How do they campaign twenty hours every day?

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  Ask any astronaut what question they are asked most. Is it about the wonders of the cosmos or dangers they face or what launch feels like? According to many astronauts, they’re most often asked how they use the biffy in space.

            Lately I have been thinking about the presidential contenders. While I don’t care about their biffy use, I wonder: how can they campaign twenty hours a day, seven days a week, and do so for months and months?

            Speaking for myself, I work ten-hour days usually five or six times a week, and get plenty tired. The presidential contenders could be tougher than me, or, as some people suspect, they enhance their stamina pharmacologically.

            There is no chance the current presidential candidates will disclose what drugs they take to campaign relentlessly. I wonder about the side effects?

            Maybe none of them take drugs. A few years ago I remember watching New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson spend much of six years running for president while he was also the governor of New Mexico.

            Sometimes in debates he was sharp and collected. Other times he was sweaty and off target. Could it have been too much caffeine? He has the Guinness handshaking record for an eight-hour span. He shook one hand every 2.15 seconds for eight hours. How much energy does that take?

            The 38th Vice President of the United States, Hubert Humphrey, was elected vice president in 1964. He was known as the Happy Warrior because he could campaign around the clock. Interestingly, he was a licensed pharmacist. Perhaps there was a connection.

            This presidential election cycle we are getting some very odd statements from both major candidates. In 1972, Ed Muskie broke down weeping uncontrollably at one campaign stop while reportedly taking drugs to keep his energy up. This kind of behavior on a slow news day spelled the end of his candidacy.

            Writer Hunter S. Thompson wrote in a 1972 edition of Rolling Stone Magazine: “It was not until his campaign collapsed and ex-staffers felt free to talk that I learned working for Big Ed was like being locked in a rolling boxcar with a vicious 200-pound water rat. Some of his staff considered him dangerously unstable. He had several identities, they said, and there was no way to be sure on any given day if they would have to deal with Abe Lincoln, Hamlet, Captain Queeg, or Bobo the Simpleminded…”

            Thompson captured the antics of politicians in the extreme on the campaign trail. Some stand for hours at fish sliming plants shaking hands with workers before they wash their hands at the end of their shift. Mechanically they say, “Shake hands with the next president, shake hands with the next president...”

            As I watch this presidential race I wonder: is this the best we, as a nation, can do to select our leaders? Further, will this process produce the best leaders? After they have spent many a disgraceful year pandering to the voters, will they be able to step into the White House prepared to be presidential?

            This election is not about how many hot dogs they can eat or a parking ticket or if a friend of a friend heard someone say they didn’t leave a tip one day. They are asked “Gotcha” questions which are routinely misreported by media sources who are pushing a candidate.

            Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have stumbled on the stump. Perhaps they took just one too many of the energy drinks or whatever they take to keep going. Wondering is not proof but both have had some bad moments on the campaign trail.

            The over-hyped media makes each day on the campaign trail sound like the Hindenburg has just crashed: “Trump is one point up in Indiana today. We will have twenty-four non-stop hours of analysis to know what the people of Indiana are thinking just one hundred forty-two days before the election.”

            Going back to Kennedy/Nixon, I’ve watched each presidential election, somewhat in awe and often in horror. This presidential cycle is worse than any other I have experienced. If they are like this normally and not taking dangerous drugs - it will be a long four years.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

How do they campaign twenty hours every day?

Swickard: Budget problems then and now

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.   Many people were surprised at the recent controversy about New Mexico State University needing to save $12 million because of a budget shortfall. There are many hard feelings by people being cut and the push back is enormous to any cuts.

            What the administration of NMSU wanted was to make no cuts and force the students to cover the budget shortfall by another tuition increase even though enrollment is dropping. That’s because of the tuition increases over twenty years which increased tuition and fees from $600 a semester to over $4,000 a semester.

            The NMSU Regents would not go for another increase so the budget axe has fallen on several programs with the resultant howls of outrage. Budget problems have been a continuing problem at NMSU starting with the institution’s first classes in January 1890 clear up to today. Often something was done to shrink the budget.

            In June 1997 here is part of what I wrote in my column:

            There is a battle going on at New Mexico State University - not a noisy battle with clanking swords, it is a battle of wills. As with most battles there’s winners and losers. Some employees will gain, some will lose. It was started by a June 18, 1997 report from the NMSU Strategic Planning Academic Programs subcommittee which rated academic programs and recommended some academic programs be eliminated.

            What effect will this have on the citizens of New Mexico? I don’t know but this scuffling is good for NMSU and New Mexico. It forces the NMSU leaders to accept they cannot be all things to all people. A priority must be established for the NMSU core programs.

            Three perceptions: First, it’s good someone started the process of aligning the academic programs to NMSU’s mission; secondly, the committee members are going to be flamed vigorously by employees who stand to lose; and this is just a report, the NMSU Administration and Regents will make the decisions.

            The mission of NMSU is to benefit the citizens of New Mexico. The output of NMSU is graduates, research done and the service that NMSU’s faculty, staff and students provide New Mexico’s citizens.

            One of the recommendations was that the Philosophy Department be eliminated. Those professors did not take that recommendation philosophically. There was a call to eliminate the Engineering Technology Department. The people in these departments will be injured by these decisions, if they are made.

            Still, there comes a time when the injury to a few must be accepted. NMSU is not some employment agency that seeks to employ the most people possible regardless of need - even if that is what it seems.

            NMSU has a job to do in this time of declining budgets. They must insure NMSU is of benefit to the citizens of New Mexico above any personal interests of NMSU’s employees.

            It is a battle of priorities - personal and professional. There will be winners and losers. Hopefully, the losers won’t be the citizens of New Mexico.

            Amazingly the issues today in August 2016 are much the same as in 1997 while the NMSU Philosophy Department remains with seven professors. Nineteen years after they were identified as not a priority they remain nor were they cut this time.

            The University of New Mexico has thirteen faculty members in their Philosophy Department. In good financial times both NMSU and UNM can duplicate each other’s programs to no harm. But when money is tight, as was noted in 1997, this is one place to cut.

            The notion is once a program is started using public money, once the first person is hired by the government in some form or another, there can be no shrinkage of the size of government. In fact, there is a notion that all government must cost more every year, even with money becoming tight.

            Having worked at both UNM and NMSU at different times over the last forty years I have experienced the budget crunch syndrome at both institutions. In every case I have said, “Guess now we will see what our core priorities are at this institution.”

            Often the priorities are the employees rather than the citizens of New Mexico. We should change that.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Swickard: Budget problems then and now

Veronica and Nguyen’s children and their children

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  Veronica and Nguyen were two high school students I taught years ago at Albuquerque High School. As a young teacher in my first teaching situation my opinion was teachers are the most important component to students learning, but this was before Veronica and Nguyen.

            It was the first day of classes. Veronica walked in, looked around and said plaintively, “God, is it boring in here.” Every ten minutes for a whole year Veronica announced that class was boring. Nguyen, another student in that same class never seemed to be bored.

            Every time Veronica said, “God, is it boring in here,” I flinched and kept thinking that if I tried a little harder she would come around. She never did. She graduated and I never saw her again nor do I know what happened to Nguyen. I lost track of both after they graduated.

            Still, I remember his ready smile as he absorbed lessons. Nguyen was one of the Vietnam Boat People who left ahead of the Communists. Over the semester I got to know him better. His parents were farmers in Vietnam. Neither could read or write but were related to a politician in Saigon so they had to flee.

            Until five years earlier Nguyen could not read since he had never attended school. When he arrived in America, he was put in an inner-city school in Los Angeles and then moved to Albuquerque the year before I had him in class. He quickly learned to where he was an on-track junior.

            Veronica was born in Albuquerque. Both parents worked and were high school graduates.

            Nguyen played on my after-school table tennis team so I saw more of him than just in class. One day I gave Nguyen a ride home after table tennis practice and met his parents. They spoke little English but wanted to talk to me. Nguyen translated, which centered on Nguyen’s school work. I said, “He’s one of the best students in my class.” They beamed.

            Later I asked Nguyen what would happen if he got a bad grade. His reply surprised me. “Dad would beat me until his arms gave out. Then Mom would take over until he could continue.”

            I immediately asked, “Do they beat you often?”

            “No,” he said, “They don’t have to beat me, I work hard to make them proud of me. They don’t understand math and English, but know if I’ve been working. They know I should get an A in each class.”

            A few days later I scheduled parent-teacher conferences. Over two weeks I called Veronica’s parents five times. Each time I got the brush off. Her mother said, “You’re the teacher, teach Veronica and leave us alone.”

            I never met Veronica’s parents. I asked Veronica, “What would your parents do if you got a bad grade?” She smiled slightly, “They don’t even look at my grades.” Veronica got a C and graduated. I asked her if she was going to college. “No, college is boring.”

            Nguyen, on the other hand, got a college scholarship. The last I heard he was in the field of biology.

            Now I did my very best for both students and never quit. In both cases it didn’t matter. Nguyen was going to be excellent regardless and Veronica was going to be bored.

            I learned that the most important component to student learning is not the teacher, it is the family. Having a good teacher helps, but having parents who care and demand effort is far more important.

            It would make a nice ending to this story to say that Veronica is a cashier in a store making minimum wage and Nguyen is a Ph.D. Researcher making big bucks. But as I have said, I lost track of them many years ago. Still, that is the way I would bet - Nguyen has prospered and Veronica is now paying her dues for not working hard in school.

            But what of their children? Assuming both got married and have children, I suspect Nguyen will take an active role in the education of his children and Veronica will not. Nguyen’s children will do well in school while Veronica’s do not. And what about their children’s children?

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Veronica and Nguyen’s children and their children

Swickard: New Mexico’s Oops moment with water

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.   Sam Houston was president of Texas when it was founded. At a dinner he ate a big spoonful of very hot mashed potatoes. He realized they were hot and spit them out on the table while observing, “A dern fool would have kept that in his mouth.” Someone probably said, “Oops.”

            Race car driver A. J. Foyt was leading a race as the laps wound down before electronic communications. A board was held up showing the laps remaining.

            Foyt misinterpreted the board and thought he had won when in fact there was one lap to go. He slowed down and four drivers passed him. At the press conference, “Sometimes you blow a tire or an engine, I blew a brain.”

            Then there are times in New Mexico like the controlled burn in 2000 at Cerro Grande done in high winds. That wildfire burned for a month, destroying almost 50,000 acres and torching 400 homes. Oops. A few years later two fires were allowed to burn that burned out of control and scorched lots of the Gila and the Ruidoso areas.

            In 1999 a Mars obiter was constructed with one team of engineers using the English system of measurement while other teams used the metric system. It cost NASA $100 million and a lot of ridicule.

            Captain Joe Hazelwood put an underling in charge of piloting the Exxon Valdez as it left Alaska March 24, 1989. He was drinking and therefore wasn’t available to keep the ship off a reef where it poured 11 million gallons of oil. It cost about $8 Billion and ruined Exxon’s reputation.

            Or the makers of booster seals on the Space Shuttle Challenger who said don’t take off when it is below a certain temperature. But didn’t speak up forcefully when NASA got “Launch fever” while the temperature was too low and the Challenger blew up killing seven crew and costing $11 Billion. Oops.

            Look at the Fukushima nuclear plant that built the emergency pumps on the ocean side of the building so they were swamped when the tsunami hit and didn’t work. Oops. But that is small potatoes to the Soviet party official who overruled the engineers and wanted to do a very unsafe test at Chernobyl.

            That cost him his life and many others along with more than $400 Billion in damages. Double Oops.

            We have oops like the twelve publishing houses that rejected J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter book. They lost a billion dollars. In 1999 Google founders were trying to sell their search engine for one million dollars and even lowered the price to $750,000 but no one bought. It is worth about $350 Billion today.

            Record label Decca holds a special place in the hearts of record label EMI. Decca signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes and passed on the Beatles. Oops. That is almost as bad as Russia in 1867 selling Alaska to the United States for a couple cents an acre because it was not valuable.

            One of the biggest oops over the years is the way New Mexico thinks it can conserve its way to plenty of water. That is not possible. The state of New Mexico either has to pipe water into the state or it has to make unusable water into water that can be used for people and agriculture.

            But there is no movement by the state officials to do something useful. Instead they stand mute and dumb on the crisis of New Mexico not having enough water. New Mexico has never had enough water and it gets worse with the needs of more people and agriculture.

            The best they can do is hope that it will rain. Or those who think the answer is to quit having agriculture. That works as soon as we all stop eating. Idiots.

            The best time to plant a shade tree was twenty years ago. Next best time was ten years ago. But you will never get shade if you do not plant a shade tree. Likewise, real action needs to be taken on securing a supply of water for the coming generations. Or I guess years from now as it gets worse and worse we can say, Oops.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Swickard: New Mexico’s Oops moment with water

Swickard: Promise to spend wisely next time

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  There is currently deep despair in New Mexico because budget cuts cannot be avoided and the political football can’t be punted to next year. Things have to change now. Example: New Mexico State University has to cut twelve million dollars from their budget.

            The total budget for NMSU is around $620 million so $12 million is 1.9 percent. In an institution as large as NMSU, with all of their fund-raising programs and hold-back funds, it is a small sum. But it’s a cut and that’s the problem.

            In our current political climate many people think that every government program must be continued or something is seriously wrong. It is inconceivable in the media that budgets can be chopped, in fact, programs can be eliminated in hard times.

            Over the last two decades the state of New Mexico has gone from a very rosy financial status to the budget crisis of today. Who knew the oil and gas business was going to tank?

            The issue is: in the recent years when times were good, what did the people who guide our state do? They spent everything they could. Did they save anything for hard times? Not recent leaders.

            Former Governor Gary Johnson was a fiscal conservative. He constantly vetoed spending bills when he thought they were not wise. It was seven hundred times in eight years ending in 2002. Not all of his vetoes were spending, but many were and the money piled up.

            In January 2003 Bill Richardson took office. There were hundreds of millions of dollars in rainy day funds that he spent immediately on political issues. The eight years of savings were gone in days. Bill Richardson was running for President of the United States. So he spent and spent and spent.

            The last budget of Gary Johnson in 2002 was $3.9 Billion. That number went all the way to $6.8 Billion in Bill Richardson’s quest for the presidency. He was named the nation’s Education Governor for his spending on education, which had no effect on the outcomes for New Mexico students but looked good in the headlines.

            Fast forward to today since there are serious budget problems at $6.2 Billion. The problem is that there has been a large downturn in the oil and gas revenues. The budget is no longer viable and must be amended.

            When talking about reducing spending some people act like there has always been over six billion dollars in the budget. But New Mexico’s budget was under $4 Billion just a few years ago.

            The last time there was an oil and gas bust was 1981. At that time, I remember seeing bumper stickers that proclaimed, “Please God, give me one more oil boom… this time I promise not to piss it away.” Do we have anyone saying that prayer today?

            New Mexico was one of only five states who were not having budget problems in the late 1990s. Then in 2003 the spenders got their hands on our state. Some politicians want taxes to now rise as compensation for falling oil and gas revenues.

            That would be wrong because it gives the impression that government budgets cannot be seriously cut. Not one percent or two percent. Rather, ten percent. New Mexicans will be fine.

            The media will find those people who lose out. But for the two million citizens in New Mexico being fiscally responsible is essential for our future and the future of our children. NMSU is gravely wringing their hands over less than two percent. Seriously.

            Here’s a solution: NMSU and the University of New Mexico have many similar programs. Retrench to one or the other a couple of the programs currently at both universities. Know this: you should not touch the core of NMSU’s Land-Grant mission or the core of the University of New Mexico’s metropolitan university.

            It is time to bring sense back into the spending of the people’s money by government entities. No more spending so that people can be elected with promises. The oil and gas will come back; will we be careful with the money next time?

            Only if the voters elect those who are responsible and prepare for the next coming hard times.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Swickard: Promise to spend wisely next time

Swickard: Never ending elections for personal gain of the elected

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  New Mexico and America’s elections have become never-ending. Every minute of every day for decades has been focused on coming elections. There has never been even one moment when the elected stop campaigning and start representing the people.

            Worse, our society has descended into a “Thumb in the eye” society so that every action in politics is meant to divide the people, not bring anyone together. Every issue is calculated by both parties as to how much money the political operatives can raise because people are upset.

            For many years I took care of an uncle who was a staunch Republican. One day while doing talk radio I was talking to a staunch Democrat about the mailers coming to my uncle. He said that he gets the same volume of mailers and their message is similar: to stop the other side just send lots of money.

            Perhaps what bothers me the most is that we have professional legislators who will stay in office until they are recalled by their maker. In some offices there are term limits but the professional office-holders just move to another elected position and continue feeding on the carcass of New Mexico and America.

            Even worse are those professional office holders who work for professional entities that are effected by the legislature. These elected ones turn into a lobbying representative for the people who write their paychecks instead of representing the voters.

            Be it public education, environmental organizations or those attorneys who gain immense wealth once elected to an office that pays no money, they represent their own interests rather than the voters. It is why some people think New Mexico is the capital of crony corruption in our country.

            Corruption is intertwined with all of this political activity since it rewards those who will break the rules and laws. Even more stupid are those who think that the crony corruptors will self-report their transgressions. If someone with a bribe gives it to someone who wants to trade influence for that bribe, neither will report this fact.

            The only way to see even the shadow requires noting the rise in wealth of these people when the reason for the rise is not apparent. Mexico’s President, Enrique Peña Nieto observed, “Whenever there are some who have more opportunities than others, this feed corruption.”

            It goes on all of the time. The person elected stands at the buffet of corruption and no one reports on their meteoritic rise in wealth. The media gives them a pass.

            Bess Myerson wrote, “The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference.” We are partially responsible because year after year the crony corruption continues and more often than not the crony corrupt legislators are returned to office because the citizens do not care or often even vote.

            At the coffee shop the other day someone said that they could not wait for the November election to be over. Me too, but I understand that there will be no pause. The 2018 election is upon us as is 2020. We cannot think about governing because we are in the never ending election cycle.

            We are bombarded with Thumb in the eye political actions. The elected are not stupid, they do so intentionally to rally the base to give more money. Normal citizens are made nauseous by their actions and they do not care as long as they feast at the money buffet.

            The number one problem in our country is that the media has changed sides from protecting the citizens to protecting the crony corruption agents. Perhaps they are also on the take or they understand that if they do not take the side of the elected ones, they will be cut off from contact.

            The only time corruptors cannot avoid scrutiny is the Internet but canceling the First Amendment rights of citizens is very attractive to those dealing with corruption. When the First Amendment ends, which it will end, given the power of the corruptors, the nation goes over the cliff.

            At the very least let us stop allowing companies and organizations to have paid lobbyists in elected office. We have to start somewhere in cleaning up our government.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Swickard: Never ending elections for personal gain of the elected

Swickard: Tough times ahead for New Mexico

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.   “Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made.” Mark Twain

            Increasingly the political dialog is about complete and absolute transparency for those elected people making decisions. The notion is that the public should know everything about the legislative process including everything that happens during the deliberation phase.

            We are not talking about the outcomes, how people voted, rather, how they reached their decision to vote. Some people think the public should be eyewitness to the deliberations. This sounds good but will not work. H. L. Mencken wrote: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

            Consider if jury deliberations were in public. Jurors would be watched as they deliberated the case. Everyone could see how they reasoned and voted. Would that scrutiny change their actions? You bet.

            An example is our Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia from May to September 1787. The delegates decided first that they could not revise adequately the Articles of Confederation which was their announced task so instead they negotiated a new form of government.

            They did so without any transparency as they worked. The doors to their hall were locked and members pledged to not talk to journalists. The newspapers of the time had no idea what was happening.

            Why did they take such an unusual action? Because the daily pressure as they debated issues would have ultimately killed the convention if the issues under debate were known. As they day by day debated these issues they would have had too much pressure to continue if what they were debating was known to the public.

            It looks like a special session of the New Mexico Legislature will be required. And the forces of transparency will want to watch everything from the first Frito-Pie made to the last coffee pot put away… along with everything said and done during the special session.

            Transparency of the final actions of our elected is essential but perhaps not the deliberations. As the politicians figure what they can and cannot support they must not have literally thousands of people bombarding them with instant reactions.

            Deals cannot be made in front of everyone. That is a truth transparency activists do not accept. Like with jury deliberations and the designing of our Constitution, deliberation scrutiny is detrimental to the outcome.

            New Mexico has vastly less money than budgeted. So New Mexico will have to do something about it but this is an election year. Politicians would rather not act but must since our Constitution requires New Mexico financially to be in the black. New Mexico cannot deficient spend, even in election years.

            U. S. Senator from Oregon Jeff Merkley wrote, “Budgets are nothing if not statements of priorities.” The priorities are going to be called into account shortly in New Mexico and the political leaders will not be able to punt the financial football to the next session.

            They will meet in special session and do things that will lose each of them votes. The New Mexico budget will be cut. There will be winners and losers. The only thing worse is to lose the representative form of government by allowing extreme daily intrusions to the point that the representatives can no longer function.

            Fixing this financial problem will be hard since the budget was already cut in many ways in the last session. Some things cannot be cut and so one answer is to raise taxes.

            With the increase of taxes being dynamic the raises may not bring in the needed revenue because businesses and people move out of state. The state may go into a financial death spiral of taxpayers leaving and the people needing services not being funded adequately.

            There are people who want complete transparency but it is the kiss of death to most complex negotiations. Careful what you wish for as it could make this problem much worse.

            Some tough decisions will have to be made. The lobbyists and activists will endeavor to protect their clients through information, advocacy and political threats. Give our elected a fair chance to fix the budget. It is important to watch how they vote for a solution, not their deliberations.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Swickard: Tough times ahead for New Mexico

Swickard: Energy industry under attack as is our economy

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  “In general, presidents and congressmen have very limited power to do good for the economy and awesome power to do bad. The best good thing that politicians can do for the economy is to stop doing bad. In part, this can be achieved through reducing taxes and economic regulation, and staying out of our lives.” Walter Williams

            Despite claims otherwise, many elected leaders are the very reason our economy is faltering. They campaign promising to improve our economy yet they support the very government actions which cause critical harm to the economy. These politicians campaign to solve the problems which were caused by them.

            Currently there is a political controversy about flaring (burning) some of the gas from New Mexico oil producing wells. The talking points are that petroleum producers should sell that gas rather than just burn it.

            Activists claim petroleum producers intentionally throw money away. But people in business do not throw money away and stay in business. Some people understand the oil and gas industry while others do not.

            Former New Mexico Land Commissioner Ray Powell wrote in a recent Op-Ed: “The San Juan Basin is one of the most heavily developed energy fields in the Intermountain West. While the downturn in oil and natural gas prices has hit hard, there is a simple way we can boost energy and tax revenue – cut natural gas waste at existing oil and gas well sites.”

            Ray Powell’s statement has nothing to do with petroleum engineering. If there was money to be made, the petroleum producers would, especially now when prices have dropped.

            Why are these wells flared? Simply, there is no economical way to bring those products to market. There isn’t the infrastructure nor is it economical.

            The activists know this. It’s really an attempt to cripple the petroleum industry in New Mexico. Consider: this push follows a long list of industry killing events. The introduction of wolves in cattle country is strangling the New Mexico cattle industry in those areas. That is along with the Jumping Mouse rules which are designed to keep cattle from water.

            If new rules require the gas to be captured and sold or the well must be capped, all but the most productive wells will be capped. There is not the infrastructure to capture that low volume gas which also has Hydrogen Sulfide, (H2S) in it. This colorless gas with a rotten eggs smell is poisonous, corrosive, flammable, and explosive. No one is buying this substance so it is flared for safety.

            What is the political value in making New Mexico producers cap their wells? The progressive push is to end oil, gas and coal so that the economy goes on the wind and solar standard. The federal government has targeted coal which is used in about half of the national electricity generation. The coal industry is dying.

            The problem is wind and solar are not a good source for power generation other than for off-grid homes. For traditional energy uses solar and wind must be backed up by traditional generating stations. So we pay for the generation twice. The price is prohibitive, especially if the energy is used in manufacturing where competing products are produced with low-cost energy-dense power.

            In New Mexico curtailing oil and gas production will send the state budget into a financial abyss of epic proportions. The state of New Mexico is already reeling from the drop in oil and gas revenue. The current recession in New Mexico would turn into a never ending depression without oil and gas revenue.

            When you see elected leaders talk about reigning in the lost money in flaring, know that the intention is to end the oil and gas industry and replace it with wind and solar. They gain political power in this way but the citizens lose an incredible amount of money for their schools and lots of jobs.

            As Walter Williams wrote, “In general, presidents and congressmen have very limited power to do good for the economy and awesome power to do bad. The best good thing that politicians can do for the economy is to stop doing bad.”

            But we keep electing people who spend their time harming our economy.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Swickard: Energy industry under attack as is our economy

Swickard: Minimum wage laws destroy free markets

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” Milton Friedman

            America’s “free markets” are more free than markets in some other countries. However, our markets are not really free because our government controls so much of them. Know this: markets cannot be controlled and free simultaneously.

            Let’s use two terms interchangeably: free markets and voluntary exchange. Voluntary exchange is when people are free to trade with each other without government interference. When the government prevents voluntary exchange between citizens through rules and regulations, there cannot be free markets.

            In Venezuela there are daily riots because the Socialist Government meddled in their markets until those markets collapsed. Venezuela has gone from being one of the richest countries in the world to one of the poorest in just a few years of mismanagement. They have almost limitless natural resources. Without free markets their citizens get no benefit from those resources.

            The term, “profit” is seen by some Americans as being bad. Much of our political dialog is about businesses making too much profit so the government must intervene. Consider: if there is no profit, then what’s there to tax? Importantly, without profits, what’s there to continue the business?

            In free markets if there are high profits it inspires competitors who undercut prices to gain market share. So where do “obscene profits” come from? They come when our government protects one business over others so that competitors cannot compete. The “obscene profits” problem is too much government control in the markets.

            In Venezuela, with government control of the markets, the shelves are empty. In our country they are full but our government is moving towards the Venezuelan controls.

            One destroyer of free markets is the minimum wage. There should never be a minimum wage in a free market. Each person should trade their labor for an employer’s money as they see fit. How did we get the minimum wage?

            According to economist Dr. Walter E. Williams (and others) the minimum wage was created to further racism. (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2016/01/13/minimum-wage-dishonesty-n2102804)

            In the 1920s, Blacks would work for less money than Whites. Racist employers had a price to pay for being racists. If they only hired Whites, it cost them more money. Political leaders passed the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act to thwart Blacks undercutting Whites. It created the minimum wage so both Blacks and Whites had to be paid the same. Then there was no penalty for racism.

            For Americans, the ability to negotiate our own wages should be our right. But the government doesn’t allow me to work for what I think is right to get a job even though I am a free emancipated citizen. Many people caught up with progressivism do not believe in freedom. Also, with the rising minimum wage comes rising unemployment. How is being unemployed ever better than employed?

            If the government doesn’t like what someone is paid then reinstitute the 1973 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act where the government paid part of an unskilled person’s wages to get them job experience.

            Requiring employers to pay more than they think is justified, based on the return on investment in those employees, results in unskilled labor not getting hired. Those potential employees then do not get experience to get the next job. It causes discrimination against unskilled labor, mostly young people.

            The most ridiculous thing said is that some people are not making a living wage. If people can live and continue then it is a living wage. I have worked for very little money at times. I learned as much as I could and then stepped up to a better paying job.

            The government mandated minimum wage is neither compassionate nor kind. It leaves the most vulnerable Americans in perpetual bondage because they don’t get job experience. They need job experience to prosper.

            The government lives to control people and markets regardless of the damage it does to our people and the economy. For true prosperity Americans must have free markets. Otherwise our economy will descend into a Venezuela. To start we must abolish the minimum wage so young people get needed job experience.

            To believe in free markets, we must first believe in freedom.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Swickard: Minimum wage laws destroy free markets

Swickard column: Real safety versus political safety

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  “As journalists, because you don’t carry a gun, you sort of become this observer.” Tim Hetherington

            Over the years as a journalist I have been around gun violence without being armed myself. Two observations: crap happens quickly and when you least expect it. No, I was not injured.

            In those journalism years I was involved in one way or another in five shooting with me somewhat in the middle. It was frightening though I agree with Winston Churchill, “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.”

            Americans are having some bad gun moments at this time because of recent attacks upon defenseless citizens both in the United States and in Europe resulting in many deaths and injuries. It is very much in our national consciousness. People really want to find a way to be safer.

            So we want to talk about these violence issues but we cannot really. Unfortunately, the political people on both sides no longer listen to understand, they only listen to reply. So nothing I say in this column will be heard by the partisans of either side. Sad. Political programs are just people shouting and not listening.

            The topic should be “Gun Free Zones.” That is where these extreme assault problems seem to occur because perpetrators know they will be the only ones with guns until the police arrive. So it is relatively easy for them to kill many people. Those victims have no way to fight back.

            It is not rocket science that when people are defenseless and other people are evil, bad things will always happen to the defenseless people. The rule makers who created Gun Free Zones had to know what would happen. It cannot be a surprise to them.

            You don’t see these same people making Gun Free Zones in Congress. Congress and others in Washington are well protected by people armed and ready to counter evil.

            George Orwell noted, “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” Exactly. The force of evil is balance by the force of good. Guns can be a force of evil or good depending on who uses the guns and why.

            Would we sleep safe in our beds if we could not be protected? No, an evil part of our society would take advantage of our helplessness. The forces of evil must be countered. There is no other way for normal citizens to remain safe. The problem is that citizens may have seconds to live while the police are minutes away.

            Some people even think that the Gun Free Zone sign will make a crazy person say, “Oh, it’s a Gun Free Zone. I have a gun so I can’t go there.” It would seem no one could be that stupid to think that ever could be the result of declaring Gun Free Zones. More likely the evil ones say, “Good, they can’t shoot back.”

            Many of our legislators both nationally and locally live to pass more rules, regulations and laws. So there is a constant push to “Solve” the scourge of gun violence simply by passing the right laws. Top of the list for many politicians is to ban all weapons assuming that with all weapons banned everyone would be safe.

            In reality there seems little connection between reality and these thoughts. The media tries to ignore when guns are used to make a victim safer. Yet that is what happens often when criminals try to pick on more fragile people. The gun gives the smaller and more frail person a fighting chance.

            It is very apparent at public schools that a sign is all that protects them when evil attacks. Better would be a few well trained people in schools, shopping malls, theatres and other public places who could instantly counter an attack.

            It would be lovely if everyone would play nicely and there was no more violence in our world. But it isn’t going to happen. So we must protect ourselves and our loved ones and not let politicians take that protection away while they, themselves are protected by people with guns.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s new novel, Hideaway Hills, is availableat Amazon.com

Swickard column: Real safety versus political safety