I don’t really think that Metzger brought up any new points in today’s letter and that the discussion has largely played itself out, I figure that an online response is worthwhile. Obviously, Metzger and I view the economy very differently.

His approach is very Keynesian. Government needs to spend more money in order to stimulate the economy. Nothing is said about the relative efficiency of government spending as opposed to private sector spending, nor are the inefficiencies inherent in the millions of government regulations foisted upon the economy that serve to create “wedges” between willing buyers and willing sellers in an otherwise free market.

Metzger mysteriously blames “private sector” for the economic crisis (omitting Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, and regulatory incompetence) and concludes by stating that the US will “always make its interest payments” because it can print the money.

Because hyperinflation is exactly what we need:

The US Senate, with the support of New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall, recently passed legislation called the “Marketplace Fairness Act.” The idea behind the legislation is to set up a new taxation regime that would allow states to collect sales taxes on ALL online sales.

Currently, due to the US Supreme Court’s Quill decision of the early 1990s, online merchants must collect all sales taxes due if they have a physical presence in a particular state, but “mom and pop” merchants are not forced to act as tax collectors for the 9,600+ taxing jurisdictions throughout the United States. According to tables available online from New Mexico’s Tax and Revenue Department, there are 24 taxing districts in Bernalillo County alone and easily more than 100 statewide.

The complexity point is key because it is not that consumers do not owe taxes on online purchases, rather, the Court decided that the burden of forcing a small business to collect taxes at so many different rates with products defined differently, and with documentation required on a variety of schedules and in different formats, was unreasonable.

The Marketplace Fairness Act would require the creation of a complicated and expensive system for tracking where consumers live, what they buy and how much it costs. After all, as Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne notes, “In one jurisdiction, cotton candy is food; in another it’s entertainment or candy.”

Thankfully, Gov. Martinez has taken a firm stance against a convoluted system of Internet taxation, but the same cannot be said for many governors and legislators of both parties who, hungry for more revenue, are supporting a policy change that would undermine the small businesses that have sprung up to do business online, thus cushioning the blow of the current slow-growth US economy.

One Albuquerque-based business owner that I have spoken to has stated that he would no longer sell his product online under an Internet taxation regime as set up under the Marketplace Fairness Act. The issue is not an unwillingness to have his consumers “pay their fair share,” but the compliance costs that involve submitting documentation, often on a monthly basis even if his company has no sales in that particular jurisdiction.

He is by no means the only small business owner with an online presence to face negative repercussions from Congressional overreach on Internet sales. It is one big reason why Ebay, Etsy, and their small, but numerous sellers oppose the Marketplace Fairness Act while the online behemoth Amazon has become one of the primary advocates for the Act.

Of course, many governments are hungry for the revenues that Internet taxes would bring in. Many of them argue that these taxes will force online retailers to “pay their fair share” for all of the services they use. The reality is that Internet merchants don’t burden local infrastructure like traditional retailers and “big box” stores. These companies, not the online retailers, are using the roads, sewers and schools.

Rather than burdening small businesses with additional compliance costs, states should consider shifting to an “origin-based” sourcing rule for sales taxes.

A destination-based sourcing rule requires businesses to collect sales tax defined by the physical location of the buyer, whereas an origin-based sourcing rule would require sales tax collection defined by the physical location of the seller. After all, if the seller is burdened with collecting taxes on behalf of the government, the revenues generated should at least be used in part for the benefit of that seller.

Better still; unlike the Marketplace Fairness Act which relies on collusion among the states and thus requires the blessing of Congress, the origination-based approach encourages federalism and competition among the states to be as attractive as possible for potential Internet vendors.

Taxing Internet sales is a complicated issue. The trick is to balance genuine fairness and reasonable regulations while respecting federalism and encouraging interstate competition. We can do better on each of these fronts without the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Paul Gessing is the President of 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

It’s a good article so far as it goes, but it doesn’t explain what makes Texas so darn attractive to entrepreneurs and businesses.

For starters, it has no personal income tax (New Mexico’s rate is 4.9% which is down from 8.2% a few years back thanks in part to Bill Richardson);

Texas is a Right to Work state meaning that workers cannot be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment (New Mexico has no such law);

Texas has a corporate income tax rate of zero while New Mexico’s will be 5.9% even after the recent corporate income tax cuts are phased in five years from now;

The aforementioned issues are all under the control of Texas’ elected officials, but Texas is also blessed to have less of its land mass owned by the federal government which allows the state to utilize and benefit from a far greater percentage of its land:

HT: Roger Mickelson

But no. Rather than outlining the very real difficulties with setting up these exchanges (and why that presents problems for the law itself), Quigley simply attacks the views on ObamaCare expressed by Dr. Deane Waldman and HSD Secretary Sidonie Squier, both of whom are on the exchange board (implying that they are the aforementioned “obstacles”). Sure, it is a challenging position to be in to assist in the implementation of a law that you have serious misgivings about (and Quigley could also have done a piece exploring those realities), but apparently he’d prefer to disparage those who have expressed concerns about the law.

For the record, RGF has serious concerns about exchanges (which indeed have received support of organizations like the Heritage Foundation). I wish Waldman and Squirer the best as they work to implement this law (I could not do what they are doing).

Rob Nikolewski at Capitol Report New Mexico has a great in-depth column about the visit and some of the issues standing in the way of this windfall for our state’s economy.

KRQE Channel 13 has a report here as well.

For a broader discussion of the political issues holding us back, check out this great column from libertarian syndicated columnist Steve Chapman.

Lastly, I visited Farmington recently (the Four Corners Region’s economy has been greatly harmed by depressed natural gas prices) and sat down with the folks at the Daily-Times which translated into this editorial on the issue (and other economic issues of interest to the Four Corners).

Kind of brings to mind Stalin’s quote “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

But the issue is a serious one. Southeastern New Mexico is now facing yet another “endangered species” issue with the “Lesser Prairie Chicken.” Addition to the list could put a real damper on industry in Southeastern New Mexico.

I’m not saying that any wind farm that kills an eagle should be torn down; rather, I would say that the Endangered Species Act should be interpreted in ways that offer similar leeway to other industries and other uses of the land.

If you think that’s bad (and it is), wait until the IRS gets its grimy paws on American health care. As CNBC noted prior to the IRS scandal:

Get ready for the Internal Revenue Service to play a dominant role in health care. When Obamacare takes full effect next year, the agency will enforce most of the laws involved in the reform—even deciding who gets included in the health-care mandate.

“The impact of the IRS on health-care reform is huge,” said Paul Hamburger, a partner and employee benefits lawyer at Proskauer.

“Other agencies like Social Security will be checking for mistakes, but the IRS is the key enforcer,” Hamburger said. “It’s also going to help manage who might get health care.”

If that doesn’t send chills up your spine, I don’t know what will.

Check out the following chart illustrating the IRS’s dramatically-expanded role in US health care:

Of course, water IS a precious resource and the free market HATES the loss of a valuable resources. So, naturally, there are companies out there that are working to recycle frack water. And, according to the article, 20% of frack water is already recycled.

Rather than banning a particular process (Mora County hasn’t just banned fracking, but ALL oil and gas drilling), it might be worth pushing for procedures like water recycling that will make fracking and oil and gas drilling more environmentally-friendly than they already are.

The reality is (as libertarians and some conservatives have repeatedly pointed out), the reality is that some of the biggest players in health care (especially those that already garner significant government support) have put up a great deal of money lobbying for the law. Now that the law is being implemented and the American people refuse to be “educated” in support of the law, the Administration is reaching out to those very same businesses they say the law is meant to hold accountable…got it?

Readers in this space will know that we are not big fans of subsidies for ANY energy source (see chart below):

But that is not even the point when it comes to questioning the merits of this particular project:

1) The Roundhouse sits largely empty for 10 months out of the year (yes, there are interim committee hearings), will the electricity generated by sold on the grid?

2) Top electricity usage in the Roundhouse would be during the legislative session which takes place during January-February (or March) when the sun shines the least. How is this cost-effective?

3) While the group claims a repayment schedule that clearly seems to benefit taxpayers, can we get a full accounting of the costs and benefits of this project (including all subsidies) from a third-party auditor?