One is the tyranny of oppression…much like that which we see in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The second form is called excessive ambition like that which we saw with Athens attempting to take Sicily in the Peloponnesian War or Germany’s two attempts to take over Europe. The third form of misgovernment and policy is called incompetence or decadence. The last imperial dynasty of China is a good example of this kind of misguided public policy. The final kind of misguided public policy is called folly or perversity. Folly is about the continuous pursuit of a flawed policy that is counter-productive for the body being governed. That is, government officials pursue a policy that is not in the self-interest of the governed. Even in the face of good data and information, public officials, representing the people pursue a policy that is known to be contrary to the self-interest of the constituencies being served. While it is true that many of these forms come in combinations, what interests us with respect to New Mexico is the latter form particularly, although other forms may apply to New Mexico too.

Why the High Taxes that are against the Self-Interest of the Free Markets in New Mexico?

What we know from economics is that lower taxes mean revenue growth for most states. When Michigan lowered its taxes, businesses came running across the border from Indiana. When the state of Mississippi lowered taxes, the revenues have climbed. (See the Federal Reserve reports in Atlanta on this change in the South). Why, then does New Mexico and those that govern our state pursue policies that are contrary to this knowledge in economics and tax the people and the businesses in such a manner that is not in the self-interest of the people or the government? Why? Why do we have gross receipts taxes when we can have a new sales tax that can be statewide and sufficient to provide revenue for the state and local governments?

Why have compensatory taxes on small businesses for equipment that is purchased outside the state while the same small business is employing 80 percent or more of local New Mexico citizens? These taxes came about because the legislature wants businesses to buy in state, but who cares where they buy there equipment if they continue to employee people. Free markets should rein. Why punish small businesses in this manner? Why have such high income taxes, relative to other states and their per capita income, and gas taxes when lower ones will bring even more people to our state and create even more revenues? Income taxes in New Mexico should be capped at 3 percent flat tax and no increases allowed without going back to the people for the increase. Economic incentives move people with their feet. Why this perversity in New Mexico? There is a culture of dependency on government in New Mexico that is appealing to some groups and those groups hold the power in New Mexico through the liberal factions in the state legislature and some business interests too.

All taxes are harmful and big governments are harmful economically too. Why is this so? A government, controlling the flow of money, does not produce economic growth like the private sector is able to do. Inefficiency of government is one of the culprits, especially big government. Investment money in the private sector is what stimulates growth and produces new ideas that government would not dare to take on for fear of political retribution and risk. Governments, by their very nature should be limited in their economic activity. California is a good example of a state where government is so big that it is now unmanageable and deeply in debt ($40 billion at last count). Big government produces a drain on the economy because money that would have gone to new projects in the private sector is now going for new taxes to pay for the debt service and the mistakes in social engineering. Even Warren Buffet, a note worthy financial guru, has called for higher taxes in California to produce enough revenue to meet the debt service needs. Is this what we want in New Mexico? California is an ominous sign for the entire country too.

Why a Convention Center for Las Cruces that will create even more Public Sector Employment when we need less Public Sector Employment?

We know that markets, like Las Cruces, New Mexico, have over 60 percent of its employment base that is public sector driven while leaving only 30 percent of the employment base for the private sector. From economics, again, we know that a 70 percent private employment base is much preferred over a high public sector employment base for real economic growth and for revenues to increase in government via taxation that accrues from such private sector growth activity.

Why do we continue to support (by our inaction) programs that increase the public sector employment to the detriment of the private sector employment in the face of these facts? The convention center decision by City Council in Las Cruces is another boondoggle “white elephant” that will create more public sector jobs and create harsh taxation on tourists and small businesses. The socialists (where the means of production and capital is turned over to the government), like Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Harrell, and the many in the Chamber, NMSU, and our own legislator Mary Jane Garcia all went to the legislature to ensure that they could increase the taxes on the people. They had to get support for a tax increase because the money collected by the City of Las Cruces was already at its cap amount. This same group argued that this was an exportable tax that was a “pass through” that went to the tourists. But that is not the whole story. Taxpayers have to back these bonds with gross receipts taxes to fund the project. No one discussed that with the taxpayers and many of us “in the know” about taxation in the state and region where not consulted either. The business hotel owners were not consulted either. Now this same group claims that the resistance is all a surprise to them. This is a perfect case study in arrogance and ignorance gone wild in public policy management. It is part of the deception about taxation that survives in New Mexico and should be stopped.

At the same time the taxpayers will have to back bonds for which they were not consulted in advance of the decision to build the $22 million dollar boondoggle. The management structure for this entity should not be government driven because government in Las Cruces has demonstrated that it cannot manage anything, not the El Paso Electric Company, the Health and Hospital System, even the gas rates or an imposed smoking policy! Why is the City Council acting against the self-interest of the constituencies that is serves? Why indeed? No matter what the government wonks tell you, a new convention center means higher taxes. People most affected are against the convention center and the voters had no opportunity to vote for the convention center, so why does the City Council continue to act against the citizens who are most affected? Why, indeed? And to demonstrate the point here is the latest on the Albuquerque Convention Center. Please read it and weep for Las Cruces and its future:

“Center May be First to Privatize
Albuquerque city councilors narrowly voted to launch negotiations with a private company Monday to take over management of the Convention Center, which has lost millions of dollars in recent years.” (Albuquerque Journal, August 5, 2003).

NMIRI’s private sector cluster method to build convention capacity in Las Cruces is more appropriate to our economic needs at this time. Las Cruces will need time to build tourism infrastructure to attract more high quality tourists to our region. This will offer a free market option that is dependent upon markets, not subsidization by the taxpayers. If the private sector does not come to Las Cruces, it is because the Economic Development professionals have not done their job (meaning find private sector hotel investors) or the markets have determined that the project is not feasible here. If it is not feasible via free market economics, why would the taxpayers want to subsidize it anyway? (See NMIRI research on the convention center at www.zianet.com/nmiri). Now the City of Albuquerque is demonstrating our point. Guess who covers the debt service in Albuquerque for their losses and ongoing costs of the convention center? The taxpayers do, that is who pays. Why do we not learn from the march of folly in New Mexico?

Why do we continue to support all the higher education institutions in New Mexico, when two or three institutions will be sufficient for our population?

New Mexico has more higher education expenditures per capita than most all other states in the U.S. Why do we create all this public sector employment in higher education when we know that our return on investment in these institutions is not meeting our needs for the future? When we graduate students in high technology or information systems, for example, they immediately leave for Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco or Seattle to get a good job in high technology. The New Mexico citizen is left with little or no return on investment in human capital formation via higher education.

Add to this problem the fact that most universities here are having trouble keeping students in the system to graduate. NMSU, for example, does not graduate about 40 percent of its initial entering students. What does that do to our investment picture in New Mexico for human capital formation? Will companies and manufacturers come here because we have the intelligent labor pool? Students are not getting what they want at NMSU, or , they have run out of money, or, our admission policies are so badly skewed that we should not have admitted them to the university in the first place.

We do not invite high technology companies to come here like Hewlett Packard, IBM or others like them. We would rather offer marginal groups like the deals being cut with Eclipse Aviation and others right now in New Mexico when we know they probably won’t make it financially, but we march forward into folly even when we know it won’t work. Why do we march into folly when it is against our own self-interest in New Mexico? Higher education needs to be competitive to help the local and state businesses create new business, but those within the university are so far removed from the world that needs the talent they are producing, that there is little hope they even understand the small or large business needs in New Mexico.

The problem with education is not money. We have already demonstrated in the United States that throwing money at education without accountability, and good support of parents and businesses simply does not work. Families and teachers must be supported in education in New Mexico to make a difference and create a new policy that will enhance education for our near term future. We must promote honest dialogue in New Mexico with Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Greens and Democrats to change the course of education in New Mexico. Parents in the marketplace must be the final arbiters of educational outcomes. To help the parents, we need to change the normative structure of education through the teachers as well. As Fredrick M. Hess, at the University of Virginia has noted, “Making education competitive requires more than just high hopes, the very culture and rules of public schooling must be overhauled.” So to dip into the Permanent Fund at this time without restructuring the culture of education in New Mexico is foolhardy at the very least. Much work needs to be done before we unleash these funds or any funds to enhance education.

New Mexico’s other problem is similar to states, like Utah, where we promote state paternalism in education. Is this moral? Is it appropriate to allow the state to make our children solely dependent upon the state for their education? Why do we give the state a monopoly in New Mexico on education? Vouchers, charter schools and tax credits seem to be working in other states. Why do we not choose to open the door to competition in New Mexico? Is it because we are afraid that our families might become self-reliant in education? Is it because we are not electing the kind of candidates who even understand the education issues?

To be competitive, we need to first offer faculty higher salaries without a tenure system. All current faculty and teachers under this proposed system could opt to stay tenured or come onboard with the non-tenure system. We need a five year rolling contract system that allows faculty to re-commit to another five years and we need to pay faculty who produce what they are really worth for the future of our state based upon their objectives in research, community commitment and teaching. For this option, the faculty gets a 15 percent salary signing bonus. At the end of each five year contract the faculty needs to leave the university for one year and work in the real world and get insight into the issues faced by business and society. They should be paid for this one year of sabbatical. Upon return they can renew their commitment for another five years and continue the process for as long they like, but renewing each five years with sabbaticals. This approach allows for a breath of fresh air into the culture of education in New Mexico. At the same time parents need to be involved in the system for the faculty to ensure that the parents are getting what they want. This means a voucher system and tax credits to support education in New Mexico.

Why do we not experiment with this approach in New Mexico to unleash the return on investment that this might bring to the higher and secondary education system? With the money saved by closing some of the current campuses, this system could be introduced. We would rather march into folly and keep the public sector stagnant than to find ways to rejuvenate it. Why? Feasible alternative actions are available, but we refuse to create them or act on them. Why in New Mexico are we so incompetent to move on these issues? Could it be because of the “culture of dependency” upon which this state continues to thrive?

Secondary Education in New Mexico: Human Capital Formation or Folly?

In a 1998 study of our students in NM who drop out, Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, pointed out that our graduation rate for Latinos was 58 percent, for Blacks it was 58 percent and for Whites it was 74 percent. New Mexico ranked 41st in the overall graduation rate, for the year 1998, compared to Iowa, the best state, at 93 percent graduation rate. How can NM ever hope to develop an economy when the workforce is not even graduating from high school at rates that are competitive with the rest of the nation or our neighbors in the region?

Are we marching into folly in education too, when we clearly have options and alternatives for the challenge that is before us? Are we happy with the fact that 42 percent of Latinos and Blacks in NM are dropping out and not completing high school? We are not graduating 26 percent of our Anglo children in NM too. Factors that contribute to drop out rates are that the family is uneducated and these students lack the social skills to compete effectively in the free market economy. How is that some of us who came from parents without a formal education can make it, while others cannot? Could it be that the family is critical to this process of commitment to education? Why do NM families abandon their children in this way?

We must do better in NM to graduate our children at higher rates than the current rates that we see here. If Iowa can graduate 93 percent why can’t we? We need to open up our schools to privatization and allow even more educational freedom in NM through vouchers that will make schools and school systems more competitive with each other. To be fair to teachers, we must increase their pay as they begin to demonstrate the results required for our modern society via the rolling contract periods. Educational outcomes measures are very important to this process, but teachers must be given the freedom to meet the needs of individual students while being paid for their labors in ways that create incentives. Teachers must also be given time to develop this new culture for education with the parents as their partners in the community. Administrators need to facilitate this, but they should get out of the way and foster this kind of creativity between teachers and families. We should say to teachers that opt on to such a system that no teacher begins teaching here under $50,000 per year.

The teachers unions in NM and across America have absolutely stifled the educational process and marched into folly with respect to the future of our children in this state. In 2001 the U.S. Bureau of Statistics demonstrated that the union membership overall in the U.S. was down to 13.5 percent, the lowest share of union workers since the 1940s. Local government workers are the most unionized at 42.2 percent, this includes teachers and government school employees. In the near term, we may see teachers unions over take all other union membership in the U.S. The NEA could become more powerful, as a union, than all other unions combined in the not too distant future unless we can demonstrate to teachers that we care about them and their work with action.

Education is too important to be left to the unions in America who have never demonstrated that they care about our children. We must take back the educational system, and demand what we want and need for our children and our economy in New Mexico. So far the record is more “undisturbed continuance” and the NM march of folly in education continues its pathetic course for secondary education as well.

Why in New Mexico do we allow a Governor to by-pass the Constitution and not meet the requirements for balance of power required by the Constitution?

The balance of powers between the legislative, judicial and executive branches has been a mainstay for creating effective checks and balances in government in New Mexico and the nation. Yet, today, we have Governor Richardson in New Mexico who thinks he does not have to ask the legislative branch about spending money that is sent to the state from the federal government. We even have legislators who will not move on this issue for fear they will be called “mean spirited” when they should be acting on behalf of the self-interest of the constituencies they serve.

These state legislators and the governor march into folly even on the most fundamental of government policies and dictates. Don’t we consider this very dangerous for the preservation of our constitution? Isn’t this real folly that borders on decadence and incompetence on the part of policy makers in New Mexico? Should we, as citizens, allow the Governor to spend this money unchecked by others for oversight? Is this what we mean when we say policy makers pursue policies that are contrary to self-interest of the citizens they serve? Wooden headedness is the cousin of self-deception when it comes to the march of folly in public policy, isn’t it? The British lost America on the same basis. Jefferson wrote to his delegates from Virginia the following: Britain’s series of oppressions “pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.” In some ways, businesses in New Mexico believe they are slaves to the gross receipts tax and the corporate taxes produced by the big government of New Mexico and its ever growing monstrous needs.

In some ways, businesses in New Mexico believe they are slaves to the gross receipts tax, compensatory tax and the corporate taxes. The people are the slave to the income and capital gains taxation. These taxes, combined with the federal taxation, reduces many of our citizens to slavery for government when that money, in their hands, will produce economic growth for the state. Why this march of folly on taxation in NM, even with the current plan hastily constructed by the current administration? With one hand they lower income taxes and with the other one, they increase the gas taxes. The march of folly on taxation in New Mexico, why?

Why is there little or no commitment to free market economics and limited government in New Mexico?

We march into folly in New Mexico much like previous generations. It is so easy to rely on big government spending in New Mexico isn’t it? After all, we have White Sands, the military commitments to New Mexico, Sandia Labs and so many other government commitments that it is easy to continue to rely on these sources of economic sustenance. For every dollar we sent to Washington, they send us back approximately two dollars. Now that is a real deal, isn’t it? Yet, these are hollow forms of economic support without a solid private sector to support them and to offset government recessions.

New Mexico’s per capita income ranges from $12,667 in Mora County to $38,350 in Los Alamos or a statewide per capita income of $21,164. Compared to our neighbors in other states in our region, we continue to perform poorly because of the high taxation as related to expenditures per thousand of income. We are higher than the national average and higher than all other states in our region. We continue to be high in state and local taxes per thousand of income compared to the other states in our region. New Mexico is highest in collected sales and gross receipts taxes as a percent of revenue and reaches over 50 percent when compared to other states in our region that are all below 50 percent and some are as low as 40 to 45 percent of collected taxes as a percent of revenue for the state. GRT tax is still onerous in New Mexico and about 54 percent of NM’s revenue is the gross receipts tax on services. Competing jurisdictions in the region can be more competitive than our businesses in NM because of the gross receipts taxes. Gross receipts bring added overhead for businesses by bringing the services in-house to avoid paying the taxes by the businesses. None of the competing states has a tax on services like New Mexico’s gross receipts tax. While the state has recently enacted legislation to lower the income tax over several years, the legislature refuses to get rid of the onerous gross receipts tax on services. The March of Folly in New Mexico continues with respect to taxation.

We do not have a balanced economy in New Mexico and we need to have more free market economic activities. In fact, New Mexico is heavily dependent upon the nation’s economy because we are so closely linked with the federal government. This is very dangerous and has proven to be so over many years. To attain our goal of limiting government, we would have no new taxes in New Mexico for at least five years at the local, regional and state level. This would mean peeling back many state government functions where there is clearly room for private sector development of contracts rather than public ones. The U.S. Postal service is the best example of our mis-spent commitments nationally. Close the postal services and let the private sector bid on the service for the people. If you want to witness arrogance, just go to a Post Office and stand in line and watch decadence and incompetence in action. Just look at all the new buildings that are built in New Mexico and our region. Most of them are public sector buildings costing the taxpayer even more to sustain these operations in the state. For example, look at the new Post Office on West Picacho in Las Cruces. Just think if all these buildings were built to provide private sector jobs in manufacturing and high technology, for example. What kind of economic difference would that make to a state like New Mexico?

To control spending we need to cap our taxes and not allow any increase in taxation in New Mexico without the full approval of the constituencies that are most affected by the tax. Colorado has developed this approach and has spent ten years mastering this methodology for controlling spending and investment by government. Now it is one of the few states that can boast economic success. It forces legislators to live within the means of the government that is before them. It stops the march of folly on taxation and lends some appreciation for “control” in management of government policies. Best of all, it keeps lobbyists at a distance. At the same time, it renews the confidence of the people and halts the march of folly.

Why not begin with the City Council of Las Cruces, NM and have them all agree to not tax anything or increase any more fees without the approval of the taxpayers? Why not have them sell off all the major capital assets of the city? Why should they own the land on the West Mesa? That should be in private hands. Does a city government have the expertise to market such ventures? The answer is no, but it offers cronyism instead to “private groups” instead of selling the land back to the private sector. If they don’t agree to this approach, then we fire them until we get the kind of public policy that will drive the growth of the free market private sector without all the cronyism that is so rampant today in New Mexico. That would be public policy that might make a difference and control somewhat the excessive ambition that currently exists on the City Councils of Las Cruces, Albuquerque and in the halls of Santa Fe. It is your government and your city and state…take it back and stop the march of folly.

Why the continued March of Folly in the Organization and Funding of Education in New Mexico?

Governor Richardson, along with Senator Domenici and former Governor Garry Carruthers, now Dean of Business at NMSU, all want us to change the constitution of New Mexico so that they can raid the “permanent funds” and make them “temporary funds”. Two amendments have been proposed that would change the constitution and the way education is funded and organized in New Mexico. These proposals will be on the September 23rd ballot for all New Mexicans. Again, they are examples of the March of Folly in NM by our elected officials. Huge errors in judgment about public policy funding, and organization in NM can kill the future of the Permanent Fund, as we have known it, if we give the legislature access to these funds with a blank check.

Amendment One: “The first proposed amendment creates a cabinet-level public education department. It changes the 15-member (10 elected and 5 appointed) state board of education, which currently determines public school and vocational education policy and controls, manages and directs public education, into a 10-member elected public education commission with no expressly enumerated powers and duties. The cabinet secretary of public education would then be responsible for public education.” (Heacox, 2003).

Amendment Two: "A joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution of New Mexico to provide for a limited additional distribution from the Permanent Fund to provide more money for public schools to implement and maintain educational reforms and for other permanent fund recipients." (Legislature NM 2003).

In the case of amendment one, it is clear that we may need a new structure to the educational commission and how it functions, but why do we want to have the fox (an educator) guarding the hen house (our children). A cabinet secretary that must be an educator, why? Should we abolish the current commission structure, probably, yes. But should it be mandatory that the new Secretary of Education be an educator, most assuredly, no. This policy and amendment needs more thorough and thoughtful work to be successful. Governor Richardson barges ahead without benefit of other opinions like NMIRI policy professionals or others in the state who might have to tell him his policy is a policy of error or folly. So he does not ask for other opinions. Why go to the people when you have all the answers already?

Amendment two is full of so much error and past behavioral problems associated with the state legislature that it goes without saying, that this amendment is more of the same march of folly. Why? Don’t trust us for our sole opinions, but look at what experienced legislators have outlined. Here is what the former legislator George Buffet has to say to his colleagues, Senator Domenici and former Governor Carruthers:

“Constitutional Amendment 2 says that we will increase the hit on the Permanent School Fund from 4.7% to 5.8% beginning (no date is set) for only the first eight years then drops to 5.5% for four years, then down to 5%. This means Bill's scheme gives the school administrators, the maintenance staff and possibly teachers the biggest raises for the 8 years that Bill has announced he will serve as New Mexico's Governor. Then the next hit on the Permanent School Fund is only 5.5% for four years, then dropping to 5% after that so all the governors who follow won't look as good as Bill.

If the hit on the fund makes the fund drop below $5.8 billion, then any payments cease. This allows a $1.1 billion hit or 16% of the fund. We should not be willing to risk 16% of the Permanent School Fund just for Bill's political future (aspirations) in Washington. Gentlemen, I have decided to oppose the amendment because I believe it will be a disaster for our state.

This amendment's so-called small increase of 4.7 to 5.8% is almost a 25% increase and will be a disaster to our Permanent School Fund. California is also a public domain state and once had a system like ours but made a huge mistake. Their fund was not protected by their constitution. California state politicians kept finding emergencies so their fund could be raided. California's Permanent Fund is now gone. The free-spending politicians raided all of it and California, unlike New Mexico, is a very rich state.” (Buffet newsletter, Buffets’ Bullets, 2003).

Additionally, Vernon Kerr, another former legislator in NM, has warned us about the continuing behavior of the legislature regarding other permanent funds that became temporary funds in our march to folly in NM. Here is what Mr. Kerr has to say:

“In the case of the Severance Tax Permanent Fund the law was changed in 2000 to divert 87 ½ percent of all severance tax money into use for severance tax bonds (a favorite vehicle for funding legislative pork). This left only 12 1/2 percent to go into the Severance tax permanent Fund. Previously 50 percent of the one half billion dollars of Severance tax money went into the permanent fund.

The Severance Tax Permanent Fund has been raided.

In 1999 the Tobacco Settlement Permanent Fund was created from money distributed to the state from suits against the tobacco industry. And as with the public school fund 4.7% of the value of the fund was to accrue to the General Fund each year. Four years later the income to that fund no longer goes into the permanent fund but is rolled into the General Fund for use by the big spenders in Santa Fe. In 2007 the income reverts to the Tobacco Fund that is no longer a “permanent fund “ but a reserve fund.

The Tobacco Permanent Fund has been raided.

Now the Governor and the Legislature are asking for the public’s assistance to raid the Public School Permanent Fund. If the people follow the Governor’s lead the fund will suffer.

According to former State Representative David Townsend the proposed amendment will shrink the fund by $1.8 billion dollars by the year 2021. He should know since he has been the co-chairman of the Initiatives and Accountability Task Force for public schools. The loss of $100 million a year with the potential for earning by investment will cost the Fund about $110 million a year compounded.” (Kerr letter, 2003)

Don Heacox (NMIRI Board Member, Deming) has evaluated the two amendments and concludes the following:

“I am not a fan of this constitutional amendment [ two] for a number of reasons. The constitution is not a place for such financial detail with options based on fund level balances and future legislative action – at least in my opinion. The constitution, so far as possible, should be simple, straightforward and reflective of general and overarching principles. The constitution was designed to guard against such legislative legerdemain. I am a free enterprise, limited government and personal responsibility kind of person. The bigger and blanker the check for government, the more concerned I tend to be. This seems like a rather large and blank check. The assumption of an 8.5 percent return on investments seems unnecessarily optimistic. Alarm bells are ringing. Liberals yell about risking social security investments by individuals or the government in the stock market because of the extraordinary risk even when the effective return on the social security trust fund is about 2 percent. Now they turn around and assume an average 8.5 percent return for the land grand permanent fund.
At the same time, I am not adverse to extraordinary investments out of the land grant permanent fund to improve human capital. Investments in human capital are how third world countries rose out of the third world. Yet those extraordinary investments should be one-time programs with clearly defined and measurable expenditures and returns. Perhaps I am unduly cynical, but I have little confidence state government will manage the increased distributions from the land grant permanent fund so that the likely rewards will exceed the likely risks” (NMIRI website: www.zianet.com/nmiri, August 18, 2003)
If these experienced legislators and community leaders have clearly outlined the financial and behavioral problems associated with these two amendments to change our constitution, why would we want to support such folly again? We as voters have an opportunity to stop the march of folly on the constitutional amendments by sending a shot across the bow and let our legislators and Governor know that we will not tolerate any longer the March of Folly in New Mexico on education. If rejected, they will have to find the right public policies in education that can be supported by the citizens. Such policies have been suggested herein. Wouldn’t that be a nice change in New Mexico?

What can we do in New Mexico to stop the March of Folly?

1. The conservatives on the left and right need to begin working together more vigorously in New Mexico to stop the March of Folly in public policy. Grover Norquist in Washington D.C. has been able to bring together differing factions within the conservative ranks and have them agree to work on issues together. We need to do this on a regular basis in NM so that when an issue arises, we can collectively go after it much like gorilla warfare. We pop up everywhere when an issue needs to be addressed.
2. Elect only those persons that are willing to cap personal income taxation in New Mexico and create the kind of system that has worked in Colorado where the legislators must return to the citizens for a vote of approval to raise taxes in New Mexico.
3. Elect persons who will fight to repeal the gross receipts taxes on services in New Mexico that remain onerous to the small businesses especially in the state. The gross receipts can be replaced by a slightly higher sales tax statewide that can be shared among local government groups.
4. Elect persons who understand that the solution to the problems facing education have to do with families and their responsibilities for the education of their child. We need to elect persons who believe that the current monopoly on education by government schools can be broken by creating competitive options like vouchers and tax credits that will allow parents to choose their own commitments to the future of their child’s education.
5. We need to implement a program in New Mexico like “Jobs for America” where young persons who are at risk for dropping out of high school are being assisted to find options and education for their future work life. This program is funded by the private sector. Iowa has implemented this program with great success, for example. In some states, this program has produced a 90 percent success rate with potential drop outs overall and an 80 percent success rate some months after the student left the program. This allows the student to complete the work for graduation and/or offer solid work options in the marketplace for their skills.
6. Election of City officials and County officials that will commit to no new taxes at the local level without approval of the citizens is essential for the success of our economy in New Mexico. The total tax burden from the local level to the national level in New Mexico is quite high compared to our neighboring states. This needs to be corrected by asking elected officials to first cut government spending before seeking tax increases. Have you noticed that in California the immediate option by Warren Buffet was to increase personal property taxes before seeking reduction in overall spending? Why do we assume that tax increases are the only “quick fix” option?
7. We need to elect persons who understand the issues in higher education and seek to reform higher education as proposed by NMIRI. The tenure system needs to be replaced at all levels with a program of five year rolling contracts for faculty as described herein. Current faculty members have the choice to remain in the tenure system or opt for the new system. This is essential to revitalizing our faculty and opening the university system to faculty who begin to understand the key role they play in the economics of our state. It is also a way to increase the salaries of faculty immediately for those that adopt the five year rolling contract.
8. Potential elected officials should talk with us about their policy approaches and seek our advice, regardless of their stance politically. NMIRI has good research capabilities and sound policy options that will enhance the economic value of New Mexico.

Right now, in New Mexico, we have a Governor who loves to spend the tax payers money. While he tells us he is decreasing the income tax, he does nothing about the gross receipts taxes. Worse, he raises the gas taxes with one hand while he lowers the personal income taxes and thinks we will not notice. He does not respect the Constitution of New Mexico as it relates to balance of powers. What is worse, people on the left and right remain silent or worse, support him outright on his raids of the government purse. He is a runaway Governor that is on his way to being Vice President with Senator Clinton of New York, and later, to become President, maybe. When he is long gone from New Mexico we will be left with his carpet bagging big spending nonsense and his terrible approach to public policy for his raid on education money, economics, taxation, older persons, health care and even our relations with Mexico.

The march of folly can be stopped. Whether you are liberal or a conservative, you should be concerned. Persistence of error is the challenge for this generation. We must think carefully about public policy which fosters free market economics, limited government, and personal responsibility. Freedom of choice exists in New Mexico, we just have to have the moral courage to make it happen. Our attempt here is to list a few of the areas in which the march of folly exists, there are many others, but New Mexico has the opportunity to make the right choices for public policy. John Adams once said, government is “little better practiced now than three to four thousand years ago.” It is time for New Mexico to stop its dependence on government for its solutions and allow the free market to fully develop in New Mexico. It is time for both the left and the right to start choosing their politicians more carefully in New Mexico.

©Copyright NMIRI 2003
This article, from the New Mexico Independence Research Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. NMIRI Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of NMIRI or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send comments to: Editor, NMIRI 2401 Nieve Lane, Las Cruces, NM 88005. Phone (505) 523 8700. We do request attribution be given to both NMIRI and the author when the article is cited.
e-mail is galdridge@zianet.com.