APS Bondage

"Your taxes won't go up... not one single penny." So says the ads running on radio and appearing on school billboards throughout the school district. Of course, your taxes won't go down either.

APS is just one of the many governmental entities with taxation authority and they get to have their own elections with convenient voting locations for everyone who is most likely to vote for continued bondage. The Albuquerque Public Schools are asking us to authorize $616 MILLION in property taxes to pay for things like a $38 MILLION West Side sports complex.

Before you go an vote for this thing or don't vote at all - which is the same thing - consider for a moment the fact that rewarding APS by giving them more money is the wrong message to send to an organization who continues to fail when it comes to educating our kids. It's like giving APS a social promotion even though they're earning a failing grade.

One of the groups promoting APS Bondage is a group of contractors. The argument goes that approving the bonds would stimulate the economy by creating construction jobs. Of course the jobs are far more temporary than the taxes that support them. Government does not create wealth, it redistributes it or destroys it.

By taking our money and giving it to a group of contractors to build sports stadiums in an economic downturn, you may be stimulating a few select businesses but you're not stimulating the overall economy.

...Paul Gessing, President of the Rio Grande Foundation says the average homeowner would then see a ten to fifteen percent reduction in property taxes. "That is a lot of money when you're talking about over the span of 12 months and moving into the future," Gessing said.

-KOB.com

The last time an APS Bond package failed was in 2002 and it took a drunk superintendent and an inept school board to make voters mad enough to reject the proposal. Since that time the only constants have been continued approval of bond packages like this and failing students. Perhaps it's time to send another message to APS... we'll keep our money until you do your jobs.

Dipping Into Obama's Well

President-elect Obama hasn't wasted any time drilling yet another well into taxpayer pockets. Before he's even placed his hand on Lincoln's bible the candidate for change is relieving all of us of more than our change - all in the name of stimulating the economy.

Before we get started, understand that government does not create wealth it moves it from one pocket to another. Whether it's President Bush or incoming President Obama, you can't spend yourself out of debt any more than you can drink yourself sober.

Obama has promised to spend over a TRILLION DOLLARS in a misguided attempt to better the Bush administration's $750 BILLION bailout boondoggle.

(Sidebar)
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, what exactly is doing the same thing - only more - and expecting a better result?
(End Sidebar)

With all of that said, last Thursday the Almighty Alcalde met with the Anointed One's transition team in Washington D.C. in order to stick his bucket as deep into Obama's well as he possibly can.

The city is seeking about $2 billion for solar-power plants, a wind farm, a streetcar down Central Avenue and a Downtown events center, among other things. It might not be clear until February what projects will make the federal list.

-ABQ Journal (Subscription)

You'll note two of the items on Marty's wish list are the Trolley and the Downtown Arena - both of which require ongoing taxpayer subsidies and can never turn a profit. Of course, that's no surprise since - as you'll remember - government doesn't create wealth.

Our extended Eye Poll on the Downtown Arena couldn't have been clearer - 70% of the 717 participants in our Eye Poll said "No Way," while only 28% thought it was a good idea (view it here).

It's distressing enough that Obama wants to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS of our money on projects that can't sustain themselves, the Almighty Alcalde wants to blow a couple of BILLION on projects like the 19th Century Street Car and the Downtown Money Pit, uh... Arena when the city has more pressing - albeit less sexy - infrastructure needs. Things like sewers, water mains which seem to be bursting regularly these days, and rebuilding the I-25/Paseo interchange.

Meanwhile the council's Finance and Government Committee will meet Monday on extending the Transportation Infrastructure Tax to pay for Marty's toy trolley. Yep, that's the same tax that was shouted down by taxpayers two years ago and the same one that was supposed to sunset at the end of this year.

Look, an empty arena and a trolley that serves a miniscule portion of the city's population just don't make any sense. If we're to dip into Obama's well, at least let it be for projects that have long lasting benefits and don't create additional burdens on Albuquerque taxpayers.

Obamination: Theft As A Policy

The policies of wealth redistribution and market control are and have been the foundation of Democratic economic thought since FDR and The Great Depression. Progressive taxation is one of the vehicles for transferring money from producers to non-producers.

One of our readers pointed out a comment by Senator Biden in last week's Vice Presidential debate that called for extending the authority of government to not only buy up toxic assets but to reset the value of the principle owed. This isn't the first time we've recently heard Democratic leaders talking about changing principle values. It's predictable really and just an extension of the core philosophy of Progressive thought.

The reasoning behind the move is to adjust principle values for properties that were bought at higher market values to current market conditions in order to protect those who are "upside down" in their homes. In other words, these property owners are in a situation where they owe more than the property is worth.

(Sidebar)
Over the past few weeks the concept of a free market has taken somewhat of a beating. The fact is that we are the market. Our freedom to negotiate the exchange of goods or services is a foundational part of our individual liberty. When we lose the freedom of exchange we lose the freedom to be rewarded for our achievements.
(End Sidebar)

It's the type of policy that warms the cockles of most Progressive's hearts. But it's also the type of dangerous policy that - despite the $700 BILLION Bailout and Pork-fest passed by Congress - would ultimately make money harder for home buyers to get.

Say for example, you and your neighbor engage in a voluntary transaction where you loan your lawn mower and your weed whacker to them. The neighbor agrees not only to repay (return) your lawn mower and weed whacker but to refill their gas tanks and provide you with an additional gallon of gas.

The lawn mower and weed whacker are the principle, the gas is the interest. Along comes Barrack Hussein O'Biden who decide that the extra gas is really asking for too much. In addition, your neighbor who can't afford to maintain their lawn really needs your weed whacker to help them. So the O'Biden boys change the terms of your agreement forgiving them the additional gallon of gas and allowing your neighbor to keep your weed whacker.

What do you think will happen the next time your neighbor shows up on your doorstep to borrow something? That's right... you're not gonna' give him the time of day fearing the O'Biden boys will show up and make you pay for it.

Government intervention in a private transaction never benefits either party. The lender loses money and stops lending. The borrower ultimately ends up unable to borrow what they need. The only "winner" is the politician who convinces the borrower that they're getting something for free and that their benefactor is the intervening politician.

In addition, Obama and Biden are hawking a "progressive" tax scheme that they claim only raises taxes on those rich people who make over $250,000 a year. Like the O'Biden idea of allowing the government to reset principle amounts, this Robin Hood tax policy is appealing until you take a look at who actually pays.

Who are these evil "rich people" that should be required to pay more of their earnings? As you drive around town take a look at all of those local businesses that line the major streets. They're hardware stores, lock smiths, beauty salons, pet groomeries, and restaurants. These are your friends and neighbors that have invested their money, time, sweat, and tears in a business that they believe in. These are the people that make Albuquerque unique - not the big boxes, department stores, and chain restaurants that can be found in any city anywhere in the country. And these are the very people that O'Biden propose to increase taxes on.

When faced with increased taxes small businesses look at the increase as an increase in the cost of doing business. Their only choices are to absorb the increased cost of doing business, increase prices to their customers, or go out of business. So you see, the middle class - those who Obama and crew claim to be protecting - really face higher prices or the loss of goods or services.

If that sounds familiar that's because it's no different that the lender who makes a contract with a borrower to lend a specific amount of money for a set amount of profit who has both the profit and the amount to be repaid arbitrarily set by some politician.

You'll hear The Anointed One and his chief acolyte Biden talking about fairness. What is fair about forcing someone whose hard work earns them an amount of wealth that is in excess of some arbitrary line? What is fair about changing the terms of a freely and legally negotiated contract?

What Obama proposes is no different than the local hoodlum stealing your wallet at knifepoint. Make no mistake, if Obama becomes President he will work to take from those who have earned in order to give to those who haven't. The middle class will pay for that redistribution through higher prices for goods and services, and shortages caused by small businesses that are unable to absorb Obama's small business hold-up.

Democratic leaders have long advocated this type of theft as a policy - stealing from one group to give to another in exchange for political power. In this way (as in many others) Obama isn't change - he's the logical result of class warfare politics, the stock and trade of the Democratic Party since the '30's.

We don't believe that your everyday Democrat truly believes that it's right to steal. We believe that they're good people who want to see everyone succeed. The problem is success cannot be given, it has to be earned. And while there's little doubt that Republicans lost their way... It is certain that an Obama Presidency would be a gigantic leap toward more government, more taxes, and less liberty.

Lightning in a Bottle - Or at Least a Bottleneck

Senator Boitano's Tax Lightening Bill passed the State Senate Thursday by a significant margin. This is the bill that extends the current 3% cap on assessed property value to buyers of properties. The bill now heads to the house and faces the standard two committee gauntlet before it will be heard on the House floor.

If you haven't heard by now many Bernalillo County property owners were struck by the state's tax lightning - some to the tune of as much as 400%. Senator Boitano's bill would cap the increase at 3% and lower assessed values to 2004 levels. The objective is to make sure that two property owners in the same subdivision in houses that may be identical and even right next door to each other are paying similar amounts in property taxes (ABQ Journal - Subscription).

Our Eyes told us about one case where the property taxes went from $1,900 a year to $8,000 a year. That's more than a 400% increase making the monthly property tax bill $667 a month an increase of $408 a month. Unfortunately, large increases aren't uncommon and tend to hurt older property owners on a fixed income the most -their move to a smaller home to save money and effort only results in being struck by "tax lightning."

These tax inequities are particularly pronounced in the older areas of the city where homeowners can be and often are the original owners. The result is that one neighbor is often paying 2, 3, 4 hundred percent more than the other for the same services.

We've long maintained that the best tax policy is one that is wide (spread out over the maximum number of people) and shallow. The result is a revenue stream for the state that doesn't punish achievement and is less susceptible to the natural cycle of the economy; most people call that stability.

Right now just about every county and every municipality in the state is facing budget shortfalls due to the correction in our economy. Unfortunately, almost every governmental entity has been spending the largess of the last eight years like drunken sailors. Even more distressing is that they've been spending our cash on new programs that will require on-going taxpayer support.

(Sidebar)
A perfect example of this short sighted party like it's 1999 spending is the Rail Runner that is projected to cost you and me $20 MILLION a year just to keep the trains running, even if they're not on time!
(End Sidebar)

SB 450 does something that we haven't seen in quite a while; it imposes restrictions on spending by disallowing egregious jumps in assessed values maintaining taxpayer equity and tax predictability.

So who doesn't want this type of sensible tax legislation - just about every governmental entity that relies on property taxes for a large portion of its revenue. Can you say the City of Albuquerque?

The only way to reduce government spending and stop our spiraling tax burden is to restrict the amount of money going into the system. Legislators will be forced to create priorities for spending not just new programs for our tax dollars.

SB 450 is a step in the right direction. If you'd like to help move this legislation through committee contact one or all of the legislators listed below. The first hearing is Tuesday in the House and Government Affairs Committee - then it will move on to the House Taxation and Revenue Committee.

The problem is time. The Session ends Thursday and getting it through committee in a couple of days will be difficult to say the least. You can help it along simply by letting the committee members know that you want the bill heard on the House floor.

Representative Edward C. Sandoval Chair Democrat

Representative Roberto "Bobby" J.Gonzales Vice Chair Democrat

Representative Janice E. Arnold-Jones Member Republican

Representative Ernest H. Chavez Member Democrat

Representative Nathan P. Cote Member Democrat

Representative Anna M. Crook Member Republican

Representative Keith J. Gardner Member Republican

Representative William J. Gray Member Republican

Representative George J. Hanosh Member Democrat

Representative Ben Lujan Member Democrat

Representative Rodolpho "Rudy" S. Martinez Member Democrat

Representative Andy Nuñez Member Democrat

Representative Daniel P. Silva Member Democrat

Representative James R.J. Strickler Member Republican

Representative Thomas C. Taylor Member Republican

Representative Richard D. Vigil Member Democrat

----- Post Script -----
We received a comment that greatly concerns us. It's the first comment below. The poster argues that somehow it's OK for someone to have a 400% increase in taxes simply because the taxpayer may own a more expensive property than others.

Fairness is a value and a virtue that must apply equally to everyone or it ceases to exist. There is no such thing as being "more fair" even though society is replete with examples of government attempting to do so. Affirmative Action, admission quotas, and "progressive" taxation are all examples of society attempting to be "more fair."

The truth is that creating a system that favors one individual over another is by definition unfair, discriminatory, and just plain wrong - whether or not the favored individual is in the minority, majority, poor, or filthy rich.

As a community and as a nation it's long past time we get past this idea that being fair somehow requires us to be "more fair" to one group and "less fair" to another. When we finally understand and implement that concept we will truly have thrown off the shackles of our past.

APS W-2 Snafu

If you went to school here in Albuquerque, chances are you spent some time at one of the many APS elementary, mid, or high schools. One of the things we remember distinctly was being told to fill in each box (or bubble) completely when taking one of the many standardized tests. It was as much an exercise in art as it was an exercise in following the directions.

Well Friday the folks over in APS's accounting department failed to heed the advice of almost every teacher that has ever given one of those bubble sheet tests. Seems that our education administrators failed to fill in a couple of boxes on their employee's W-2 tax forms - the employers state tax ID number and the information for the ERA box 12.

APS is promising to fix the mistake by January 31st, but the biggest problem is that the fix will require the re-issuance of thousands of W-2 forms. That's a lot of money that won't be making it into our kids classrooms because the accountants at APS didn't fill in their employee's forms completely.

Selling Streetcar Snake Oil

Snake oil salesman, new urbanist acolyte, and City Councilor, Isaac Benton was trying to clear up the "apparent misunderstanding" of the 19th Century Streetcar project. His Letter to the Editor (Subscription Required) found in today's Journal demonstrates rather than dismisses the idea that his "study" is a scam.

The first thing you will notice is that Councilor Benton engages in a bit of revisionist history that would make Lennon proud, claiming "on Nov. 6, after much debate and public comment, on a 6-3 vote we approved the proposal to fund the streetcar project..." The "much debate and public comment" Councilor Benton is referring to is a series of presentations made by Transportation Director Payne intended to sell the trolley not to solicit public input.

The other thing to remember is that there was a hotly contested national election taking place the day after the council took up the question of the Transportation Infrastructure Tax extension. Railroading a $270 MILLION project through the City Council the day before that particular election was a great strategy for proponents, but hardly provided for large public participation, much less debate. (Talk about politics.)

Benton makes clear that his opinion is that the 19th Century Streetcar is inevitable which makes any "taskforce" created to "study" the issue suspect to say the very least.

"[R]oad building will not by itself take us though the 21st century without other multimodal options. We have an aging and more-transit-dependent population, global warming, air pollution, diminishing fossil fuel supplies and limited river crossings to contend with."

The simple fact is a 19th Century Streetcar will not make any discernible difference in any of the talking point justifications listed above. Streetcars operate on electricity. Electricity is generated largely by burning fossil fuels. All we're doing is moving pollution, and energy use.

"Multimodal options" sounds good, but this study is designed to support just ONE mode... rail. Not having a 19th Century Streetcar does not take away options like buses, bikes, cars, or good old fashioned shoe leather. Further, adding a 19th Century Streetcar does not help the majority of those aging in our city, and being able to get to Atrisco Plaza from Nob Hill doesn't count as a river crossing, because there's already a river crossing in place.

We've said it before... Albuquerque is primarily a suburban city, which is why forms of mass transit struggle here. The only areas of town that are even close to being dense enough to make mass transit work as a means of reducing traffic is the Central Nob Hill to Downtown corridor. What possible justification is there to spend $270 MILLION on a 19th Century Streetcar for that single corridor? Transportation money would be better spent on bikeways, trails, roads, and upon improving our bus system.

It's about the efficient use of our tax dollars. It's about efficient mass-transportation. It's about time proponents of the trolley stop pursuing it as the only solution to our transportation problem. With this "Letter to the Editor," Councilor Benton has gone from selling streetcar snake oil to selling a product that is most often transported with a shovel.

Virtual Studio - Questions Raised About Albuquerque Studios

Movies are famous for their special effects. These days some movies would be impossible to produce without extensive use of computer generated imagery (CGI). The movie 300 is a perfect example of a world that only exists inside a computer. During production the actors themselves never saw the spectacular scenic world that audiences are treated to in the finished product.

What does any of that have to do with Mesa del Sol's anchor tenant Albuquerque Studios? According to The Citizen Media Group, the movie 300 may be more real than the studio that is supposed to produce such amazing virtual adventures.

We've told you about how messy lawsuits can become. (In fact, our Eyes tell us that the current Manny-Ken scandal came directly out of a civil lawsuit between business partners.) Albuquerque Studios principals Dana Arnold and Harold Katersky are being sued by their former business partner F. Lee Tomlinson and in the process corporate records are becoming part of the public record.

Those records call into question a whole set of claims used by the pair and by Forrest City Covington to secure the creation of Tax Increment Development Districts that would send between $350 and $500 MILLION tax dollars to Forrest City Covington to be used for Mesa del Sol infrastructure.

The series of four in-depth articles paint a picture that is at the very least alarming. Our concern is that the first major tenant of Mesa del Sol, the tenant that was used to sell the development and its associated tax breaks to the city, county, and state, is nothing but a Virtual Studio or a soon-to-be ghost town.

In addition the series of four articles raises questions about our governments due diligence and their ability to be involved in speculative ventures. You can find the complete series at www.thecitizen.info.

Part 1 - Special Report: ABQ Studios Owners Target of Lawsuit, Culver Audit
Part 2 - "All the World's a Stage": Pacifica Venture's International Claims
Part 3 - Albuquerque Studios Owner's Star Performance Belies Backstory
Part 4 - Forest City's Supporting Role: Developer Has Most to Gain, and Lose, from ABQ Studios

If you only have time to read one of these in-depth articles, we recommend part 4. There's a lot more going on at Mesa del Sol than meets the eye.

In light of the courthouse scandal, it's important to monitor big money developments like Mesa del Sol that involve large amounts of public money. With that much cash being thrown around, it would be easy to siphon off a little here and a little there in order to secure political cooperation. No wonder Forrest City Covington coughed up $85,000 to finish off Marty's MyCentennial Towers (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required).

Beware Big Spenders Bearing Tax Cuts

Finally... a little tax relief, in fact very little. The Mayor on Sunday proposed a 1/8 of a percent reduction in the city's take of gross receipts revenue. (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required) The $18 Million tax reduction would add up to a whopping $70 per household per year.

According to the Mayor (the one with the "or" not the "er"), gross receipts income to the city is running at a 7.5% increase over last year as opposed to the projected 5.3%. Mayor Marty's generosity comes from his belief that "we've done a good job and we have extra money."

First of all, the city hasn't necessarily done a good job here. The economy has generated (or is predicted to generate) additional income for the city. That means we have done a good job. It's our money that's flowing into city coffers at an unexpectedly high rate.

Second, the council and the mayor have done a terrible job keeping city spending under control. Since Mayor Marty took office the city has out spent inflation by $125 MILLION, which is roughly 25% above the rate of inflation (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required).

This tax cut is particularly curious in light of earlier forecasts that predicted a $22 MILLION shortfall for next year. Don't get us wrong here... we're all for a tax cut, even a tiny one. It's certainly a baby step in the right direction. However, the council is already trying to find a way to hold on to the dough saying:

'"I think a tax cut right now would be like pulling a rabbit out of a hat," said Sally Mayer. "I'm in favor of cutting taxes as long as we don't cut services, but I just don't see how that can be done."

Ken Sanchez said he'll be anxious to look at the overall budget proposal. Previous forecasts have suggested the city might need to tighten its belt in the next several years, he said."

(ABQ Journal - Subscription Required)

Just last week Councilor Mayer justified her support of extending the Transportation Infrastructure Tax by claiming that the city would be unable to continue to fund roads, bike trails, and buses without the extension. (Read about it here.) Even the mayor hedged his tax cut announcement with the statement, "I think it is time, for at least a year [emphasis added], for the city to change course financially."

Something is not adding up here. We've got shortfalls, tax extensions, and tax cuts. We've got proposals to build arenas, trolleys, and to rent pandas, all of which will place additional burdens on the city's general fund. From a broader perspective none of this makes any fiscal sense.

However, it does make sense from a political perspective. The mayor has been taking a lot of heat over how much money the city is taking in and how much the city is spending. He's proposing all sorts of new capital programs that will require maintenance and operating money. Now he wants to give us a tax cut "for at least a year."

Politically a "tax cut" is a smart move. Mayor Marty is buying your good will with your own money. He's framing the tax cut as a temporary relief so that when he needs the money back he can raise your taxes and claim that he really hasn't raised your taxes.

Remember the Chavez tenure in the Mayor's Office has not been known for its tax cutting proclivities. It has been known to spend and spend big. Which leads us to believe that this tax cut is more about public relations than about actual tax relief; beware big spenders bearing tax cuts.