Programs Built on Cyclical Funding Sources

They say hindsight is 20/20, and as it turns out, every once in awhile foresight is also 20/20. Want an example? Well, four years ago this weekend, I had this to say:

No one can dispute that oil and gas prices and the resulting tax revenue is cyclical in nature. So, why on earth would anyone be proposing new programs to be paid by these inconsistent revenues? It is a recipe for financial disaster.

Unfortunately, the link to the new program of the time is long since dead, but the premise put forth is still very much true. In fact, consider the following from a recent New Mexico Business Weekly article:

Revenue at the New Mexico State Land Office is expected to plunge by at least $250 million in the current fiscal year, a direct result of the drop in oil and natural gas prices.

Those falling prices are expected to have an impact on the state government’s overall budget, and they have some experts predicting a state budget shortfall of between $350 million and $800 million.

I hate to say it, but I told you this was going to happen. Just like I told you we were on our way to 10% unemployment.

Racism in America

Is there still racism in America? The simple answer is yes. However, the vast majority of us are not racists. As a nation, we have made tremendous strides. Unfortunately, recent events involving Henry Louis Gates, Jr. show that too many people are clinging to the past:

Gates had trouble getting into his home because of a damaged door.

Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley was dispatched on a possible break-in. He found Gates there and asked for identification.

Police say Gates initially refused, became angry and accused the officer of racism. Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, which was dropped.

In response to a question at a news conference, Obama said Gates was a friend and said he didn't know all the facts, but that the police acted "stupidly" in making the arrest.

Personally, I wouldn't be offended if a police officer asked me for identification while I struggled to enter my home. In fact, I would be grateful that they were so responsive to policing the community and protecting my property. Based on what I've read and heard, it seems to me that Professor Gates is the one with the problem here.

I actually had something like this happen to me once. When I was much younger and living in Los Angeles, I was driving a $500 car with a broken backseat window. I had broken the window myself because the locks didn't work on the car and the way for me to let myself into the car was from the inside. Well, while driving around, I was pulled over one day by a police officer.

He flat out told me that he pulled me over to check and see if I had stolen the car. At the time, I was in my early twenties. It was summer so I was pretty dark and sporting a mustache and goatee, which my wife always thought made me look like a gang member. Probably a pretty accurate assessment since I actually landed a role in a low budget film as a gang member with that look.

Did I take offense that the police officer pulled me over? Did I become belligerent and argumentative? No, he was doing his job. If Professor Gates had assumed the same instead of jumping to a conclusion that officer's actions were motivated by racism, this all would have been a non-issue.

Of course, the real problem here is that the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, felt the need to chime in on the incident. Moreover, he did so in a way that assumes racist motivation on the part of the police officer. That's wrong. Of all the things the President should be focused on, this just doesn't rank.

Denish Proposes Secession from the Union

Okay, maybe that title is a little misleading. Lt Governor Denish didn't actually advocate for New Mexico to secede from the Union at a recent NAIOP meeting, but she did say:

"I want a New Mexico where a business succeeds or fails based on the quality of its products ... not just because they have connections to certain lobbyists," Denish told about 300 people attending a lunch sponsored by NAIOP, a commercial real estate group.

Heck, I want a nation where that is the case. Of course, that doesn't seem to be happening. Insurance companies, banks and automobile manufacturers top the list of those whose business continue because they have connections to certain lobbyists.

Actually, in all fairness to the lobbyists, the problem is the politicians who will trade votes for favors or contributions, not the lobbyists who advocate for or against a given company or issue. There are lobbyists on both sides of every issue. They are part of the process, not the problem. Let's be real here.

As to the relevance to New Mexico pay-to-play scandals, it's a little too little, a little too late as far as I'm concerned. The Lt. Governor spoke up when the Governor pinched her leg, but until recently, never said a word about the rampant pinching of contributors in return for lucrative state contracts.

It's Time to Slow Down

History repeats itself. This is a well-known axiom. The current, ever-deepening recession is not a unique occurrence; however, the stage on which it is happening is unique. We live in an information age where information travels at the speed of thought.

This blog being a perfect example. I think it. I write it. I post it. Within minutes, it is published for the world to read, and within hours it is indexed for the world to find.

My opinions are just that - my opinions. I strive to make them educated opinions, but in many cases there are no clear right or wrong answers or solutions to the topics discussed. Those who disagree with my assertions are able to provide just as many "supporting facts" for their point of view as I am for mine.

We go back and forth, again and again. It could be said that we are not making progress, but I would disagree. Most of the issues we discuss on this blog, and that are discussed on others, have no quick solution. There is no magic bullet that feeds the world's hungry, houses our homeless, makes everyone honest, or makes everyone healthy.

Which means that there is no legislation that can be passed tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that to accomplish these goals. Yet, in this age of immediate information and immediate gratification that is precisely what our government is trying to do - immediate legislation.

To this end, they introduce legislation that is not read. Legislation that is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to political pressures of the moment. And, we are now talking moment by moment changes. Within the last 24 months, the national focus has shifted from war, to energy costs, to the economy, to healthcare. Each of these has become the topic of the day. Coming and going with alarming speed. Yet, none of these really are new issues. Many are problems that to one degree or another have faced man from the beginning of time.

The idea that problems that have been around for centuries can be solved in the blink of an eye by creation and adoption of a new law is just absurd. Thousands of laws and regulations have been passed since the birth of his nation, and yet, we still have many of the same major problems we have always had.

Right now, the lawmakers and regulators running this country are trying to solve all of our problems before the next election cycle. This is an unrealistic goal, and the solutions being proposed are going to cause more problems than they are going solve. Of this, we can be sure. After all, history repeats itself.

Here Come the Taxes

Remember all of that nonsense about how the government was going to expand health care coverage while cutting costs? Yeah, well, it looks like they are going to try and expand health care coverage the old fashioned way:

President Barack Obama is declining to take a surtax off the table in the escalating debate over how to pay for a new health care system that would cover millions of uninsured people.

That's right, here comes the tax increases. Remember, taxation is a zero sum game. When you start taxing for ever larger government programs, you are removing dollars that would otherwise be invested in the economy. Think about that as you read about the next increase in unemployment numbers and business closures.

Public Financing Makes for Quiet Campaigns

With all three Albuquerque mayoral candidates having expended between 10% - 20% of their taxpayer funded campaign dollars so far, one thing is very clear. It's an awfully quiet campaign. This works in the incumbent's favor. Everyone knows I really dislike taxpayer funded campaigns, because I believe they hurt, rather than help the process.

The irony here is that the advocates of these taxpayer funded campaigns argue that they enable people who would not otherwise be able to run the opportunity to seek elected office. Of course, the three people who are running on the taxpayer dollar have all been successful at getting elected in the past through voluntary contributions as opposed to forced taxpayer support. So, that argument doesn't really hold much water.

Worse yet, the incumbent has been able to leverage his position as mayor to basically ignore the race until the final two months and focus on generating positive press through city staffers. With government budgets being tighter, maybe we can eliminate all taxpayer funded campaigns as one measure of belt tightening.

Going After Teens is Senseless

A terrible tragedy happened a couple of weeks ago, when repeat drunk driver Scott Owens killed four Santa Fe area teens:

Teen driving is in the spotlight after a June 28 crash that left four teenagers dead. Law enforcement authorities say Scott Owens had a blood-alcohol content of .16 nearly four hours after he crashed into a car with five teens inside.

The only teen to survive the crash on Old Las Vegas Highway was driving on a provisional license. Holders of those licenses are barred from driving between midnight and 5 a.m., and from driving with more than one other person under 21 in the car who is not an immediate family member.

The driver, 16-year-old Avree Koffman, didn't have alcohol in her system, authorities said.

The problem here is not teen drivers. The problems is that we allow habitual drunks to get back on the road time and time again instead of locking them up. Case in point this guy with six DWI's on record:

48-year-old arrested Wednesday still hasn't been charged in July 4 accident.

Calvin Finch, 48, of Aztec, was arrested Wednesday for his sixth DWI, just 11 days after he was involved in a crash that killed 62-year-old Harry Irvin, whose motorcycle was struck by Finch's pickup truck at the intersection of U.S. 550 and San Juan County Road 2105, the Farmington Daily Times reported.

Yet, rather than tackle the tough problems head on, some lawmakers want to go after the vast majority of law abiding teens out there:

In the wake of the crash, some lawmakers are thinking about changes to state law that might help keep teen drivers off the streets during prohibited hours.

Rep. Brian Egolf, a Santa Fe Democrat, said he's considering a bill under which teen drivers with restricted licenses would have to display a marker on their car, such as a bright yellow triangle in the back window.

Give me a break. Studies referenced in the article have not come up with any concrete evidence that further restricting teen driving makes a difference. Keeping our kids from driving when they are not supposed to be driving is a parental responsibility, not a police responsibility.

Lawmakers, like Representative Egolf, should focus on passing legislation that puts habitual drunk drivers behinds bars, not taking away parental rights.

Possible to Curb Illegal Immigration

For years, people have been saying it is not possible to curb illegal immigration, and that we just have to find a way to bring those who enter the country illegally into the fold. I've never bought that argument. It now looks like it is indeed possible to enforce the immigration laws of our country:

As the Border Patrol has ramped up staffing and erected dozens of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers along the Mexican border, the number of illegal aliens caught in the El Paso sector has shrunk from 122,000 in fiscal year 2006 to 75,000 in fiscal year 2007 to 30,000 in fiscal 2008, Border Patrol spokesman Ramiro Cordero said.

Other factors deterring illegal crossings are the economic slump in the United States, which has reduced employment opportunities, and a zero-tolerance policy under which nearly all illegal aliens who are caught are prosecuted in federal court. In the past, the vast majority of Mexican illegal immigrants were simply returned to their home country.

As the son of a Hispanic immigrant, I'm all for immigration. But, it has to be legal immigration. Right now, this topic is taking a backseat to the economy, but when it comes back around remember, that it is possible to enforce our laws.

Education Declines and Teacher's Union Gives Award

I didn't write about this last week, but I should have. The absurdity of the teacher's union giving Governor Richardson America's Greatest Education Governor Award is just shocking. It shows a complete disregard for student achievement as a measure of success:

New Mexico students did not improve their academic performance during the Richardson administration. The evidence suggests a very slight decline. The prestigious American Legislative Exchange Council, using many factors of evaluation, ranked New Mexico 48th in the nation in 2007, the same ranking it gave New Mexico in 2002. It ranked New Mexico 49th during most years of Richardson’s administration.

During the late 1990s New Mexico routinely scored in the low 40s, so the last few years represent a definite decline. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this year gave New Mexico an “F” in its report card for overall academic achievement, an “F” for the academic achievement of low income and minority students and an “F” for the return on investment per dollar spent.

I highly recommend reading the entire commentary written by Jose Z. Garcia.

ABQ Journal Online Health Care Reform Debate

So, I'm a little late to the table due to travel schedule, but I was invited to participate in the ABQ Journal's Online Health Care Reform Debate. I just submitted my response this morning to yesterday's question. I'm also cross posting it below, but I'd encourage you to hop over to the Journal and read what the other panelists had to say.

What is the ideal way to expand coverage and cut costs in our health care system?

Let's look at the basic problem with this question. First, it is a contradiction. You can't expand coverage and cut costs. You can do one or the other, but it is not possible to do both at least not without degrading the quality of available care.

Moreover, it's a classic example of a one-size fits all type of question. The thing is that there in not a one-size fits all type of answer. In many cases the costs of health care are directly tied to the malpractice insurance doctors are required to carry as a result of lawsuits - some frivolous, some not. In other cases the rising costs of healthcare are the result of government regulation and mandates intended to reform the system or protect consumers. Then, there is the subjective nature inherent to providing "health insurance that covers all medically necessary care." To a family, it might seem that no expense should be spared to keep a loved one alive, but is it really society's responsibility to pay for that care? I would argue it is not.

Let's also examine the question of expansion of health care coverage. If someone smokes two packs of cigarettes a day, do they deserve the same access to health care and level of care as someone who does not? If someone chooses to live a rural lifestyle is it really the responsibility of society to build them rural health centers. If you choose to get cable television and a cell phone instead of paying for health insurance, should everyone else chip in to pay for your insurance. Again, I would argue not.

So, let's look at the latter first. The best way to cut costs in the health care system is on a case be case basis on the local level. Looking at the individual costs, be they hospital, doctor or individual, and coming up with solutions to reduce those costs. And, acknowledging that cutting those costs may very well involve making tough decisions about the type of health care services that will be made available. Incidentally, this is also the trick to expanding coverage. Get away from trying to provide the same level of coverage to everyone, everywhere. Health care is a service it is not a fundamental guaranteed right. Any more than than we should guarantee equal types of housing to everyone in America.

Does the current focus on costs undermine the importance of quality of care, as discussed in Win Quigley's article on Sunday?

Without moving to a barter system there is absolutely no way to separate costs from quality as it relates to health care. The two are inherently tied together. In our form of society the quality of every service or product purchased is related to price paid, up to the point of diminishing returns. Shifting to a government run health care system only shifts those costs from one entity to another (i.e. business-to-consumer to government-to-consumer).

It is the demand for quality and quantity of care that is causing escalating costs. In a government run system the costs will only increase not decrease. In fact, I challenge you to find any government run program where costs do not increase year over year. They don't exist. Medicare, public education, public housing... pick a program and the costs always increase.

Anyone who has ever worked inside a government funded institution understands why. Government run programs have no incentive to cut costs. Quite the contrary, they are incentivized to spend every last dollar in order ensure that they can receive the same level of funding the next year. This makes it all the more ludicrous for government to try and devise solutions for cutting costs. It's like asking a vegetarian what's the best way to cook a steak.

How can we change the incentive structure that leads to the use of expensive procedures that may not lead to optimal health outcomes?

There is only one way to significantly do this and that is at the consumer level. Something along the lines of health savings plans wherein individual consumer choices regarding the quality, quantity and type of care they receive directly impacts the dollars in their pocket. Also, I believe that consumers should indemnify medical providers, so that we remove the burdensome costs malpractice has introduced into the system.

And, finally, what proposals or ideas in Congress strike you as smart and feasible?

All of the proposals in Congress are feasible. Feasible in that they can be implemented. However, implementing a program is never the same as achieving a goal. I'm not aware of a single smart proposal in Congress. Anything Congress passes is going to be a one size fit all approach for the nation, and that is a mistake, a very costly and ineffective mistake made time and time again.

Congressman Harry Teague has a BIG Problem

Congressman Harry Teague of New Mexico's 2nd Congressional District has a big problem. No, it's not that former Congressman Steve Pearce has decided to take back his seat. Actually, that fact simply exponentially compounds the problem.

Congressman Teague's problem is that his first major vote impacting the lives of his constituents was a vote against their best interests:

As a Democrat from a right-leaning part of the state that is largely dependent on gas and oil, Congressman Harry Teague had to walk a fine line on the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House on Friday.

Teague stopped by Roswell on Wednesday, in part to explain and defend his vote in favor of the bill to constituents here.

"I had an idea it wasn't going to be popular with everybody," he said.

The bill that passed the House drew fire from both the right and left. Conservatives argued that placing any kind of restrictions on carbon would be economically damaging, especially given the current recession. Some commentators claimed that it would raise energy bills by 30 percent, although the Congressional Budget Office said it would cost the average household closer to $175 a year by 2020. Americans for Tax Reform issued a release estimating that the law would cost New Mexico's Second District $383.76 million in lost income in 2012, the year the bill starts to take effect.

Congressman Teague knew the vote was going to cost people living in the District more. He knew that it was going to cost the area jobs. Most importantly he knew "it wasn't going to be popular" with his constituents, but he did it anyway.

That's a problem. That's a big problem.

I spent a lot of the primary season of last election cycle running from one end of the district to another. And, I have to say that the people down there really impressed me with their hospitality and there no nonsense approach to life. They don't take kindly to spin, and they call it as they see it.

There not going to be fooled by silly statements:

Teague argued that there will still be substantial benefits to the bill, citing estimates that 40 percent of the people in his mostly-rural district will actually see a decrease in their electricity rates. He also believes that it will create new jobs in the renewable energy sector.

Because they know that if 40% are seeing a decrease in their electricity rates, that means that 60% - otherwise known as the MAJORITY - will SEE AN INCREASE in their electricity rates. They also know that oil and gas provides the jobs that puts food on their tables keeps a roof over their families heads and builds New Mexico schools.

I doubt very much they are going to take kindly to a man who made his millions from oil and gas talking about the fantasy of renewable energy jobs. It won't be lost on them that those incentives for the supposed new renewable energy jobs are going to solar plants in Albuquerque, not to Roswell or Hobbs, Capitan or Carlsbad.

And, if the best the DCCC can do is to attack Steve Pearce on fiscal policy, then they are in trouble:

The DCCC said that votes by Pearce for policies advocated by former President George W. Bush “created the economic crisis, growing the federal debt by $2.3 trillion from $3.5 trillion to $5.8 trillion.”

Okay, let's just state the obvious. We can all agree that Republicans spent too much while they held power. We can also say unequivocally that the Democrats are set to outspend them. So, this line of attack just isn't going to work.

Moreover, the truth is that there are three things you can say about Steve Pearce without question:

1. Steve Pearce is a fiscal conservative and has a long record of voting "No" to frivolous spending regardless of who was introducing it.
2. Steve Pearce is a social conservative who walks the talk just like the folks I met in the 2nd Congressional District - R and D alike.
3. Steve Pearce didn't forget where he came from in two terms in Congress. He knew how he made living, and he knew that raising the cost of energy for the majority of rural New Mexicans hurts.

That last point is of vital importance. See no matter what kind of attacks come out of the DCCC or the statewide Democratic Party, nothing changes the fact that it only took six months for Congressman Harry Teague to forget what got him where he is today and to stop representing the interests of his constituents.

Journal Looks at Insider Contract Overruns

How many more pay-to-play scandals can one state take? That's got to be the question on everyone's mind. Just when we thought the dust was beginning to settle, it looks like the Albuquerque Journal is on the trail of yet another eyebrow raising contract given to a Governor Richardson insider:

The University of New Mexico is paying more than double the initial estimate to a politically connected firm it hired three years ago to provide security services for its main and south campuses.

In a memo recommending approval of the contract for Santa Fe Protective Services, UNM regents were informed the cost for the four-year contract was "estimated at approximately $500,000 a year."

But UNM paid the company more than $1 million for the 2007 calendar year and more than $1.1 million for 2008. The university is on pace to spend even more this year, having already paid the company more than $800,000.

It's the fact that the payment is more than double the contract that makes this worthy of a second look. Security services at UNM is not something new, so there should be a track record of expenses for securing those services. Expect to see a follow-up story that examines these new expenditures to those in year's past.

And, in case you're thinking there's nothing here but smoke, you might want to take a second look at the way the story ends:

About seven months after regents voted to award UNM's security contract to Santa Fe Protective Services, the company switched part of its insurance business to Daniels Insurance Company.

Jamie Koch of Santa Fe is president of Daniels Insurance and at the time was president of the regents. Daniels Insurance became the company's broker for auto liability and workers compensation and employers' liability.

Koch said the awarding of the UNM contract and the company's decision to go with Daniels Insurance were unrelated. He said he doesn't feel there is a conflict because the regents' vote on the security contract took place months before Daniels Insurance was providing insurance to the company.

Oh, he waited a few months before "earning" their business. My bad. This is obviously all on the up and up.

What's off the Record?

I fought it for as long as I could, but I eventually had to create a Twitter account (burgosgroup). I really didn't want to because, to be perfectly honest, I'm having enough trouble keeping up with my Facebook account, and reading all of my blog feeds. Not too mention the non-social media related demands in my life. But, you can only resist for so long.

Of course, like everything in life, there are actually ways to have your cake and eat it too. My Twitter and Blog accounts are now linked to my Facebook account. So, what I write on either of them ends up on Facebook as well. Of course, anyone can follow my posts or tweets, but not everyone can become my friend on Facebook. I know some of you might find that hard to believe since I seem to add a new friend every couple of days.

So, do I like Twitter? Yeah, like millions of others, I'm fully addicted. You think talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous? I can't even imagine how many folks are driving while checking their Twitter alerts. Next time you're driving look at the people driving next to you to see if they are looking down into the car every two seconds. Chances are they are texting or reading Twitter alerts. Somehow, I'm thinking this is an even greater threat to society than salvia.

Now, there are some New Mexico folks who are Twitterers in overdrive. I'm talking about Matthew Reichbach, Julia Goldberg, Peter St. Cyr and Santa Fe Sheriff and Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor Greg Solano. The other bloggers we all know and like and the one's we respect and the one's we love to "hate" are on there too, but the first four I mentioned are in a league all their own when it comes to NM Twitterers.

Probably not a big surprise all of them are bloggers, and if they are like me, they tried Digg and Delicious, LinkedIn and Plaxo, but nothing is getting quite as much of their attention as their blog, facebook and twitter accounts.

I've been blogging since December of 2004. At first it was an experiment. I was interested in learning about this blogging thing eight or nine million people were doing worldwide. I also wanted to stay engaged and relevant in politics after running for State Representative in a 2004 primary and losing. I can say without a doubt, "Mission Accomplished." In fact, what I've learned and got out of this little experiment far exceeded anything I ever could have imagined.

I've told everybody I've met who has thought of running for office that they should blog. I've had surprisingly very few takers. I remember one soon to be candidate telling me that blogging wasn't a good idea because the opposition research folks would use what you've written against you in a campaign.

My thoughts on that were simple, they're going to come after you in a campaign no matter what. And, if they can't find something, they'll probably make something up. I know I've had it done me and seen it done to others on muliple occasions. So, you may as well put your own thoughts out there for people to judge. My experience is that although many may disagree with your thoughts, you'll still earn their respect.

Which brings me to my motivation for writing this post. There are still some commonsense rules to which you need to adhere. First and foremost is that once it's out there, it's out there. You can't take it back. Several of the people I mentioned above with Twitter accounts are not only bloggers, but are reporters - darn good ones I might add. There is no such thing as an "off the record" comment that is publicly published. It just doesn't work that way.

So, in these times of instant media and spontaneous sharing, you still need to take a moment and think before you let your fingers do the talking. Like I said, I think every political candidate and future political candidate should take advantage social media. But, I also believe that they ought to take the time to learn the rules of the game before they start playing.