Libertarian Party of Doña Ana County, New Mexico

Monday, October 31, 2016

Allen Cogbill, In Memoriam

It is with a heavy heart that I must announce the passing of our beloved Treasurer, Allen Cogbill. Allen passed away unexpected on October 25 from a recently-contracted lung disease. Allen served the LPNM as Treasurer, doing a fabulously superb job of bookkeeping, for as long as I have been associated with the Party. He was a dedicated Libertarian who lived his principles, and was a good friend to us all.

Allen, thank you for having enriched our lives with your presence. We are going to miss you.

Marty Swinney
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

New Mexicans Deserve Direct Democracy

New Mexicans Deserve Direct Democracy

By Siebert Ickler

581 words

While politicians and voters around the country and here in New Mexico celebrate their Election Day victories and mourn defeat, voters in 24 states nationwide – not including New Mexico – also exercised a more directform of control over how their affairs of state are managed. In these states, voters were able to place measures on the ballot through the initiative process, rather than waiting, sometimes forever, for politicians to tackle the issues.

In the Land of Enchantment, however, voters can only hope that the politicians they have elected will live up to their promises. In fact, New Mexico and Hawaii are the only western states (Rocky Mountains and beyond) that lack this form of direct democracy.

In the aftermath of Election Day 2006, it is clear that citizens do not always speak with one mind, but they always have something important to say. Gay marriage and efforts to prohibit it may get the most headlines, but did you know that eleven states considered measures to limit the use of eminent domain? With Governor Richardson having vetoed a bill that would have restricted the use of eminent domain and polls showing that a vast majority of New Mexicans support such restrictions, wouldn’t it be nice to circumvent the politicians on this one?

Raising the minimum wage is another hot topic here in New Mexico and, while I personally believe that it is bad economic policy for states to legally-mandate wage levels, I am pleased that voters in six states were able to decide for themselves on Election Day.

The fact is that voters are by-and-large well-informed on these single-issue ballot measures and are often willing to take on issues considered too politically radioactive for politicians to handle. In fact, while three states – Oregon, Nebraska, and Maine – rejected the placement of strict limits on the power of politicians to tax and spend, Colorado's strict tax and spending limit was passed in 1992 through the initiative process. Some states may not be ready for Colorado-style tax and spending limits, but it would be nice if New Mexicans had the final say.

Legislative term limits are another area that voters are willing to tackle that most politicians, for obvious reasons, seem more than happy to ignore. In fact, 16 states nationwide limit the terms of their legislators and all of these states did so through the initiative process. As it lacks the initiative process New Mexico is of course one of the states lacking legislative term limits.

The term limits issue is perhaps only the most obvious issue on which legislators tend to act in their own interest while ignoring the will of voters. While a legitimate debate can be had over whether term limits improve governance, it is hard to argue that legislators view term limits as a anything but a mortal threat and they will not pass them. Tax and spending limits like Colorado's are another limit on legislative power and, as such, such limits are not likely to pass in the absence of the initiative process. After all, it is the belief of overwhelming numbers of our legislators that they, not taxpayers, can make the best decisions on how to spend taxpayers' money.

The fact is that voters are not always correct in assessing difficult political and economic decisions, but neither are legislators. Given the ever-increasing amounts of unfiltered information available to voters over the Internet and elsewhere, doesn’t it make sense to give citizens a greater say in New Mexico’s future?

Siebert Ickler is an adjunct scholar with New Mexico's Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

Monday, October 2, 2006

Las Cruces Sun-News: Income tax cut worked, so why stop?

Income tax cut worked, so why stop?

By Siebert Ickler For the Sun-News

Las Cruces Sun-News — October 2, 2006, 10A

The Wall Street Journal recently praised Democrats — including New Mexico's own Bill Richardson — for cutting income taxes. Indeed, with neighboring Arizona and Oklahoma (states with Democrats in the role of chief executive) having enacted significant income tax cuts earlier this year, a real trend is developing. Strong economic growth has convinced increasing numbers of Democrats of the need to invest in future economic growth by reducing income taxes.

As economist James Gwartney points out, steeply progressive income taxes, such as the 8.2 percent rate that once burdened New Mexico taxpayers, harm economic growth. They do so for two reasons. First, they reduce the share of additional income that earners are permitted to keep, thus reducing the payoff that people derive from work and from other taxable productive activities. When people are prohibited from reaping much of what they sow, they will sow more sparingly. Secondly, high marginal tax rates can encourage tax shelter investments and other forms of tax avoidance.

Fueled both by ongoing income tax cuts and a boom in the oil and gas industry, the state economy is strong. While oil and gas revenues are largely dependant on factors beyond our control, continuing to cut income tax rates is well within the control of our elected leaders. Currently, the top income tax rate levied by New Mexico rests at 5.3 percent and will drop to 4.9 percent (from 8.2 percent) by the time the income tax cuts are complete in 2008. Given the success of New Mexico's income tax cutting experiment, it makes sense to keep the tax reductions going past 2008 and to aim at eliminating the personal income tax entirely.

Given our history of high tax rates, it is no surprise that New Mexico's business climate has been less-than-friendly to business. This is borne out in rankings published by the Washington, DC-based Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council. In 2002, prior to the start of the current round of income tax reductions, New Mexico was ranked a lousy 47th. As of 2005, the last year for which data is available, New Mexico's ranking had risen to 33rd place.

While recent improvement is welcome, our elected leaders cannot be satisfied with 33rd place. This is especially true since all of our neighbors Colorado (10th), Utah (30th), Arizona (17th), Texas (11th), and Oklahoma (29th), continue to outscore us in small business friendliness. Tax cuts in Arizona and Oklahoma will only make those states more competitive.

Leaving productive activity untaxed is the best possible way to generate economic growth and attract productive citizens. Nine states, including neighboring Texas, charge no income taxes at all. The trend is so pronounced that, as Ohio University Economist Richard Vedder found in a study of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, from April 1, 2000, through June 30, 2004, a net total of 1,318,963 native-born Americans moved into the no-income-tax states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming) from those states that do tax a portion of people's income.

The ideal way to really boost New Mexico's economy would be to simply keep cutting the income tax until it is completely eliminated. New Mexico could eliminate its income tax over time by canceling projects like the RailRunner ($318 million in savings) and the Spaceport ($100 million), adopting cost-saving reforms for Medicaid and education, and eliminating economically wasteful tourism and film subsidies.

If General Fund spending growth was reduced from the rate of growth we have seen under Gov. Richardson (7 percent annually) to a level that closely tracked the combined effects of inflation and population growth (4 percent annually), the state would have been able to shift a total of $150 million to tax reductions in FY 2006 alone. The ability to reduce future tax rates would only grow as fiscal restraint is maintained. Reforms like the adoption of Constitutional limits on taxing and spending similar to Colorado's would be the best tool for restraining spending over a long-term tax elimination plan.

Instead of increasing spending, creating more welfare programs for out of state billionaires or other economic growth schemes targeted at special interests, our elected leaders should be looking for ways to ensure future prosperity by reducing the tax burdens of all hard-working taxpayers. Taking steps now to eliminate or further reduce the state's personal income tax is one of the fairest surefire methods available to spur economic growth. It is more than coincidence that the states with no income tax are among the more prosperous.

Siebert Ickler is an adjunct scholar with New Mexico's Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.