Appeasement

What we needed was freedom. What we got was appeasement. Monday night the city council voted to reduce fines for dastardly Dodges and frenetic Fords who run one of Albuquerque's 20 scam-era intersections (ABQ Journal - Subscription). Remember it's not drivers who run through red light scam-era intersections - it's their vehicles that are the motorized miscreants.

In general the council brought the fines associated with both the scam-eras and the scam-vans in line with their criminal counterparts.

Councilor Don Harris said city residents are beginning to accept the cameras, adding that making the fines equal to officer-issued citations was a step in the right direction.

"We have to accept that we have this technology and make sure it is fair and (that) due process is protected," Harris said.

- ABQ Tribune

We beg to differ with the councilor from district 9... We certainly do not have to "accept" this technology and the tweaks the council made last night do nothing to address the program's inherent due process problems. Technology has never been the issue except in its implementation that necessitates a delay in notification and a reliance on the state's "evidence" for your defense.

Right now, it is possible to put GPS tracking devices in every vehicle registered in the City of Albuquerque. These devices could continuously monitor our vehicles every move - more specifically every mile per hour over the posted speed limit. That data could automatically generate a citation that would be sent to the vehicle under the STOP Ordinance scheme. Not only would the city be a safer place, but the city could keep tabs on each and every one of us so that we were never in any danger. Little brother Marty would always be there to protect you.

You can bet that a system like that would make money for the city and The Almighty Alcalde at an astronomical rate. It might even be more effective at "changing driver's habits" than the current Redflex system. But even if it increased overall traffic safety by over 50%, would you want it?

Last night's action by the council only makes the STOP program appear more equitable by reducing the penalty. Offending vehicles and their owners will never, we repeat never get their day in court because they will never have the opportunity to appear in one.

(Sidebar)
What a difference a year makes. Marty, after claiming that there's no way to keep the program operating with these fine reductions is now in favor of them. Hmmmm... Seems that His Honor agrees with us (read it here).
(End Sidebar)

Now there are rumblings in Santa Fe that Big Bill and the Legislature have their collective eyes (no relation) on the scam-era green. Since the fines have been reduced, it's likely that it'll be the state that's taking Marty's "excess money" from now on. How long do you really think it'll be before scam-era revenue is just another income stream for the state to waste?

It's the Economy Stupid... Or is it?

Being an election year, candidates are all clamoring for a reason... a reason for you to vote for them, and a reason for you to fear voting for anyone else. The Democrat's equivalent to the Big Head James Carville once said "it's the economy stupid." The problem is it wasn't then and from a historical perspective it isn't now.

If you haven't already voted in the Democratic primary today, take a look at the piece below put together by Drew Carey and Reason.tv. In it, Carrey takes a look at the economic realities of being in the middle class and how that compares to the rhetoric of TV pundits and politicians. You may want to consider what your chosen candidate is saying and whether or not it has anything to do with reality.

By the way - the same goes for Republicans even though you won't be voting in a primary until June.

Is it really the economy or are we letting fear make us stupid?

The Cost of Green

It starts with taxes and moves on to mandates; many of which have little to do with ensuring freedom, public safety, or any of the fundamentals of government but all of which cost us more and more money. The drain on our paychecks is undeniable and seemingly unstoppable.

Last year in the council decided it's time that we all turn green and soon it'll be time for all of us to start paying for the council's foray into social engineering. You see the council has decided that scientific consensus should translate into the rest of us paying for expensive 90% efficient heaters for our homes when when our current furnaces need to be replaced.

The ordinance (O-07-73) sponsored by Councilors Benton, Cadigan, and former Councilor and Congressional candidate Martin Heinrich, was passed unanimously last September and goes into effect in April.

Replacing that broken furnace is about to get more expensive in Albuquerque.

Requirements that go into effect April 1 call for homes to have 90 percent efficient furnaces. The rules apply to new homes or people who replace the furnace in their existing home.

-ABQ Journal (Subscription)

According to the Journal story, the city has mandated that you will have to be paying $400 to $900 more to install a furnace whether it's a new installation or a replacement; that's somewhere between 25% and 35% more than installing an 80% efficient furnace. What's interesting is that Comrade Benton tries to make a market argument (something he knows absolutely nothing about) to appease those of us who understand that we will be paying for his social agenda.

Benton suggested the cost of 90 percent efficient furnaces may come down.

"The market is going to change," he said. "People will start to get competitive with high-efficiency products as time goes on."

-ABQ Journal (Subscription)

What?! What the #$@% is competitive about mandating high end expensive furnaces? Here's a refresher course on market economics, when choices are limited costs go up. When government mandates, costs go up. Councilor Benton is restricting the number and variety of heating units available by mandating a specific efficiency in order to reduce carbon emissions which have not been proven to have anything to do with global warming. The result is predictable - higher costs for consumers.

The folks over a Scott Ruch Heating, Air Conditioning, Plumbing and Electrical claim that the new heaters will save you money and make your house "more comfortable" and more evenly heated. However the savings according to the federal government, will average about $10 a month. In New Mexico that's probably no more than $30 a year, which means that it will take more than 13 years to pay for the increased efficiency and more likely 20 to 30 years. Your new furnace will probably need to be replaced long before the savings pay for the upgraded unit.

We also have a hard time believing that a new 90% heater heats a home more "evenly" than a new 80% model. Efficiency is a function of transferring heat from the furnace to the heated space rather than losing it through the exhaust. Even heating in a forced air unit would have more to do with air flow than with firebox efficiency.

Now let's take a look at the unintended consequences. Since the cost of replacing a furnace will be higher starting in April, there will be a rush on 80% (or less) furnaces. After April, people who weren't able to make the switch to a new 80% model will simply keep their old inefficient models as long as possible - a course of action that can even be life threatening.

In addition, some people will simply buy a cheaper model from a vendor outside the city limits and either install it themselves or have a contractor who's willing to "bend" the ordinance a bit and install the banned furnace. These are just a couple of the predicable unintended consequences - there are bound to be many more.

It costs a lot to be green and we don't believe that the citizens of Albuquerque should be forced to pay for the council's collective faith that man is at fault for so-called global warming. It's silly, it's foolish and it's an abuse of government power.

Booing the Alcalde

As you probably know by now, Albuquerque's Mayor, Martin Chavez has picked his horse in the Democratic primary - Hillary Clinton. It doesn't come as much of a surprise that the Almighty Alcalde chose the former first lady as the Clinton's and His Honor share many of the same qualities. (We'll let you decide whether or not that's a good thing.)

The Albuquerque Journal (and just about every other MSM outlet) reported on Senator Clinton's Saturday rally here in the Duke City (Subscription). They talked about the candidate's "enthusiastic" reception, the 3,000 in attendance, her new stump speech, the comparison to Obama's 8,100 person overflow crowd at the convention, heck they even talked about the music being played before the arrival of the candidate.

What The Journal didn't talk about was Clinton's local backer Martin Chavez and his reception at the event. At these types of things it's customary for the headliner to recognize their high ranking supporters, particularly when that supporter is the mayor of the town where your rally is being held. Our Eyes tell us that while the headliner may have been warmly received, The Almighty Alcalde was treated to a chilly reception that included quite a bit of booing.

If any of you are still wondering why Mayor Marty dropped out of the U.S. Senate race and is now trying to have his term limits overturned, Saturday's rally should provide the answer. Marty is not considered a true Democrat by the party faithful - particularly those of the more left leaning persuasion. Thus, the mayor will find just about any race that includes a primary almost impossible to win.

Since Albuquerque's municipal elections are "non-partisan," he has the ability to pull votes from the Republican Party and run in a crowded field. In that type of environment, name ID becomes more important than policy. In short, it's the only race in the state that Marty has any chance of winning - assuming his popularity among Republicans holds. If our Eye Polls are any indication, Marty is in deep trouble even if he does manage to overturn the city charter's term limits.

Lack of Trust

It's always been our opinion that the trust of the governed is an absolute necessity if any governing body is to operate efficiently. It may be simply a sign of the times or a sign of something specific to the current city administration, but Eye On Albuquerque readers overwhelmingly distrust the current administration.

In our unscientific poll of 355 readers, a whopping 76% have no trust in the current city administration, 6% trust it some of the time, 11% most of the time, 8% all of the time, and only one person didn't know (read the results here). A healthy skepticism of government is imperative, but when over 3/4 of a governed body have lost trust in those that govern it's an indication of a serious problem - a problem that will take more than the few months between now and the next city election to fix.

This week were casting our gaze on national politics - something we rarely do. Since everyone is all a-twitter about the upcoming caucus by New Mexico's Ds and of course Super Tuesday, we thought we'd get in on the act adding the Rs into the mix just to be fair. Don't forget to vote!

How Not to Learn

We've been resisting the urge to comment on today's story about developer Jason Daskalos. It's simply amazing to us how someone who can be so successful on one level can't seem to figure things out on another. By this evening, our resistance failed and we just can't help ourselves.

Jason Daskalos made the front page of the Albuquerque Journal today... again (Subscription). A prominent man with at least 37 speeding citations, a recent DWI charge (and acquittal), and a pending domestic violence charge (read it here), should probably consider laying low for a while, but instead he took a rental car for a lap and managed to get himself back in the papers for driving 83 in a 40 MPH zone.

He's probably the only person we know that has his misdemeanor traffic citations making the front page of the state's largest newspaper. It's tempting to question the news judgment of the Journal - which might be warranted - but his continued disregard for the law simply amazes us in light of his prominence and the fact that he's obviously under public scrutiny.

There's really only one way to characterize Daskalos' continued misbehavior... stoooooopid. Someone needs to convince him to hire a driver, or a keeper even to keep him out of the papers before he jeopardizes one of his many developments by having to cash-in just one too many of his political chips.

Monopoly

When was the last time that the consumer benefited from an absolute monopoly? The answer is simple - never. That's why we have anti-trust laws to keep any one company from becoming the only provider for a good or service.

Competition has always been the cornerstone of high quality and low cost. If there were only one grocery store (or grocery store company) here in Albuquerque, that store could set the price of its goods at whatever level they chose. Fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, just about anything with a shelf life would sit longer because consumers wouldn't have a choice to purchase better fresher produce somewhere else and the stores lose money when they have to dispose of spoiled goods.

It's called the market and it's really quite intuitive. If you were able to sell some product or service that was in demand and you were the only one able to produce that good or service, you could pretty much charge whatever you wanted. Food is certainly one of those items that every one of us needs and must buy - so is health care.

Yesterday, the House Health and Government Affairs Committee passed unanimously a single payer health care scheme that would in essence create a state run monopoly on health care in New Mexico (ABQ Journal - Subscription). How does the saying go...? If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.

Nothing, we repeat... nothing is free. We all pay for health care. In fact right now, in addition to our own health care we pay for indigent care with our tax dollars. Currently, every emergency room must treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. How much more "universal" can you get?

What so called "universal" health care schemes do is create a government run health care system complete with all of the coercive influences and legislative power of the state. It would be similar to centralized control of the economy. The state is not equipped to make the millions, even hundreds of millions of decisions required to keep an economy moving, much less healthy.

(Sidebar)
The 70 year Soviet experience proved our point. Shortages were the norm and the quality was so poor that when they finally started to open their markets, McDonalds had to build their own meat processing plant in order to obtain high enough quality ground beef. We're talking McDonalds here. Not that we have anything against them but their ground beef isn't exactly filet mignon.
(End Sidebar)

Hospitals are complex operations (pardon the pun) that require thousands of decisions that directly affect quality and cost. More importantly, theses decisions often have life or death consequences.

We are often told that the goal of "universal" health care is to get those who can't afford health care out of the state's emergency rooms. Single payer healthcare plans won't get the poor out of emergency rooms (or their "universal" scheme equivalent); they'll simply put the rest of us in there with them.

Long lines, poor care, shortages of doctors, nurses, and staff, not to mention strikes will be a very real part of our health care future should a single payer scheme be implemented. Governor Richardson's plan would be better than a single payer scheme but would bring the full weight of government to bear on doctors by forcing them to accept all insurance plans regardless of whether or not the payment covers their expenses.

Once you get past the class envy - do you really believe that doctors should or would work anywhere for free... would you? We already have a problem keeping or getting doctors in this state, it simply makes no sense to create a health care system that covers everyone but results in a situation where there are no doctors and nurses to cover them.

In the final analysis, government intrusion into health care is dangerous at best - and would more likely be a complete disaster. What we need for government to do is to create an environment where competition can flourish and the consumer can make informed decisions about the health care plans available. Comparison and choice are the heart of competition - something a single payer health care scheme cannot and will not provide.