with the support of legislators) have led to dramatic improvement in areas like 4th grade reading. Check Florida vs. New Mexico.

These are just a few of the biggest reasons why entrepreneurs and small businesses are likely to set up shop in Florida and not New Mexico. I don’t know if the $1.5 million that City Council allocated to this “hub” concept will be wasted or not, but chances for success would be much higher if New Mexico embraced the business-friendly policies found in Florida.

Thanks to the folks at New Mexico’s Human Services Department for the following information on how fewer and fewer workers are paying the bills for the state’s Medicaid and SCI programs. Of course, this problem will be exacerbated by the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion.

With just a few weeks left in the 2013 legislative session, the wheat is beginning to separate from the chaff among legislators in terms of pro-and anti-freedom votes in the New Mexico Legislature.

Click here to access the site.

The good news is that two bills (both of them positive in terms of freedom) have passed both houses at this point.
Under the “Index Summary” tab, you can see how many points, positive or negative, your legislator has earned so far this session;

Under the “Compare Parties” tab you can find out which of the two parties in Santa Fe are voting FOR freedom and which are voting AGAINST freedom;

The “Legislators” tab allows you to look at details of each legislator;

The “Legislator Record” allows users to see which bills are included in the analysis and whether they are pro or anti-freedom;

The “Rated Legislation” tab allows users to access analyses for each bill included in the report and better understand the ratings.

Unfortunately, not much in the way of needed reforms has passed out of either house this session to date. Fewer bills have made it through both houses.

And, so far, the following priorities have either been killed completely or are on “life support.”

No “Right to Work;”

No pro-business tax reforms;

No serious effort at deregulation;

No school choice; and

No serious education reforms;

Our tracking site called “Freedom Index” allows users to see how all members of both parties are voting on freedom issues. More importantly, users (including legislators) can find out how pro-or anti-freedom various pending bills are.

With less than two weeks left in the legislative session, a lot can happen. We’re not impressed with the lack of action on some of the big economic and educational problems facing the state, but we remain hopeful that some additional pro-freedom reforms can take place in the closing days of the session. Be sure to contact your legislators to share your views with them.

SB 416 has passed the New Mexico Senate on a party line vote. The bill raises the minimum wage, but as reported, the bill excludes businesses with fewer than 11 workers and farm and ranch workers.

I don’t get it. Why would those who claim to see an increase in the minimum wage as some kind of human rights issue not include employees of small businesses or farm and ranch workers? Farm and ranch workers, by the way, have some of the most dangerous jobs in the nation…far more dangerous than being a cop or fire fighter and yet these well-paid government workers can retire after a mere 20 years with generous pensions.  One might think that this legislation is based on political concerns as opposed to maximizing worker benefits….

And to top it all off, Sen. Bill Sharer tried to amend the minimum wage bill to $21.87 in Committee, but advocates of the wage floor voted against it. An $8.50 an hour wage is only good for a $17,680 annual salary. Why are the Democrats being so cheap? Sharer’s amendment would have set a minimum wage of $45,490. Now THAT is a real living wage! Since we have already accepted the “fact” that government bureaucrats and politicians can arbitrarily impose higher wages with no negative repercussions, I don’t understand the reluctance to go with the higher wage rate. Imagine all the extra money that’ll be pumped into the economy!!!!

While a great deal has been said and written about the minimum wage and its economic impact, the Heritage Foundation busts 5 myths of the minimum wage here.  

On February 15th, state officials and the Environmental Protection Agency resolved their long running dispute over the regulation of haze-causing emissions from the San Juan Generating Station, an 1,800 megawatt coal-fired power plant near Farmington that is operated by PNM resources.

As a result of the proposed settlement, EPA got what it wanted, and PNM reaped a windfall. Indeed, the only losers were the state’s electricity ratepayers: They’re on the hook for almost $400 million, in order to achieve dubious environmental benefits.

At issue is a Clean Air Act regulation known as Regional Haze, the purpose of which is to improve the view at national parks. Before last Friday’s settlement, the parties had disagreed what Regional Haze controls were appropriate for the San Juan Generating Station. In July 2011, state officials proposed a plan for the power plant that would cost PNM ratepayers $36 million. A month later, EPA imposed a Regional Haze plan that would cost an estimated $375 million.

New Mexico then sued EPA. In the spring of 2012, state officials initiated negotiations with EPA and PNM, in an attempt to reach a settlement in lieu of litigation. Last Friday’s announcement was the culmination of those negotiations.

The proposed deal would shutter two of the San Juan Generating Station’s boilers, totaling almost 770 megawatts of electricity capacity. This generation would be replaced with a new 150 – 200 megawatt natural gas plant. The state’s preferred Regional Haze controls would be retrofitted onto the remaining two boilers. According to PNM, the plan would cost $400 to $430 million.

So who won and who lost?

PNM is the big winner. Utilities always have an incentive to make large capital expenditures, because doing so increases the rate base on which they earn a guaranteed return. Thanks to the proposed settlement, PNM gets to build an expensive new natural gas plant, and it will earn about 10% in guaranteed profits for every dollar it spends.

EPA won, too. The San Juan Generating Station becomes the latest casualty in the agency’s war on coal. In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that he would “bankrupt” the coal industry, if elected. Now, EPA is executing the President’s campaign promise. Notably, former EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz, who was responsible for the Regional Haze federal plan imposed on the San Juan Generating Station, now works at Sierra Club’s ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign.

New Mexico, on the other hand, lost big. Truth be told, it is unclear what state officials were thinking. New Mexico originally objected to EPA’s Regional Haze plan because it cost an order of magnitude more than the state’s plan. (EPA’s plan cost $375 million; New Mexico’s plan cost $36 million.) Yet state officials negotiated an alternative agreement that cost at least $400 million—i.e., it is more expensive than the draconian regulation it replaces.

New Mexico’s bargaining strategy is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that state was in a great position to beat the EPA in court. Because Regional Haze is an aesthetic regulation—rather than a public health measure—the Congress wanted the states to be the lead decision makers. As articulated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, “states…play the lead role in designing and implementing Regional Haze programs.” Given the unique primacy accorded to states on visibility policy by the law, EPA’s decision to impose a federal Regional Haze plan rested on shaky legal grounds.

New Mexico’s lawsuit was further bolstered by the absence of an appreciable environmental benefit attendant to EPA’s Regional Haze plan. According to peer reviewed research, there is only a a 35 percent chance that the average person could perceive the “improvement” in visibility achieved by EPA’s controls over the state’s measure.

In abandoning promising litigation and instead adopting last week’s announced settlement, state officials appear to have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

William Yeatman is an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank in Washington, D.C.

The Rio Grande Foundation will be hosting a series of events with author John Blundell on his two books, “Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady” and “Ladies for Liberty: Women Who Made a Difference in American History.”

There will be a luncheon in Albuquerque on Thatcher on Monday, March 25;

An evening reception on “Ladies for Liberty” in Santa Fe on Monday, March 25; and

A breakfast on Lady Thatcher in Albuquerque on Tuesday, March 26.

Reserve your seat at one or more of these events today!

We have two recent newspaper columns, one by Ron Stern, the CEO of Lovelace, the other by Bernalillo County Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins. Stern argues that a bed-sharing agreement could save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars while Stebbins says that is not the case. I happen to agree with Stern, so I want to address the points Stebbins makes in today’s paper.

Stebbins’ first point is that UNMH is New Mexico’s only Level 1 trauma center and that such patients cannot be shifted to other hospitals. It is true that UNMH is the state’s only Level 1 trauma center and it is also true that shifting those patients to other hospitals is not a workable solution, but that doesn’t mean that every patient at UNMH is a “Level 1″ patient that could not be shifted elsewhere. It has been noted that many of the new beds at the $146 million UNMH expansion will be “elective.” These are not Level 1 by definition.

The Commissioner’s other point is that Medicaid expansion will create an influx of additional patients into New Mexico’s health care system. This may be true, but it doesn’t follow that New Mexico will need more Level 1 trauma beds or even another hospital. In fact, it would be far more cost-effective to build community clinics that help avoid the need for high-cost emergency rooms.

Stebbins seems to be saying that more people will get shot or will have car accidents when Medicaid is expanded. That is just silly.

There is no doubt that easy solutions to our local health care issues are scarce, but the onus of proof must be on those looking to construct this expensive, taxpayer-financed hospital. It seems that Lovelace has made a reasonable proposal for an alternative. Opponents of that solution must come up with some better arguments than those put forth by Stebbins.

The New Mexico House of Representatives has passed legislation that would tap the State’s permanent fund for more education spending. Supporters claim that spending more money on K-12 is an “investment in the future.”

Regardless of the tenuous connection between education spending and results (New Mexico is in the middle of the pack when it comes to education spending, but at the bottom in results), the fact is that New Mexico’s education system seems to be mis-allocating resources. One thing is definitely true, according to a new report (see table 8) from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, “New Mexico is one of 21 states that employs fewer teachers than administrators and other non-teaching staff.”

We certainly don’t have much use for the “Three Tiered Licensing System” which according to the Legislative Finance Committee “has not improved student performance with (increased) taxpayer investments in teacher pay.”

So, in conclusion, the proposed constitutional amendment would tap the permanent fund to the tune of $60 million annually (starting out) as a political payoff to the unions, nothing more, nothing less.

Secretary Designate for Education, Hanna Skandera, has been under attack by the status quo crowd (led by the unions) since day one. Why? She supports reforms to our educational system — like charter schools, digital learning, A-F grading of schools, elimination of social promotion, and “pay for teacher performance” that upset the status quo.

This issue is about to come to a head as confirmation hearings have been scheduled in the Senate Rules Committee. Skandera has been performing the role as “Secretary Designate” as no confirmation hearings have been held, but we believe that opponents of education reform are looking to oust Skandera from her job by getting a “No” vote on the Senate floor.

Skandera’s approval of a “virtual” charter school of which I am on the board may have been the final straw, but there is no doubt that the unions and the establishment that have given us a 49th in the nation education system are gearing up to defend their turf (this has nothing to do with educating our kids, of course).

It is time for New Mexicans who support increasing the number of educational options available to step up and make themselves heard. Let the members of Senate Rules know what you think. Let your senator know that you support Skandera’s efforts to reform education in New Mexico. The initial hearing is this Friday morning at 8:30am with a vote on the senate floor likely to occur in the days ahead.

Update: check out this story from reporter Rob Nikolewski on Skandera and US Education Secretary not having “classroom experience.” I actually disagree with the assessment that Skandera is not a “qualified, experienced educator” as required in the Constitution.

According to her bio: “taught Education Policy at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Public Policy.”

So, in order to teach in New Mexico, you can be at APS or Cobre, but Pepperdine doesn’t cut it?