THRILLED About Sarah Palin

I can't tell you how excited I am about Senator McCain choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice-President. In August of last year, I had linked to a post that made a great case for selecting Sarah Palin to run as Vice-President:

However, the very best female candidate we have -- and this won't suprise anyone -- is Sarah Heath Palin, the governor of Alaska. With an approval rating in the 90s, she's the most popular state official in the nation. She's a mother of four attractive children, a wife who's a model of commitment to her spouse, and a pillar of honesty in a state with more than its share of political corruption.

She's extremely knowledgable about several critical issues, including energy, the environment, and education. There's no doubt she'll be as passionate about observing the U.S. constitution as she is about following Alaska's state document. She advocates the form of Christianity that emphasizes doing rather than talking. She's a lifetime supporter of Second Amendment rights.

As her electability and approval ratings show, she knows how to communicate with voters. She has just enough of a populist streak that she's not afraid to take on the big corporations (Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Conoco-Phillips) that, in the past, have generally had their way in Alaska.

Later that same week, I was on Eye on New Mexico, and because of the additional research I had done, I brought up what a great V.P. choice Sarah Palin would make. I've got video on my TIVO of that episode. Maybe this weekend, I'll pull it off and post it here.

Just Been Waiting

I haven't written about Congressman Tom Udall's son-in-law taking a position as Director of Elections while his father-in-law runs for Senate.

Jim Noel, the son-in-law of U.S. Representative Tom Udall, will be the new director of the state's Bureau of Elections. And that has Republicans crying foul.

After chatting with supporters in Albuquerque Monday night, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Tom Udall reacted to his son-in-law's new title.

"I think Jim is somebody who is a professional," Udall said after being asked if had a problem with Noel getting the job.

Noel is married to Udall's daughter, Amanda Cooper. And Cooper is Udall's campaign manager.

I've just been waiting. Waiting to see if Congressman Udall was going to listen to the outcry and decide, "Whoa, maybe this wasn't such a good idea." Even if Mr. Noel is a standup guy, the appearance of this is not good. Unfortunately, Congressman Udall is showing us just what kind of Senator he would make - one that would put personal interests above those of our state and our country.

Congressman Tom Udall this was a test. Everyone was watching, and you just failed.

New Mexico Is a Microcosm

With the Democratic National Convention in full swing, it's a good time to review one of the key economic policy differences between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain.

Here's is Senator McCain's policy on raising taxes in a nutshell:

McCain sounded most like Kemp when he told me: "I want everyone to be rich. I worry about inequities. I think that corporate greed is hurting their image. But trying to enact some kind of legislation that would take money from the rich and give it to the poor, that's just out of the question."

And, here is Senator Obama's policy on raising taxes in a nutshell:

Senator Obama would raise the top individual tax rate back to 39.6 percent, impose an additional 2 to 4 percent tax on earnings for some over the existing Social Security wage cap, and bring back the phase-out of the personal exemption and certain itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers. When added up, the top effective marginal tax rate rises by 12 to 14 percentage points, from 37.9 percent to roughly 48 to 50 percent. "High" is in the eye of the beholder, but these are tax rates not seen since before the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

The bottomline is that Senator Obama wants to increase taxes, so that he can increase spending, which brings us to New Mexico. Any time anyone suggests that increasing government spending is the solution to curing poverty, you really need to take a look at the poverty statistics in our state (subscription).

About one in four New Mexico children lived in poverty in 2007, according to new data released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau in its American Community Survey.

That number is up from previous estimates of a nearly 20 percent poverty level for New Mexicans under 18. National poverty estimates for 2007 are at about 18 percent for children, according to the Census Bureau.

Census Bureau spokesman Jerry O'Donnell said Tuesday that while poverty levels across the nation have leveled off in recent years, the numbers of children in poverty have been growing.

New Mexico had fewer than one in five —about 18 percent — of its total population living in poverty last year, while the United States remained level at about 12.5 percent.

Poverty levels differ based on family size, but a family of four in poverty would make less than $21,200 annually, according to federal guidelines.

The number of New Mexicans without health insurance also grew, according to data from a separate Census Bureau survey — the Current Population Survey — also released Tuesday.

About 22.5 percent of New Mexico's population was uninsured last year, while 15.3 percent went uninsured across the nation, according to the Census Bureau.

Government spending has increased in New Mexico from $3.9 billion to over $6 billion in the last six years, and more children are living in poverty. Increased spending on government programs are not the answer to solving the poverty problem in America. It doesn't work in New Mexico, and it won't work nationally.

Lefty Sheriff Supports Heinrich. Big Surprise

Sheriff Greg Solano has a blog. A blog I've noted before that he is keeping alive during his run to be the Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor in 2010. A blog that proudly carries a "leftyblog" and a "True Blue New Mexico" badge. So, is it any surprise that Sheriff Solano has decided to support Martin Heinrich for Congress? No. The sheriff is a partisan politician. I've got no problem with partisan politics - obviously.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that Sheriff Solano refuses to state the obvious. Solano should have said, "As a Democratic politician with higher ambitions, I'm proud to fall in step with my party and support the Democratic candidate for Congress - Martin Heinrich."

Instead, Solano wrote this on his blog:

The really bad part is I have never heard Sheriff White admonish the Bush administration or even lobby the Bush administration to stop the bleeding. Officers across this nation are going with out Bullet Proof Vests, without ammunition for training and with out funding to keep cops on the streets and in the schools. I would love to see a fellow Law Enforcement Officer in Congress, Darren White is just not that officer.

Think about that rationale for a minute. Sheriff Solano is actually on record blaming the federal government for not providing bullet proof vests, amunition, training and funding to keep local law enforcement on the streets and in the schools. This is a guy who is running for Lt. Governor and who is supporting Martin Heinrich for Congress because Martin Heinrich will... What? Martin Heinrich will support the federalization of local law enforcement? Now, there is a scary thought.

I, for one, do not want a national police force only accountable to Washington insiders. Make no mistake, if Sheriff Solano, and apparently Martin Heinrich, had their way, that is exactly what we would have a federally funded, federally run police force. I don't care which side of the aisle you are on that doesn't make any sense. There are only two possible results of a movement in that direction, and neither is particularly palapable to me - a facist or communist regime.

Local governments collect taxes. One of the primary purposes of those taxes should be to support law enforcement. As a Sheriff, you would think Solano would know that. As a former City Councilor, you would think Martin Heinrich would know that. Yet, they believe that the reason local law enforcement doesn't have the resources they need is because the federal government is not providing the funds? That's ridiculous.

Tom Udall Folds Under Union Pressure

Take a moment and imagine what it would be like to live in an America where your right to vote by secret ballot was taken away. It's hard to imagine, right? It just wouldn't be America. Yet, that is precisely what Big Labor wants to do - eliminate the secret ballot. And, Congressman Tom Udall is more than eager to do their bidding:

So important is eliminating the secret ballot to Big Labor that a few weeks ago Democrat Senate candidates, Reps. Tom Allen (ME), Tom Udall (NM), and Mark Udall (CO), along with Kay Hagan (NC), Bruce Lunsford (KY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), and Jeff Merkley (OR) all scurried to Chicago for a meeting when Union bosses beckoned. The three current Congressmen already voted to eliminate the secret ballot and likely, along with the other Democrat candidates in Chicago, pledged to eliminate secret ballot elections in the future as well.

Think about that when you step into the voting booth this fall. If Tom Udall is willing to support the elimination of secret ballot protection for workers, can eliminating the secret ballot voting protection for you and me be far behind?

Valencia County Sheriff Endorses Martin Heinrich

The Democratic candidate for New Mexico's 1st Congressional District, Martin Heinrich, proudly exclaims on his website that he has garnered the support of three of the four sheriff's that make up the district - the fourth being his opponent, Sheriff Darren White.

I thought it might be interesting to take a closer look at why these particular sheriffs might choose to support Martin Heinrich over Darren White. Today, we'll start with Valencia County Sheriff, Rene Rivera, and Rivera's stated reason for supporting Martin Heinrich:

Valencia County Sheriff Rene Rivera appeared Saturday at a Valencia County welcoming event for Martin Heinrich. In his endorsement, Sheriff Rivera said, "I've been in law enforcement for over 19 years fighting against crime and drugs. Martin Heinrich was tough on crime on the Council, and I know he's the right partner in Congress to help keep our streets safe. That's why I'm endorsing him."

Since I'm not a Valencia County resident, I don't know much about Sheriff Rivera's crime fighting record over the last 19 years, but when it comes to being tough on DWI's, his record is, well, less than impressive:

[Valencia County sheriff's deputy] Duran has been arrested on DWI charges twice before, according to Belen Magistrate Court records. In 2003, Duran was charged with DWI and speeding but pleaded guilty to resisting an officer and reckless driving, and the other charges were dismissed. In 2004, he was charged with aggravated DWI causing bodily injury, and the charge was dismissed without prejudice.

[Valencia County Sheriff] Rivera said he knew when he hired Duran, a former State Police and Socorro police officer, that he had a prior DWI charge. However, he said Duran was hired because he had never been convicted.

One thing most voters can agree on is that number of repeat DWI offenders allowed on our roads has got to stop. Yet, Sheriff Rivera, not only doesn't seem to be bothered by the problem, he is willing to look the other way and give a two time offender a badge. And, apparently, Martin Heinrich must agree with him because Heinrich's proud to accept Sheriff Rivera's endorsement.

It is worth noting Sheriff Darren White's record on DWI enforcement:

Sheriff White has also made preventing and reducing DWI a top priority in Bernalillo County. In addition to being an outspoken advocate for harsher penalties, under his leadership, the Department has undertaken aggressive DWI enforcement operations.

So, on the one hand we have a law and order candidate for Congress, Sheriff Darren White, an on the other, we have a candidate, Martin Heinrich, who happily accepts the endorsement of a Sheriff who seems to believe that the solution to the DWI problem is to give repeat offenders a job as a deputy.

Tomorrow, we'll look at another one of the Sheriff's who supports Heinrich.

Busy Season for the Attorney General

This should be a busy election season for Attorney General Gary King. He has already had to push the Secretary of State to act on Eli Lee's creatively questionable use of not for profits, and now it remains to be seen whether he will begin investigations in the other efforts going on in New Mexico to undermine our elections.

I have long held that we don't need to create ethics laws. We just need to enforce the laws on the books, and I believe it is up to the Attorney General to put partisanship aside (justice is neither Republican nor Democrat) and fully prosecute those who break the law.

Dave Maass of the Santa Fe Reporter has a recent article about PRC candidate Jerome Block Jr. writing check after check to a county clerk:

The money in the fund comes from inspection fees placed on utilities and a tax on insurance premiums. In other words, publicly-financed candidates receive their money from the state government.

In Block’s case, some of it ended up in the San Miguel County Clerk’s Office.

According to Block’s campaign records, a few days after the June 3 primary election, Block cut a $300 check to San Miguel County Clerk “Pecos” Paul Maez for “campaign coordination.”

San Miguel is the only county Block won in the six-way Democratic primary. Block used Maez’ official clerk’s office address on the report.

That same day, Block also cut a $2,500 check to the country-western band Wyld Country, in which Maez is a guitarist. According to Block’s campaign, the payment was for a rally in San Miguel County just prior to the primary election. Block deferred questions to his recently appointed campaign manager Jonathan Valdez.

Block used nearly 10% of his taxpayer funded (not government funded Mr. Maass) campaign funds to write checks to the county clerk in the only county he actually won in a primary. If this doesn't scream for an investigation by the Attorney General, then I don't know what does.

Oh wait. I do know something else that is just as atrocious...

Election season after election season the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) gets a pass as it strives to undermine the election system by paying people to turn in fraudulent voter registrations or intimidate voters. And, Scott Sandlin's recent article shows that this year is no different:

Clovis native Rebecca Sitterly registered to vote soon after returning to her native state in 1979 and jumped right into Democratic politics about the same time.

So the former Bernalillo County district judge was surprised to get a July 3 call from a community nonprofit that was checking on her new registration.

When Sitterly said she hadn't filled out a registration form � indeed, she'd been regularly voting in the same place on Mountain Road NW in Albuquerque for nearly 20 years � a supervisor with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now promised to destroy the card, Sitterly said in a phone interview.

"He said, 'Don't worry, it won't go anywhere,' " she said.

More surprises were in store. She got a call from the Bureau of Elections in the Bernalillo County Clerk's Office three weeks later, asking again about the registration card, which was missing its required Social Security number.

"They were finishing out the card � they weren't calling about the fraud," she said.

Sitterly went to the sixth-floor clerk's office, got a copy of the card and discovered that it understated her age by three decades.

So, let's review, shall we?

We have a "former" Democratic political consultant, Eli Lee, running not for profits and pledging to spend a million tax deductible dollars to "educate" voters. We have a Democratic candidate for the PRC [side note: there is no Republican in this race, so I don't have a partisan motive here] writing big checks to sitting county clerks to help him win the election. And, we have ACORN continuing their well documented efforts to pay good money to submit fraudulent voter registration forms in an effort to undermine the election process.

My only question... When is someone going to jail?

Bizarre Coincidence

A couple of weeks ago, I received a call from the Albuquerque Council of International Visitors, and was asked if I I'd be willing to sit down and talk with some visiting Pakistani journalists about the role of social media in political coverage. Then today I read this (subscription):

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who resigned Monday under intense political pressure, could seek asylum in the United States and is considering making his home in New Mexico, according to a respected Pakistani journalist and scholar.

Shuja Nawaz , author of a new book on the Pakistani military, told the Journal on Wednesday that Musharraf's safety is in jeopardy in Pakistan and he is contemplating his next move.

Nawaz said he learned of Musharraf's interest in the Land of Enchantment "from a well connected person in Pakistan," but Nawaz stressed that the information is "unconfirmed."

I'm sure one thing has nothing to do with another, but you have to admit that it is a bizarre coincidence.

Just an Observation

In a market driven economy, those who buy products and services in bulk usually do so at a discount. Think about your last trip to a warehouse store. Buy more, and pay less on a per unit basis. Or, think about the last membership offer you received. Your discount was higher for a three year commitment than it was for a month to month commitment.

Keeping all of that in mind, read how different the situation is if the "product" comes from a government entity (subscription) as described in this article by Sean Olson:

The city-county water board tonight could close a loophole that lets some high water users escape penalties for hogging water in the summer months.

The board will take up an amendment that would affect the top 1 percent of residential water users in Albuquerque, who officials say account for 5 percent of total residential water use.

It would impose higher penalties on about 1,500 residential users who use large amounts of water in the winter months, defined by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority as December through March, water authority executive director Mark Sanchez said Tuesday.

For example, the No. 1 residential water user had a $2,989 water bill in 2007. Under the proposed change, it would be $4,811. The 2007 bill that included sewer services was $4,335, and that would increase to $6,157.

The proposed amendment would charge $1.41 extra per unit of water to customers using more than 84 units per month in the summer, Sanchez said. Another $1.41 would be added for every unit above 112.

Why the difference? Simple. This is a classic example of how government run services work. 99% of the users have absolutely no idea what the real cost of water is. They comprise 95% of the water usage. Yet, since they are not responsible to pay real costs, they have no motivation to reduce unnecessary water consumption. Instead, the 1% that use only 5% of the water will be taxed. Will the tax make a difference? Probably not. Since these users either need the water, or find the higher water rate cheaper than fixing the leak that might be causing it.

For a moment think about all of this in terms of the recent spike and decline in gas prices. Everyone felt the pinch, and all of sudden people were driving slower and coming up with solutions to minimize their consumption. Everyone was equally hit. People who operate fleets of vehicles were not charged a premium, nor were those who operate less fuel efficient vehicles. This is a much better approach. Sure there has been public outcry about higher gas prices, but conservation is much more likely in this scenario.

Now, think about all of this in terms of universal public health care, and you'll understand why it is such BAD IDEA.

A Cool Million

Well, according to an article by Colleen Heild, it looks like part of Eli Lee's quietly built empire for progressive change is going to see some sunshine (subscription):

An Albuquerque nonprofit that distributed mailers portraying Sen. Shannon Robinson and other lawmakers as being in the pocket of big business must register as a political committee, according to Secretary of State Mary Herrera.

In a letter Herrera sent Monday after consultation with the state Attorney General's Office, she said, "It appears that New Mexico Youth Organized is operating as a political committee for purposes of the (state) Campaign Reporting Act."

The group, an arm of the Center for Civic Policy, has 10 working days to "correct this matter and provide a written explanation of the apparent violation," the secretary of state said.

Eli Lee, executive director of the Center for Civic Policy, said in a statement late Monday that his group strongly disagrees with the directive and will "pursue all legal remedies at our disposal."

Which raises the question, why is Mr. Lee so hell bent on keeping his donors a secret until after the election in November? Who is he protecting? As a former not for profit executive director, I can assure you that timely disclosure of his donors would be a rather simple task - if he was so inclined. But, of course, he is not.

Mr. Lee wants nothing (not even public outcry) to get in the way of his plan to influence the election in November. There is too much at stake:

The center received nearly $600,000 in contributions last year and expects to spend more than $1 million this fiscal year.

Let's put that $1 million dollar number in perspective. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, in 2004 (the last time all State House and Senate seats were up for re-election) the total amount spent by 201 candidates was just shy of $5.3 million dollars for an average expenditure per campaign of about $26,000. Mr. Lee is targeting nine races, and expecting to spend more than a million dollars for an average expenditure in excess of a $100,000 - over 4 times the amount spent in 2004!

He's buying the election, and he is doing it by skirting the exact same campaign finance laws, he insists he wants in New Mexico. My only request, keep Mr. Lee's actions in mind the next time some legislator or political activist gets on a soap box and proclaims the need for campaign finance reform. Remember how they quietly supported Mr. Lee and his agenda with no concern to limiting his expenditure or seeking disclosure of his sources.

Governor Richardson's Priorities

Governor Bill Richardson called the legislators into a special legislative session and according to an article by Winthrop Quigley And Jeff Jones our State Senators were less than pleased with the Governor for doing so (subscription):

State senators on Sunday panned a $58 million-a-year children's health coverage plan by Gov. Bill Richardson, while blasting the governor himself for calling them into a special legislative session.

Angry senators said the session is unnecessary, will accomplish little and was called only to serve Richardson's national political ambitions.

"I really have no earthly idea why we are in this building except to serve the political purposes of this governor," Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, said during a hearing on Richardson's proposal to provide universal children's health coverage — a bill the Senate, acting as a committee of the whole, later voted to table.

Sen. Kent Cravens, R-Albuquerque, said a legislative staff analysis of the bill amounts to "a list of reasons not to do this." And he said it was introduced to give Richardson, who is discussed as a possible Democratic vice-presidential nominee, a "headline" for his speech later this month to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

The bill is "about self-glorification of a man who is moving on," Cravens said.

Richardson spokeswoman Alarie Ray-Garcia said later, "Governor Richardson is not concerned about personal attacks made by a couple members of the Senate. Rather his focus, as it always has been, is on getting meaningful legislation passed to give 50,000 uninsured children access to health care and provide relief to working families who are struggling because of high gas prices."

Ok, let's just skip straight to the meat of this issue. Richardson's spokeswoman would have us believe that this session is about the importance of providing 50,000 uninsured children access to health care. The problem with this argument is that Govenor Richardson has been in office since 2002. That means that he has had at least six regular sessions to allocate $58 million for uninsured kids. However, he had more important priorities, for example:

1. Richardson chose to give billionaire Richard Branson a $100 million gift that just keeps on giving, rather than providing 50,000 uninsured children with access to health care.
   
   
2. Spending over $400 million and counting for a train that serves a very small percentage of the overall state population.
   
   
3. Increasing annual spending by over $2 billion - including an 11% increase in one year alone - without ever giving a second thought to 50,000 children.
   
   
4. Even fish farms have ranked higher than the 50,000 uninsured children.
   

I could go on, but you get the idea. Oh, and lest you think I'm just just conveniently neglecting to give the Govenor credit for the other "purpose" of this special session - " provide relief to working families who are struggling because of high gas prices" - it's important to remember that both the Governor's spaceport and train require an increase in gross receipts taxes in order to operate long term.

In other words, both of these pet projects require a regressive tax, which takes far more from the working poor than the Governor is offering to give back.

Udall and Heinrich Out of Touch

When it comes to increased access to domestic oil and natural gas resources, a new poll clearly shows that Congressman Tom Udall and Congressional hopeful Martin Heinrich are apparently out of touch with the majority of New Mexicans:

A new survey finds that 59% of New Mexico voters support increased access to domestic oil and natural gas resources.

It seems that the rest of the country shares the same view. Polls from Pew, CNN, Zogby and others indicate that the majority of Americans from coast to coast are in support of more energy exploration in the United States.

This is a critical shift in public opinion, and one that our leaders in Washington need to recognize. According to federal government data, the United States has enough oil to fuel more than 65 million cars for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. But current policies restrict access to 85% of the outer continental shelf and 83% of onshore federal lands.

If Congressman Udall is elected to the Senate, you can be sure that he will stay true to his record of doing everything in his power to restrict access to offshore oil and gas as well as that which can be found on federal lands. Even worse, if Martin Heinrich is elected to Congress, Tom Udall will have an ally in ignoring the needs of the majority of everyday New Mexicans.

They'll be living high on the hog off our tax dollars. What do they care about the pain we're feeling at the pump? It's easy to be an environmentalist supporting higher energy costs when you're pulling down a six-figure income paid for by taxpayers.

Richardson Pushes Payday Loans on New Mexico

Governor Richardson is still committed to having a special legislative session start this Friday. Why? Well, originally it was to try and push a budget busting healthcare plan that had rightly died during the last legislative session.

"We can invest in health coverage in a fiscally responsible way," Richardson said in a statement. "While cynics will no doubt complain about using revenue from oil and gas, I am confident — as I have been for the past six years — that New Mexico's economy is performing well and will allow us to expand health care coverage to all New Mexicans."

Hmm, yeah...Let's see that quote comes from a post I put up just 30 days ago. And, in 30 days that projected windfall has shrunk by over 40% (subscription), but Governor Richardson is never one to let reality get in the way of big spending:

"The bottom line is the state still expects $225 million in extra money — money that should go back to New Mexico families who are struggling to make ends meet," Richardson said in a statement. "I am confident we can put money in people's pockets in a fiscally responsible way."

Last month, revenue collections were projected to be almost $400 million higher than anticipated in the current budget year. That was mostly because of money New Mexico collects from taxes and royalties on the production of oil and natural gas. But prices have dropped sharply since last month's revenue estimates, which are developed by administration and legislative economists.

Governor, it would appear that those who are complaining about using oil and gas revenue are not so much cynical as they are realistic. The bottom line here is that Governor Richardson's approach to spending is akin to going to a payday lender. The Governor is taking money he doesn't have (i.e. projected) and spending it without concerning himself with consequences.

If he wants to put more money back in the pockets of struggling New Mexicans, he should cut the state spending budget that he has grown from $3.9 billion to over $6 billion and allow New Mexicans to pay less in taxes. Of course, that would be the fiscally sound way to give us back our money. But, no quite in keeping with the Governor's tradional mode of operation.

Instead, he is proposing to give us back money that he hasn't yet collected. In other words, he is taking out a payday loan to help those struggling New Mexicans. The exact strategy that puts many New Mexicans in a poor fiscal position in the first place. We all know that most of the people borrowing from payday lenders end up in a dire financial situation.

Mark my words, the end result of the Governor's payday loan approach to spending based on a volatile projected revenue source will be more taxes for every New Mexicans - including those already struggling under a heavy tax burden.

Since When is $13,000 Staggering?

In support of the eco-terrorists favorite candidate, Martin Heinrich, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has launched a radio attack in the 1st Congressional race against the law and order candidate, Darren White (hat tip: Heath Haussaman).

This segment from the radio spot that had me rolling on the floor:

Darren White has raised $13,000 from big oil interests, and he is asking us to believe he is going to solve the energy crunch? Martin Heinrich has a different approach.

Since when is $13,000 considered a staggering amount? A quick review at the FEC site shows that, Sheriff Darren White had raised $906,062.69 through June 30, 2008 - basically 1.4% of his total contributions. Now, in the name of full disclosure, I should point out that I've personally given $2,300 to Darren White's campaign - basically .25% of his total contributions.

Compare my own personal annual gross revenues (in the six figures in a good year) with the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenue by the Oil & Gas industry in an average year. So, I guess with all things equal, my contribution is the truly staggering amount.

Now, we know that Martin Heinrich's "different approach" to the energy crisis involves embracing the advocates of monkeywrenching. And, we know that the oil industry accounts for about 1% of Darren White's overall fundraising. You tell me which candidate is better suited for Congress.

Martin Heinrich Appeals to EcoTerrorists

No matter which side you are on with regard to the War on Terror, most everyone can agree that terrorists have no place in a civil society. That's why I find it very troubling that Martin Heinrich, candidate for New Mexico's 1st Congressional District, has a long history of accepting campaign funds from self-described EcoTerrorists.

If you've got some time watch this video of Earth First co-founder, Dave Foreman, taken eleven years ago.

EARTH FIRST! The Politics of Radical Environmentalism by Manes 4


If you don't have time, then just skip straight to the end around 10:30 in the video. These guys are out scary. Just read, Dave Foreman's bio at Activistcash:

Biography
A former environmental lobbyist and Sierra Club board member who became disillusioned with the democratic process, Dave Forman founded the notorious "direct action" environmental organization Earth First! Foreman declared that "Earth First! is a warrior society," and under his leadership the group has engaged in arson, violent assault, and vandalism of all kinds. Foreman is the author of Eco-Defense: A Field Guide to Monkey Wrenching. As the name suggests, the book is an instruction manual for illegal sabotage and how to get away with it. Foreman's "Confessions of an Eco-Warrior" justifies his life of zealotry by stating: "We humans have become a disease -- the Humanpox."

Foreman pled guilty to conspiracy after he was accused of providing the funds to blow up power lines leading to and from a nuclear power plant. Foreman wrote a check to buy grenades. Foreman left Earth First! in 1989 and founded the Wildlands Project, which seeks to restrict human civilization to limited patches of the Earth and wall off the rest for nature to rule. From 1995 to 1998 he served on the Sierra Club's board of directors. He is presently the publisher of Wild Earth, the periodical of the Wildlands Project.

Background
Founder, Earth First!; Founder; Wildlands Project; Author, Eco-Defense: A Field Guide to Monkey Wrenching and Confessions of an Eco-Warrior

Everyone knows that Martin Heinrich is an environmentalist, but Earth First! is not just about preserving open space and being ecologically sensitive. These folks, with whom Martin Heinrich has a longstanding relationship, believe that the "human race is a disease" and they advocate terrorists acts against hard-working Americans.

Both Dave Foreman and his wife, Nancy Morton have financially supported Martin Heinrich since his run for the Albuquerque City Council. Nancy Morton has gone on to write him two checks already for his Congressional race.

Lest, you think Ms. Morton is not as radical as her husband watch this video, or better yet, go straight to the three minute mark and watch what happens to mill workers when somebody spikes a tree. Immediately following the mill supervisor's explanation, Nancy Morton shows little concern for the mill employees, because in her own words they're "guilty parties in the destruction of the forest."

EARTH FIRST! The Politics of Radical Environmentalism by Manes 3

I think Martin Heinrich has some explaining to do. On his website Heinrich ranks "protecting the environment" as one of his top issues. Does he also believe that folks that work in mills are "guilty"? Does he believe hard-working people in the construction industry are guilty? Would he sanction endangering the lives of oil workers who are trying to feed their families?

Just how far is Martin Heinrich willing to go to protect the environment? Apparently far enough to get EcoTerrorists Dave Foreman and Nancy Morton to open their wallets.

Political Mutual Funds

Due to a lawsuit filed by three ousted Democratic legislators, there has been a lot of attention given recently to the political activity of certain not-for-profits (subscription):

Officials for the Center for Civic Policy said in May they had sent out literature for the Legislative Accountability Project in conjunction with several other nonprofits, including the SouthWest Organizing Project.

They said they sent the materials out as mailers starting after the end of the last legislative session as educational materials for voters based on the legislators' voting records, not as campaign materials intended to unseat lawmakers.

The mailers, which criticized the losing officials for their voting records and campaign contributors, were stopped more than a month before the primary to avoid the appearance of any partisanship, they said.

"Our organizations have a long and proud history of working for ethics reform, good government, health care and a clean environment," [Center for Civic Policy Director Eli Il Yong] Lee said in an e-mail Saturday. "As nonpartisan, not-for-profit organizations, it is our responsibility to educate the public about the votes and contributions of our elected officials."

Okay, let's start with the obvious. Eli Lee has been involved in politics for quite some time now as the CEO and President of Soltari, a political consulting firm, with an impressive list of clients who went on to win their elections. Mr. Lee knows what he is doing when it comes to running winning political campaigns.

The problem here is that Mr. Lee is now supposedly running a "nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization," the Center for Civic Policy, but his actions and his alliances indicate otherwise. First, consider the Center for Civic Policy's ties to the New Progressive Coalition (NPC). What does the NPC do?

NPC acts as a political giving advisor by providing you with products and services to target your political and charitable time and money more effectively.

Think Charles Schwab for politics.

In other words, NPC raises money to be distributed and used in political campaigns. They try to make "political giving easy and strategic," and they funnel money to organizations like Center for Civic Policy and Act Blue. Now, the latter, unlike the former, does not try and skirt campaign finance laws. Act Blue is organized as a Federal PAC and like all PACs the contributions to and from the PAC are governed by campaign finance laws and are not tax deductible.

As a former not-for-proift executive, it's that last part that really irks me. Mr. Lee is conducting political activity, and he is doing it to benefit a certain wing of the Democratic Party - a strictly partisan endeavor. Yet, his donors are able to write off their political contributions as charitable deductions and remain hidden from exposure during the election cycle.

The irony in all this is that Matt Brix, the former Executive Director of Common Cause and champion for campaign reform in New Mexico, is the Executive Director of the Center for Civic Policy. Matt and I have often had dialogue regarding campaign limits. Matt has consistently lobbyied for campaign contribution limits, and my position has always been that they are unneccessary and full and timely discolusre is prefereable.

Not-for profits have no contribution limits nor do they have to disclose donors in a timely manner. If this were a Star Wars movie, I believe Matt would now officially be a member of "the Dark Side." And, I'm sure someone conviced him it is all in the name of a greater good.

It's Clearly About the Money

My wife is 5'1".... and a half. Why is that important? Wait, I'll get to it. First, let's look at this huge fine a working Mom in Rio Rancho (subscription) got hit with:

When Tammi Nidever moved to the City of Vision from Albuquerque last year, she didn't know it was against the law for her 10-year-old daughter to ride in the front seat of their Explorer.

She soon found out.

And she was given the choice of paying $138 or performing 40 hours of community service.

Now nowhere in the article written by D'Val Westphal does it state that she was driving recklessly. Nor, does it indicate her daughter wasn't in a seatbelt. What was this "terrible woman" doing when she was pulled over? She was taking her daughter to school.

But wait, this is about safety, right? After all, she was endangering the life of the child. Well, apparently in Rio Rancho not all children are created equal:

Then Tammi learned that in Rio Rancho, a city ordinance makes it illegal for a child under age 13 to ride in the front seat of a vehicle unless there is no back seat. And if the passenger seats are all taken up by kids, the oldest kid has to ride shotgun.

So, let me get this straight. This is a terrible crime that warrants a big ticket or 40 hours of community service - that's a full work week folks! Unless, you just don't happen to have a back seat. Then, no worries, your kid is okay in the front. Or, if you have four kids, and only room for three in the back, go ahead and toss the fourth one up front - I guess if you've got that many the City of Rio Rancho has decided that child is expendable.

This is a perfect example of an absurd law. Don't get me wrong - 95% of the time my kids (10 and 8) sit in the backseat. I don't live in Rio Rancho, and rarely drive through it. So, I do it because I've read or heard it was safer - not because of a law that pretends to protect some kids, but not others. Now, I did say 95% of time. Sometimes, as a parent, I take into consideration where I'm going, and if I feel it is safe for my child to ride up front with me, I let them do it.

So, is society better off because of Rio Rancho's law? I don't think so. I think this law has one purpose and one purpose only - to fill the city coffers. Remember there are generations of us that grew up in a time without these ridiculous laws on the books, and guess what? We survived.

Oh right, I almost forgot. My wife is 5'1" and sits in the front seat all the time. The little girl who was riding in the front seat next to her mother on the way to school is 5'2".

Cap and Trade Will Hurt New Mexico

Late last week in a post about energy policy differences between the two presidential candidates, I mentioned that cap and trade legislation that would hurt New Mexico's economy was on the table for the upcoming general legislative session. In today's Journal, John Fleck confirms that this new way of increasing the cost of oil and gas production is on the table:

Many New Mexico companies, especially power producers and the oil and gas industry, would have to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions or pay a price beginning in 2012 under a plan being developed by seven Western states and four Candadian provinces.

But motor vehicles, which account for a big share of the region's emissions linked to global warming, would get a pass until 2015.

The Western Climate Initiative would set caps on emissions from power plants and other industries in the seven states and four provinces involved.

Companies would be allowed to exceed their caps only by buying credits from others that have reduced their emissions more than required. The program, called "cap and trade," is an attempt to enlist market forces to make greenhouse gas reductions as economical as possible.

A draft of the proposal, more than a year in the making, was unveiled in a series of meetings around the West over the last two weeks, including a gathering in Santa Fe on Friday.

Make no mistake this is an additional fee that will ultimately be passed on to you and me - the consumer - at the pump. Whenever government seeks to impose fees to help with some grand scheme, we are the ones who find ourselves squeezed. This time will be no exception. What makes this flawed policy even worse is that the negative impact of this misguided legislation will be felt not once, but twice by hard-working New Mexicans.

As the cost of producing oil and gas in New Mexico increases due to cap and trade, we will see a decline in oil and gas production in the state. This will severely cut into state revenues which are highly dependent on this industry. A decline in oil and gas industry revenue for the state will, mark my words, result in additional taxes. After all, state spending has nearly doubled under the guidance of Governor Richardson, and when the Democratic controlled legislature is faced with decreasing spending or increasing taxes, they inevitably choose the latter.

The second way, we will feel the pinch is through yet higher prices at the pump, and for that matter, all transportation and related costs (read: food). These higher prices will squeeze the working poor and middle class families the hardest. And, all for nothing. Why, for nothing? Simple. Just read the closing thought from the John Fleck article (subscription):

Even among those who favor greenhouse gas reductions, a cap-and-trade proposal that does not have global reach has its detractors.

One risk, according to University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr., is that a cap-and-trade system here in the United States, either regionally or nationally, could reduce our consumption enough to cause a corresponding global drop in the price of fossil fuels.

In response, countries like China might then increase their consumption, Pielke said, resulting in no net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Regardless of which side you take in the global warming argument, this can't be seen as anything other than an empty political move with potentially devastating effects on New Mexico families.

Obama's Silence is Deafening

A leader takes a stand. When he sees a problem, he calls it as he sees it. It may not win him more friends. It may not be the smartest political move, but it is the measure of a good leader. And, in the end, the leader who is willing to take a stand based on principle earns respect.

John McCain has shown leadership time and time again throughout his career and he has shown it on the campaign trail:

This was evident in the conversation that was revisited and then revisited again and again regarding Senator McCain's request to the North Carolina GOP to not run an Obama attack ad based on Obama's longstanding relationship with controversial minister Jeremiah Wright.

Compare McCain's willingness to speak up to Barack Obama's silence in the face of the anti-Semitic attacks being launched against another member of Congress:

Yet, for all [of Barack Obama's] moralizing on the subject [of race], why is it that Obama is staying silent as members of his own party -- not to mention his own race -- in Tennessee use racial slurs to attack another member of his own party? And why is it that the national media has ignored this story? Perhaps its because the candidate being attacked, Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen, is not black but is Jewish? And perhaps its because his attackers are members of Tennessee's black religious community? And perhaps it is because the Congressional Black Caucus is funding Cohen's Democratic opponent, Nikki Tinker? And perhaps it is because Tinker is benefiting from this anti-Semitic attack against Cohen?

Obama may be a great orator. His campaign may have brilliantly marketed him as the catalyst for change. However, when given the opportunity to lead and speak up against politics of hate, Obama has already failed miserably. Change can only occur by electing a strong leader. Barack Obama is clearly demonstrting that he is not that leader.

UPDATE: It took a little while, but Senator Obama finally responded to the outrage.