Mario Burgos

The primary is over, and the Democrats at the top of the ticket have a BIG PROBLEM, and they know it. On the Republican side, we have in Susana Martinez, a law and order Hispanic Female candidate with strong roots in New Mexico’s second largest city and a clear track record of being able to connect with everyday New Mexicans and win crossover votes.  Her number two is, John Sanchez, a Hispanic independent businessman who also has shown an ability to campaign hard and win.

Compare that to the top of the Democratic Party ticket, which is being led by two past-Chairman of the Democratic Party machine. Two folks that are so tied to the corruption-ridden, budget-busting, sell-it-to-the highest-bidder Richardson Administration that they’re practically family.

Keeping this in mind, it’s probably no surprise that Emperor Bill’s right-hand woman takes to the podium after her primary coronation by the Democratic Party machine and immediately starts hurling stones:

Denish, who has attempted to separate herself from elements of the Richardson administration record, said she was looking forward to a “very spirited contest” with Martinez, but warned supporters that the general election race could get vicious.

“We know what we’re up against,” Denish said at the Doubletree Hotel in Albuquerque. “You’ve been watching it out there, haven’t you? All those Republican attacks against each other, and quite a few against me. And we know this: They’ll get nastier; they’ll get more intense as the days go on because they’ll say and do anything to win.”

“I’ll just put it as simply as I can for you,” Denish said. “Her record doesn’t match her rhetoric.”

Well, see that’s the beauty of actually having to duke it out in a primary battle. Susana Martinez’s rhetoric has been compared to her record, and guess what?  It withstood the test of battery. Unfortunately, the Democrats opted not to test their gubernatorial candidate’s mettle. Instead, they chose to award her an uncontested pass to spend two years using her office to accumulate a campaign treasure, while unemployment skyrocketed, businesses shuttered their doors and pay-to-play scandal rocked nearly every nook and cranny of her Administration.

Dang right, it’s going to be a “very spirited contests.” New Mexicans have finally been awoken to the fact that we’ve allowed anointed officials to destroy our state for too long, and the spirit is moving us to contest that status quo and vote to elect champions of OUR INTERESTS instead of YOUR INTERESTS.

I’ve opted not to take an active role in any campaign this primary season.   This is a departure from years past where I’ve done everything from volunteer, to blog about, or even consultant on one primary campaign or another – not to mention once running as a candidate in a primary. For the most part my decision to stay out of the primaries (although, you can bet I’ll vote) is due to the fact that, with a few exceptions, there are very few candidates running in the Republican primary that I would have a problem supporting in the general election. And, those candidates I would not vote for in the general election have ABSOLUTELY no chance of winning their respective primaries.

With that said, I have to take issue with a recent post put up by fellow blogger Joe Monahan. It’s been awhile since I’ve given Joe a hard time, and his recent innuendos regarding the large  contributions received by Susana Martinez from the Perry’s of Texas definitely warrants criticism:

Those previous Perry donations raised some fuss, but were not as sensitive as they are today because they did not come in a climate filled with news of corruption and alleged corruption–mostly all stemming from campaign contributions.

A Martinez operative points out that Perry does not currently do business in the state. But with the size of this donation, if he did choose to do business here would it buy him access? Or what about his associates who might want to set up shop in New Mexico?

So, first let’s deal with the facts. A very large campaign contribution is made to a candidate by a donor with no business in the state of New Mexico.  A donor who has a significant history of making large contributions to Republicans in previous campaign races in New Mexico without pursuing business in the state.  So, why does an outsider do this?  Well, historically especially while the Democrats have controlled the political reins, it’s because that’s how business is done in the Land of Enchantment.

But, the Perry’s have not given large donations to Democrats in New Mexico to buy political favors when the number of recent indictments has shown those favors were clearly for sale. So, what’s the motivation for the Perry’s to give such a large sum of money to a campaign? Well, this may be hard to understand for people who put their personal self-interests above all else, but looking at the Perry’s contribution history, it’s clear that you have folks who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Or, more specifically, invest in their principles. This is actually pretty common in America.  Every day, all over our great nation, people make donations and contributions to politicians, not-for-profits, religious organizations, etc. without expecting any “payback” in return.  Some of those contributions are very, very large. In fact, the return they expect on their investment is that the receiving party will do what they promised to do.

When it comes to  Republican candidates, this generally means enforce the rule of law, limit the size and reach of government and demand accountability. Every candidate is a person, and every person has flaws or has made mistakes. However, “being for sale” is not a flaw. It’s not a mistake. It’s a felonious act. And, let’s face it, if Susana Martinez was guilty of these type of crimes, she would of long ago been run out of Las Cruces where she has been elected and re-elected as a Republican to be the District Attorney in a county that has a strong Democratic majority.

I long ago said that the pushing of ethical reforms is nothing more than political posturing.  It sounds great on the stump, but means absolutely nothing in practice. Crooks will be crooks regardless of the ethics adopted by others.  Unfortunately, one of the worst legacies of the culture of corruption of the eight long years of the Richardson/Denish Administation is that everyone now assumes the worse. The simple act of stepping up to the plate and giving to people and causes you believe is assumed to have an ulterior motive.

What happens when you pass a 2,409 page health care overhaul bill into law? All kinds of terrible things. No, this is not a post about the merits of the health care “reform” that the Democratic Congress and our President force fed to the American people. Instead, this is a perfect example of why Americans should just tell their elected representatives, “No!” anytime they want to pass legislation into law weighing in around twenty pounds  and containing more pages than the Bible.

See, invariably, when that many pages is included in a law, it’s going to do a WHOLE LOT MORE than it is purported to do. It’s going to do things that have absolutely nothing to do with its stated purpose.  Case in point, let’s look at one of the non-healthcare aspects of this new law with which we’ve all been sadled:

An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.

Section 9006 of the health care bill — just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document — mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

The full negative impact of this new burdensome regulatory burden on the business community will go into effect in just 18 short months. As a small business owner, I can unequivocally tell you this will be a truly devastating and production draining practice on America’s business community. A compliance demand by our federal government that will only serve to increase overhead expenses for every businesses – from the struggling artist to the multinational behemoth -  without adding the least bit of value.

Those of you that own or operate a small business already know how difficult it can be to stay afloat and compete in today’s economy, especially during tough times. Besides the regular day-to-day operations, there are all kinds of fees, taxes and other regulatory burdens that make doing business a challenge.

Can you imagine having to track and tally every single business purchase you make throughout the year and send 1099 forms to all of them? How about having to collect names and taxpayer identification numbers from every vendor or payee that you dealt with? Can you imagine how long it would take on the phone with Wal-Mart customer service to try to obtain the company’s tax ID? Multiply this by the other five hundred companies you do business with, and you start to get an idea of the new burden this is going to place on small businesses across America.

It’s going to take a whole lot more time to comply with these rules, and many small businesses will probably have to hire someone full-time just to take care of it all. The additional expense will either further strain companies who can take the hit (which will just drive up prices for consumers) or force them out of business. But no matter how you look at it, it’s a lose-lose situation for American businesses.

If you’re in business, now would be a good time to let your elected representatives – from county officials to the White House -  know that this is a bad regulation for America. It’s also a good wake-up call for every American.  The Democratic Congress and our President have encore performances of the healthcare sized legislation in the works. They’re eager to push financial “reform” and climate change  bills.

Well, I think its time to pass a new law. Simply stated,  if a bill is longer than the Constitution of the United States, it doesn’t even get printed – let alone come up for a vote.

Everyone in New Mexico knows that under the 70+ year Democratic rule of our state corruption has flourished liked bacteria in a petri dish. But, what is less understood is that the total disregard for the rule of law, especially within the ranks of the elected and appointed leaders of the current administration, is not simply limited to padding wallets and stealing from taxpayers to fatten campaign funds. In an attempt to curry favor with one political voting block or another, the Administration has shown the most cavalier attitude toward laws and regulations – changing and discarding them on a whim with a complete disregard to the constitutional process.

We’ve seen it time and time again. Appointees have held midnight meetings to circumvent the legislature and “rewrite laws” as they see fit. We’ve seen others take illegal administrative liberties to steal your water from right under your land. There has been little to no fiscal accountability for state agency after state agency for years. Of course, for the majority of New Mexicans these might seem like actions that “don’t really directly impact me and my family.”

Well, let’s see if we can bring this down to the simplest terms. If lying, cheating and stealing aren’t enough to get your blood boiling, then maybe the raping of children will put you over the edge:

Because CYFD acted as if this regulation did not exist, CYFD failed to notify ICE and released Juan Gonzalez when he was charged with molesting a 3-year-old girl and raping a 6-year-old boy in 2005 when he was found not competent to stand trial. He walked.

Then, in 2008 Gonzalez was arrested again for (allegedly) raping a 4-year-old.

This was preventable.  In fact, the rules and laws were on the books to prevent this from happening. But, the current administration opted to make their own rules. They assumed, as they have all along, that they are above the law:

The Richardson administration did not want to enforce the regulation, for whatever reason, so, rather than engage in the legal process to change the law, they just substituted their own view of what they wanted the law to be.

And now, because of the administration’s arrogance and chutzpah, another innocent child, a 6-year-old little girl playing at a local gym has her life shattered by the act of a (suspected) criminal that could have been prevented.

It’s time the voter’s sent a clear message that they’ve had enough. Regardless of your political affiliation, make sure you vote in the upcoming primaries and encourage your neighbors to do the same. It’s time to send the lawless and self-interested packing and put people in office that will put public service above self-interests.

It seems to me that Democrats on the Albuquerque City Council are out of touch with mainstream Duke City residents:

Mayor Richard Berry’s new immigration policy survived — just barely — a City Council challenge late Monday.

An effort to overturn the policy failed by one vote after dozens of speakers weighed in passionately on what role, if any, City Hall should play in the debate over illegal immigration.

The vote came after Berry announced last week that everyone arrested in Albuquerque will have their immigration status checked, regardless of nationality. Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will work out of the city-county Prisoner Transport Center, where arrestees are taken before transportation to the local jail.

In fact, I’d be willing to bet that they are out of touch with most of America.  This vote played out on strictly partisan lines with the four Democrats voting to strike down the immigration policy.  Luckily, there are no longer enough Democrats on the City Council for them to be successful.  I’m the last one to hope for a Papers Please America. But, I’m also not a criminal. If you’re in this country illegally (a criminal act in and of itself) and breaking additional laws to boot, I don’t see any reason you should get to hide your immigration status.

“If we do it for you, we’ll have to do it for everyone else.” This wasn’t stated anywhere in the recent Upfront article about a family’s fight to get the best education possible for their child, but it seemed to be the underlying motivation in the Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) decision to litigate rather than educate:

Chavez-Williamson had demanded too much from the system, rejected the advice of educators with years of experience, Adams said. She had “shopped” for different schools and teachers (an apparent APS no-no), then pulled him from those schools when his needs were not being met to her satisfaction.

“It was a constant barrage,” Mary Johnell Hale, APS developmental preschool program liaison, testified. “I love Sandra and her family, but she was consumed with getting ready to prepare Tommy for kindergarten.”

Nearly everyone agrees that parental involvement in a child’s education is a key component in a child’s success. Yet, it’s interesting that APS should decide to litigate rather than work with advocate parents to provide a special needs child the best education possible. We’ve all heard stories, watched movies and read books, of “experts” setting limitations on a child’s expected achievements only to have those limitations surpassed because a parent took seriously their individual responsibility to be their child’s number one advocate.

Of course, government systems and the bureaucrats that run them don’t like this behavior.  They prefer to put into place a system of rules and regulations for the “greater good” that maintain the status quo – often one of failure and mediocrity – rather than seek to continuously improve and recognize the needs of the individual. Consider the actions noted above that are considered negative by the school district and its personnel:

1. shopping for different schools and teachers in an APS no-no
2. being “consumed” with getting your child prepared for the next grade

How much better off would our schools be if every parent demanded the same accountability for their children? In a government run society, you are supposed to defer to the experts. However, one of the characteristics that has made this country great is those that have challenged the status quo and refused to settle for mediocrity and commonly assumed practices of what’s best. It’s troubling that any school would rather litigate than educate – especially a taxpayer funded institution.

Leave it to our politicians to spin fairy tales that would make the Brothers Grimm green with envy. For example consider this promise by two senators pushing cost-spiking energy legislation:

Responding to critics who claim energy reform means increased costs and taxes, Kerry and Lieberman said energy-bill discounts and direct rebates would give back to consumers two-thirds of the proposal’s revenue that isn’t dedicated to deficit reduction. Additional tax cuts and an energy-refund program would help Americans “who may be disproportionately affected by potential increases in energy prices,” according to supporting documents Kerry and Lieberman supplied.

So, if consumers aren’t going to be on the hook, who is? The only thing worse than mail-in rebates used to sell products are government promised rebates to sell the “latest and greatest” harebrained scheme. Let’s consider this in the context of New Mexico. You might remember that not too long ago New Mexicans were given one time income tax energy rebates ranging between $64 and $289.

Yet, just five short years later, the government that gives in one-time rebates taketh away in recurring tax increases. The worse part is that what they take away in that additional year over year tax increase is always way more than what they gave us in the first place. It’s the government’s version of a car salesman’s four square worksheet game.

I think one of the major shortcomings of the education system overall is that it has not adapted to the skills needed to be successful in the information age. Most classrooms spend a lot of time in the indoctrination of information.  The model is that someone (i.e. the teacher) presents information, and the student “learns” this information and demonstrates their “knowledge” by spitting it back. While that may work for the basic fundamentals, once you get past those fundamentals it really serves very little purpose.

More important than the ability to regurgitate “facts” is the ability to critically analyze the information that is presented to you. We’ve all heard the axiom that there are two sides to every story. In fact the comments left on this blog over the years by those that disagree with me on given policy positions is a good example of that.  Personal attacks aside, most of the for and against arguments on a given issue have some merit.

So, what does this have to do with the new APS Recruitment Policy? Well, the debate over the recruitment policy demonstrates the shortcoming of an education by indoctrination:

The presence of recruiters also must be logged, to determine whether they are spending more time at certain schools than others. The logs will also track groups that requested access to schools and were denied.

One central complaint of peace activists remains unchanged. Several anti-war groups have requested access to campuses to provide counter-information to military recruitment and say they have been denied. They would still not be allowed on campus under the new policy, which would allow only groups that actively recruit for a job or service program, not those that simply advocate a point of view.

If critical thinking and the ability to make well-rounded decisions were taught, then the peace-activists complaints would truly be moot. Students would take the information given by recruiters (military, business or community groups) and then do some of their own research to determine if what was “being sold” was in their own best interest.  But, of course, in the age of the ever-growing nanny government, the assumption is that the citizenry is really not capable of thinking for themselves.

Worse, the newly adopted policy demonstrates the classic government bureaucratic solution in all its glory. Let’s create logs and task someone with administering and analyzing those logs. Yeah, in a time of growing budget shortfalls, that’s going to add value to the education of our children.

Having been the owner of a marketing and communications firm, and for a brief stint having dabbled in political consulting, I find the “push-poll controversy” going on at Joe Monahan’s blog somewhat amusing.  More specifically this statement:

We also had some email questioning whether this was a “push poll” as we called it–one designed to move voters off of Martinez and over to Weh–or a poll to test negative messages against Martinez for use in future advertising. To us, it’s pretty much a distinction without a difference.

Joe’s been around politics for a long time.  He should know there’s a big difference. Political consulting is just another type of marketing consulting.  Anyone who pays attention to what goes on in the marketing world knows that if the budget exists brand messages are tested with the targeted demographic group. It’s just good business.  In fact, it is such a commonly accepted practices, that they even have commercials depicting focus groups evaluating product messages.

Politics is no different, and I’m really kind of shocked that Joe is pretending not to know that.  In fact, in politics the stakes are a lot higher.  You spend a whole lot of limited funds in a very small period of time to “make the sale.”  You’ve got 30 to 60 second soundbites to tell your story, or that of your opponent. Most people are more complicated than a 60 second soundbite, so it’s critical that the folks creating the message know what’s most important to the voters and allow the candidates to address those issues.

The only way you can do that is by asking (polling) a representative sample of voters what’s important  before you put the significant investment in production and media purchase. Now, the candidates that decide their policy based on what the voters want to hear are flawed at best. But, those that prioritize their message based on what’s important to the voters are just being smart.

One final obvious problem with this make-believe “push poll” conflict trying to be created.  Is that if you were actually going to do a push poll, you would do it immediately prior to a vote, not a couple of weeks ahead of voting.

Just my two cents.