Read the Bill is a Good Idea

I'm not a big supporter of ethics legislation because I don't think you can legislate ethics. However, I do believe you can and should legislate transparency in government. To this end, there is a movement gaining ground, and I think it is a good one. According to two emails I received today, this is the basic premise:

The stimulus bill is the latest in the Congressional trend of not reading legislation before debating them. We all remember the struggle for transparency in the bailout legislation last fall. These two bills are just a few examples in a long line of legislation including, appropriation bills chocked full of earmarks.

There is no reason to stand for this any longer Congress should be required to post legislation online 72 hours before debate. Members of Congress, their staff, and the American people should be able to read the bill and understand what is in legislation before they debate it. These aren’t bills naming post offices; these are bills that affect our daily lives.

I can't think of single good reason not to get on board with this. I've signed the petition, and I would encourage everyone who reads this blog, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on to do the same. Here are a couple of videos to motivate you to action...




Read The Bill from Sunlight Foundation on Vimeo.

Stimulation Fails to Deliver Rise

I couldn't help but be struck on Tuesday by the headline feeds coming from the New Mexico Business Weekly:

Consumer Confidence Index plunges

The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index fell to 25 in February from a revised reading of 37.4 in January.

Target profit drops 41% in Q4

Target Corp.’s profit plunged 41 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 as consumers cut spending amid what CEO Gregg Steinhafel called “unprecedented economic conditions.” (TGT)

BofA’s Lewis: We don’t need ‘further assistance’

Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis has tried to assure employees that the bank won’t be nationalized. (BAC)

Thain ordered to answer questions

A New York judge has ordered former Merrill Lynch, Co. Chief Executive John Thain to provide information about executives who received nearly $4 billion in bonuses. (BAC)

Home Depot net income falls to $2.3B

The Home Depot Inc.’s profit dropped nearly 50 percent in 2008, hurt by more than $1 billion in charges and a dip in consumer demand. (HD)

Macy’s profit down, but beats outlook

Macy’s Inc. reported its fourth-quarter profit dropped by almost 60 percent, to $310 million, but still beat post-expense projections by 4 cents a share. (M)Mind you, all of those headlines showed up in one day. With the exception of $4 billion pocketed by Merrill Lynch executives, it sure doesn't seem like the $1.5 trillion the feds are dumping into the economy are having any positive impact.

If you ask me, all we've done is postpone the inevitable. Actually, I take that back. We've undoubtably made it worse.

Don't Hide from Your Record

It seems like nearly every election cycle a political candidate is caught lying to one of the state's newspapers about criminal convictions in their past. Despite the embarrassment that occurs when they are inevitably caught in a lie, it is sad to say that many of those who have criminal convictions - and more importantly lie about them - in their past go on to win their elections [side note: I can think of at least two from this past election cycle].

Well, now it looks like two legislators, both defense attorneys, want to make it easier for convicted criminals to get elected to office without the burden of their past criminal convictions (subscription):

If two criminal defense lawyers serving in the Legislature get their way, a lot of New Mexico ex-cons wouldn't have to worry about their rap sheets following them around the rest of their lives.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, and Rep. Antonio "Moe" Maestas, D-Albuquerque, are pushing bills that would allow judges to wipe away court and police records of offenders who complete sentences for certain crimes and aren't charged with new crimes for a certain period of time.

The bills are not identical, but under one or the other offenses that could be expunged range from petty crimes like shoplifting, which could disappear after one year, to DWIs after ten years. Records of most violent felonies that don't involve death, sex crimes or weapons could also be expunged after ten years. Domestic violence arrests and convictions would be eligible for expungement.

This is an absurd bill. Yes, people do stupid things in their lives, and some might even result in a criminal record. This is especially true when people are young. However, the strength of a person's character comes not from hiding from their past mistakes, but from owning those mistakes and never making them again. Heck, if a man can get elected President of the United States without his DWI conviction being expunged, what possible rationale can we have for expunging public records.

In other news, federal investigations continue to move forward and ethics bills are still to be pushed through the legislature. Also, the " brother of disgraced political heavyweight Manny Aragon to five years in prison for his part in a drug-smuggling operation. " But wait, it gets better:

In a sentencing memorandum, the U.S. Attorney's Office noted that Charles Aragon was sentenced to three years in prison after his 1978 conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In late 1990, five years after parole ended for the earlier conviction, he became part of the Mexican Mafia and operated a large-scale drug trafficking organization that moved more than 22,000 pounds of marijuana over several years through the U.S. In 1992, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his role in that conspiracy.

Just think... he twice managed to go ten years without getting caught. I guess some legislators would argue he should have had his record expunged because he was a changed man.

Personal Character Trumps Ethics Legislation

You cannot legislate ethical behavior. I know. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on this subject. But, it's true. You might recall that Governor Bill Richardson, our Governor who is currently under federal investigation for the rampant pay-to-play practices of his administration, convened an ethics task force some time ago to come up with recommendations on how to create an ethical government. Yeah, the irony here is overwhelming.

You might also recall that as part of the "solution package" for making government more ethical there was a recommendation to put legislators on the payroll. Maybe, you even remember the rationale provided by one former Governor:

Carruthers said the panel may discuss something he has long favored - a stipend for lawmakers, who are unpaid although they get expense reimbursement.

When legislators are uncompensated, "there's always one or two that might feel it necessary to take some compensation in another way,'' said Carruthers, who is dean of business at New Mexico State University.

Now, I completely disagree with Governor Carruthers that giving unethical people a salary is going to make them walk the straight and narrow. In fact, if we think of all of the people who have been thrown in jail, or who are under investigation, for unethical and illegal behavior, we will find that most of them were pulling down a rather nice salary at the time.

With that said, it does look like Governor Carruthers was dead on when he stated, "there's always one or two that might feel it necessary to take some compensation in another way." Take Senate Judiciary Chairman Cisco McSorley for example:

Essentially, Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, is taking the per diem and other reimbursements he is entitled to from the state for travel as a lawmaker, then also reimbursing himself for additional travel expenses out of his campaign fund.

But, wait, it gets better...

McSorley, according to the Journal, “said he has done nothing wrong and that he doesn’t consider the per diem he receives from the state to be an allowance for lodging, meals and incidental expenses.

“That is supposed to be trying to make up for what I lost at home” while away from work, the Journal quoted McSorley as saying.

You've got to be kidding me. Senator McSorley is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and he is a lawyer. Which leaves us only two possible conclusions with regard to his statement that per diem is intended to replace lost wages:

1. he is inept.
   
   OR
   
   
2. he is unethical.
   

How do we limit it to just these two possibilities? Simple. Let's look at number one first. The New Mexico Constitution is crystal clear on the purpose of per diem, and how it is to be calculated:

Sec. 10. [Compensation of members.]

Each member of the legislature shall receive:

A. per diem at the internal revenue service per diem rate for the city of Santa Fe for each day's attendance during each session of the legislature and the internal revenue service standard mileage rate for each mile traveled in going to and returning from the seat of government by the usual traveled route, once each session as defined by Article 4, Section 5 of this constitution;

B. per diem expense and mileage at the same rates as provided in Subsection A of this section for service at meetings required by legislative committees established by the legislature to meet in the interim between sessions; and

The same section of our state constitution is equally clear when it comes to additional types of compensation our legislators entitled to receive for providing legislative services:

C. no other compensation, perquisite or allowance. (As amended November 7, 1944, September 15, 1953, November 2, 1971, November 2, 1982 and November 5, 1996.)

That's right "no other compensation, perquisite or allowance" is permitted. Since paying legislators a salary has come up several times during Senator McSorley's tenure, it is can only be assumed that he is inept if he is unaware of these prohibitions. Alternately, if he is aware of these constitutional limitations, then that leaves us to conclude that he has been acting, at best, unethically.

So, which is it?

Department of Hispanic Affairs... Give Me a Break

Just when you think you know a guy, he goes ahead and surprises you:

I am probably going to regret saying this, but I think the idea of a Department of Hispanic Affairs in state government is totally counterproductive. What is next? Where does this stop? Why on earth do we need it?

Look at our political landscape in New Mexico. A high percentage of power brokers are Hispanic. Our Governor, Congressman Lujan numerous leaders in the Legislature, the Supreme Court and Appeals Court, Mayors, District and Metro Court Judges, City Councillors, County Commissioners, School Board members and other office holders are Hispanic. It is not like we have no political power.

Believe me, this is about one thing. It's purpose is to create a new State wide Cabinet level department that will hand out some jobs to the supporters or friends and family of the supporters of this ill advised legislation.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree 100% with former Mayor Jim Baca. This piece of legislation is right up there at the top as one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation to be introduced this session.

And, what adds insult to injury here is that there is actually a significant RECURRING fiscal impact of $700,000 per year. Remember, that's just for starters. Once this newly created cabinet position is filled, and the offices are staffed, you can bet your bottom dollar the appointee will be up at the legislature asking for more money to run this "important" department.

Geez, and you wonder why the state is having budget problems.

Chicago Tea Party Kickoff

If you haven't watched Rick Santelli's Chicago Tea Party rant, you should. He expresses what 90% of Americans, myself included, are feeling right now:



I thought Maggie Thurber of Thurber's Thoughts hit the nail on the head with this excerpt from a recent post:

Here's an idea: I'll go out and purchase a Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren for $457,250. It's listed as the 7th most expensive car in the world and I picked it because I liked how it looked. I'll make some of the payments on it and then, when I can no longer afford to do so, I'll turn to government and politicians and make the case that without my car I won't be able to work, so I need them to create a program that makes banks renegotiate with me to lower the amount I owe. After all, it's no longer new and it's just not worth what I originally agreed to pay for it.

Then, I'll insist on limits to how much my payments can be - no more than, say, 15% of my monthly gross income. If a house payment is okay at around 30% of monthly gross income, 15% seems like a fair number for a vehicle.

And, to top it all off, once I've got the debt reduced and the payments at a manageable level, I'll demand a prize for actually honoring the obligations I've committed to.

That's the equivalent of President Obama's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan applied to a car rather than a house. Doesn't quite seem right when you remove the emotion of 'home' from the equation, does it?

Whether a house or a car, they're both pieces of property and other options exist if either or both are taken from you because you don't pay. Perhaps, even, you might find an option you can actually afford in your current circumstances rather than live beyond your means at the expense of taxpayers.

I couldn't have siad it better than either Rick or Maggie, and apparently Rick's rant has struck a nerve with the White House. There first reaction was to... are you ready for this? Go on the the attack and insinuate that if Mr. Santelli would just take the time to read the plan he would feel differently.



So, go ahead and join Rick Santelli in downloading the Executive Summary, printing and reading it. Then, tell me if you don't feel like going on a rant yourself.

Creating a Hostile Work Environment for Criminals

Same Day Voter Registration - Bad Idea

I'm all for getting more and more people to vote. But, same day voter registration doesn't make any sense. If you're not going to take the time to register to vote before Election Day, how interested are you? You're not is the simple answer.

Plus, the bill introduced by State Representative Joe Cervantes has one huge problem - the potential for voter fraud. Representative Cervantes tries to allay our concerns with the following:

Unfortunately, the same thinking that opposed access to voting throughout our country’s history is again opposing this effort. Some now claim, as they have in the past, that advances in providing access to working men and women to vote will lead to voter fraud. Factually, this simply isn’t the case. Recent studies of 12 states have shown that the incidence of voter fraud is low.

That being said, this doesn’t preclude the need for continued vigilance in protecting the integrity of elections. My bill provides additional mechanisms to prevent fraud by making voters show a photo ID at time of registration. By enacting same-day registration, we prevent further “gaming” of the electoral system that now occurs with registration at shopping centers, markets and by national organizations intending to influence election outcomes.

It's worth noting that he says the incidence of fraud is "low" in states that have implemented same day voter registration. He doesn't say it doesn't exist. He just says its low. Think about how many times in the last few elections the winner won by less than 200 votes. It happens a lot in New Mexico. If I were the one running, I wouldn't want low fraud being the deciding factor in whether I won or loss.

Also, something else to consider. We give drivers licenses to people who are not eligible to vote because they are not US citizens. How is same day registration going to take care of that. I was also struck by the fact we need photo ids for same day voting, but not for everyone else. If it is a good deterrent of fraud for same day voting shouldn't the same apply to everyone else as well?

Rebecca Vigil-Giron and the Never-Ending Audit

Former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron, who incidentally remains on the taxpayer funded payroll, is back in the news again (subscription):

Lingering questions involving the expenditure of nearly $6.3 million for a voter education campaign by Vigil-Giron in 2004 and 2006 continues to impact the current administration, the state audit found.

"I'm still extremely concerned," Balderas told the Journal on Tuesday. "The overall fiscal management was called into question and our auditors were just not confident enough to give them a clean bill of health."

So, here's the first thing that is bugging me. We're in 2009, and we're still auditing $6.3 million that was expended beginning five years ago? Does that seem like it's taking a long time, or what?

Of course, the state isn't the only one who reviewed the books. The federal government conducted an audit and guess what they found?

A separate federal audit released last year couldn't account for more than $3 million of the $6.3 million paid by Vigil-Giron to media consulting firm A. Gutierrez and Associates.

Vigil-Giron's agency apparently made upfront payments to the consultant and didn't require detailed receipts for the work done.

Nice. I'm in advertising, and I can't imagine not having to account for half the money - to the tune of $3 million - I was given by a client for a media buy. Every time you place an ad in the media, you receive proof of performance (i.e. a notarized copy of the ads' air times, or in the case of a print, a copy of the actual printed ad). The only reason that documentation of proof of performance could not be provided is because the ad didn't run.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission has said that some of the money might have to be reimbursed by the state.

Herrera said Tuesday that her office has proposed a measure to "release" taxpayers from having to repay the $6.3 million to the federal government.

"We are hopeful that the Legislature passes this bill," the statement said. "New Mexicans should be protected."

Oh that's just priceless. Someone please call up the Secretary of State office and explain where the government gets their money to our current Secretary of State Mary Herrera. Let her know that regardless of what bill the Legislature passes, it is taxpayers' money that will be used to satisfy that debt.

Among its findings, the state audit determined Vigil-Giron's office inappropriately used nearly $30,000 in federal voter education funds to enhance the agency's Web site.

Balderas said enhancing a Web site was "clearly not central to the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) mission."

Now, wait a minute. Something here just doesn't make sense. Vigil-Giron's office claims to have enhanced the agency website. Please, let's get real. Oh, and I think those auditors need to go back and review their work. As I recall, that $30,000 doesn't even come close to the amount that was spent on a worthless website:

That's right Ms. Vigil-Giron has had three years to get this system up and running without success. As our Secretary of State describes it, the problem is two-fold 1) the contractor has failed to meet the deadlines; and 2) there just wasn't enough money allocated. Of course, number two rings a little false when you realize that Vigil-Giron spent $2 million in 2004 on self-promoting television ads.

So, what has Ms. Vigil-Giron done about the contractor's failure to deliver? Has she demanded a refund? No. Has she sent a letter to the contractor demanding that they stop listing New Mexico as one of the "jurisdictions using SOSKB?" No. Has she gone to the Attorney General and asked Patricia Madrid to file suit against this company to get back our taxpayer dollars? No. So, what has she done?

Using federal dollars earmarked for voter education, Vigil-Giron's office only last month signed a new $350,000 contract for completion of the system with the same North Carolina company she hired to do the job in 2003.

You read that correctly. Vigil-Giron's office has given the company another contract for $230,000 more than the first contract. Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts? Then again, maybe she is rewarding the company for failing to deliver a fully operational system. See, that actually makes sense. The company's failure to deliver has allowed Governor Richardson's representative the opportunity to say:

"It's a shame there are problems," Amanda Cooper, Richardson's campaign manager, said of the state's electronic filing program. "We want to file our campaign finance records in a way that people can search them."

Um, yeah... hindsight really is 20/20. I'm sure the Governor was just so upset that people were unable to search campaign finance records. Just think, if those campaign finance records had been searchable, the CDR scandal might have broke before he had a chance to run for President.

In fact, the Governor was so distraught (wink,wink, nudge, nudge) that he gave Ms. Vigil-Giron another taxpayer funded job. And, Governor Richardson's rationale at the time for making sure that this individual, mired in scandal, had another taxpayer funded position:

Even with his call for an audit, the governor defended Vigil-Giron.

He said she "has served the state, she's been an elected official, she's contributed to state government in New Mexico and I believe she deserves an opportunity to stay in state government."

I'd say she has contributed. Contributed to our debt. As to deserving to stay in state government, well, I guess she does deserve it... about as much Manny Aragon and Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil deserved to stay in state government.

I guess that's enough of that. Let's move on to other news. It looks like not all hiring freezes are created equal (subscription):

Three months ago, Gov. Bill Richardson froze pay increases and hiring at the departments and other agencies under his control as a means to help address the state's budget problems.

But there have been exceptions, both in hires and pay increases.

Richardson has made 16 appointments to exempt positions since the hiring and pay freeze took effect Nov. 15, according to data released Tuesday by the Department of Finance and Administration.

Those appointees are exempt from the protections of the classified employee system and serve at the pleasure of the governor.

The appointees include Geno Zamora, hired as a lawyer for the Economic Development Department at an annual salary of $87,000. He worked in the Governor's Office before making an unsuccessful bid for attorney general in 2006.

Other appointees include a new head for the Game and Fish Department, a division director at the Department of Cultural Affairs, a lawyer at the Department of Workforce Solutions and an administrator for Miners' Colfax Medical Center in Raton.

Hold the presses. What's that say in that last line? "A lawyer at the Department of Workforce Solutions" was among those hired. What is it about that gives me pause? Hmmm. Oh, I know:

Vigil-Giron, who now works for the state's Department of Workforce Solutions, dismissed the new state audit as politically motivated.

The Department of Workforce Soultions puts an attorney on the payroll. Rebecca Vigil-Giron works at the Department of Workforce Solutions. I'm sure it's all just some bizarre coincidence.

Simply Brilliant, Tax Them When They're Down

New Mexico, like the rest of the country, is feeling the squeeze of the economic crisis. And, what priority have some legislators and the Governor come up with for this legislative session?

New Mexico legislators are considering a bill that would, for the first time, set up state controls on greenhouse gas emissions. But the change of administration in Washington, and the resulting prospect of federal regulation, has raised questions about whether the state effort should proceed.

The measure's backers say there are still good reasons to impose a state "cap-and-trade" system as part of the Western Climate Initiative, a regional effort by 11 U.S. states and Canadian provinces to place a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and set up a market to allow industry to trade emissions credits.

The system would cap the overall emissions from the state's 100-or-so largest industrial greenhouse gas emitters. A trading system would allow companies to buy and sell emissions allowances, tapping market mechanisms to find the lowest-cost way of making the needed reductions.

The ridiculousness of this proposal is mind-boggling to me. Assuming you have embraced this whole chicken-little-the-world-is-getting-too-hot-we're-all-doomed global warming nonsense, then you'd at a very minimum have to agree that it is a GLOBAL phenomenon.

Keeping this in mind, that idea the 11 Western (and for the most part sparsely populated) states are going to reverse "the global warming trend" is just absurd. Even more insane is that one of those states, our own Land of Enchantment, which heavily depends on oil and gas revenue to stay afloat, is going to consider taxing the heck out of those industries at a time when they are at a serious low.

Make no mistake, that is exactly what a cap and trade program is - a new source of tax revenue for bloated governments in need. That is the only reason that these states think "there are still good reasons to impose a state 'cap-and-trade' system" instead of waiting for a federal, or better yet, global solution.

Now, I have to admit. If New Mexico were to move forward with this, the may in fact succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Why? Well, because they will drive those "100-or-so largest industrial greenhouse gas emitters" to one of the 39 states in the Union that do not have this tax system in place.

Kind of Hard to Say, " No." Don't You Think?

By now, you all know that I'm dead set against unnecessary ethics legislation that is pushed session after session. I prefer the convict-and-prosecute-the-criminals approach to passing feel good legislation that won't change a thing.

With that said, I can't imagine how those debating the ethics legislation could possibly say, "no" to the webcasting of their deliberations:

The New Mexico Independent is going to attempt to webcast Friday’s ethics reform hearing being held by the Senate Rules Committee. The big question is whether the powers-that-be will allow it to happen.

Kind of hard to make the case for passing ethics reform if you tell the people you don't want them to see what you're doing. Don't you think?

Keeping Track of the Business Related Bills

If you're wondering what sort of business legislation is making its way through this session, YOU NEED to make the Association of Commerce and Industry (ACI) blog a daily read. They're doing a heck of a job of keeping track of every bill effecting business as it is introduced and moves through committee.




Disclaimer: I am a member of ACI, and yes, a company in which I have ownership helped re-brand the organization and built their website.

America on the Road to Democracy

So, you think America was founded as a Democracy? Think again. Spend a very worthwhile ten minutes to reacquaint yourself with the true intentions of our founders.



Now, consider the road we're on. Thanks Tom for getting this on my radar.

So You Think You're a Moderate?

Ever wonder what someone means when they say they're a moderate Republican? Well, it looks like the "stimulus package" vote has defined the term moderate for the modern era:

Details are starting to emerge on the blending of House and Senate versions of the stimulus package. Two senior Democratic sources said negotiators had agreed on a top line number of $800 billion, but later one of those sources said the number could be even less. Both would be less than either the Senate's $838 billion bill or the House's $819 billion package.

Several sources involved told CNN that the number is lower to satisfy the three moderate Republican senators.

Wow, talk about showing restraint. Senator Specter, Senator Snowe and Senator Collins sure do know how to drive a hard bargain. Good thing they were there to push the envelope and shave 2% or so off of that mammoth spending proposal. Can you imagine the world of hurt future generations of Americans would have been in if they had not fought tooth and nail to keep that spending down in THIS SECOND $800 BILLION ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS!

Sorry, didn't mean to yell.

Health Insurance Has Similarities to Sewers

A frequent commentator on this blog, Michael H Schneider, left an interesting comment last night on yesterday's post against the one-size-fits-all universal health care mandate being proposed during this session:

Some things only work if everyone is in the same fix, everyone does the same thing. For example, consider sewer systems. If, in Albuquerque, some people had privies and some had septic systems and some bought from a private sewer system and some bought the city's sewer system service, we'd have a mess. We'd have both private sewer systems and City sewers on some streets (probably the richer neighborhoods) and and probably no sewer system on poorer streets, and cholera from the privies. But since we all are required to buy the City's sewer system, we all have a pretty adequate system at lower total cost (because no street has two sewers).

Health insurance has some similarities to sewers.

First, let me reiterate, I really appreciate the people who take the time to leave comments - especially those with a different point of view. With that said, I found it interesting that Mr. Schneider should choose to use the example of sewer systems to make his case.

I live about eight miles from Albuquerque. I have a septic system. It's probably worth noting that neither myself nor anyone around me is suffering from cholera. As to the presumption that people in rich neighborhoods would be the ones with a city sewers system, I'd suggest a drive through North Albuquerque Acres. You'll find some of the largest and most expensive city adjacent homes are all on septic systems.

The vast majority of the folks in the East Mountains have fought city/county unification for over fifty years because we don't want to be forced into supporting everyone else in the city and live according to what is best for the city. We don't want to be forced to adopt city water (yeah, many of us have our own wells), city sewer and city trash pickup. Consider that last one, despite the fact that no government entity is picking up the trash, I think you'll find much less trash on along the roads of the East Mountains then you would in the City of Albuquerque.

Well, the same holds true for health insurance. We should not all be forced into one system that rations care for all. A system like that will not improve health care service over the long run. It will degrade it. And, the way it is being offered, it will degrade it for everyone equally. Our governments - local, state and federal - are already struggling to fund the unwieldy systems for which they have already taxed us, and lest you think they will only tax the rich, think again.

Consider that despite year after year increases in tuition, the largest government run university in the state is asking their employees to take an unpaid furlough:

President David Schmidly said UNM employees who participate in the voluntary furlough program, which he announced this week, will help UNM avoid cutting jobs.

"We have got to hold the line on spending. If we don't, we're going to get in a situation where we can't cope with our reduced appropriations without doing something major with our payroll, and I want to try to avoid that," he said. "And so, if I can reduce expenditures, get people that want to voluntarily do some things that save on their salaries, and don't fill those vacancies that come up that we can deal with in some other way, then we can save money and be in a better position to cope with the budget downturn."

Now, you want a state that doesn't have enough doctors to run the health care system? IF you think you're health care situation is dire now. Just imagine when the state run system asks doctors, nurses and technicians to take a furlough to help avoid cutting jobs. Hopefully, you're not scheduled for major surgery during that furlough week.

Media Instructed Not to Talk to Media

Newspaper employees being forced to take an unpaid week off during tough economic times is not funny. However, the idea that a media company has instructed their employees not to talk to the media strikes me as kind of amusing.

Putting Government Run Health Care in Perspective

There are two bills waiting to be heard in committees establishing universal (or single payer) health care in New Mexico. HB 339 the Health Security Act has been introduced by Representative Bobby Gonzalez, and a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Carlos Cisneros.

Ok, let's start with the obvious here. It is ridiculous to be introducing economically burdensome universal health care bills in New Mexico when the federal government is considering their own "solutions" to the health care issue. The New Mexico legislature should just wait and see what the federal government is going to do next.

Now, let's say you disagree with me here, and you believe that this is a problem that needs to be immediately addressed. Well, I can tell you without a doubt THIS IS NOT the bill to do it. Take a moment to read the Fiscal Impact report for HB 339, and you'll discover something VERY SCARY:

The bill will effectively subject all existing health care facilities and health care providers in New Mexico to state control. It will require mandatory participation in the health care plan by most state residents other than persons covered by federal health plans, military personnel, and members of Indian tribes covered by federal health plans. It will prohibit the sale of health insurance in New Mexico for health care that is covered by the health security plan except for retiree health insurance plans that do not enter into contracts with the health security plan. The private sector would continue to provide the actual delivery of health care but will be required to comply with the rules of the commission and provisions of the health care plan.

In other words, this doesn't just provide health insurance for the uninsured, this takes away our right to choose our health insurance policy providers and condemns us all to a government run system. Want a preview of what that looks like? Well, you don't have to look any further than the level of care our neighbors to the North are currently "enjoying":

Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

Providing health care for some should not mean reducing the level of care others are currently receiving.

Making the End Run When Legislation Fails

A pet peeve of mine regarding Governor Richardson's administration is their commitment to circumventing the checks and balances intentionally built into our system of government. And, it appears they're at it again.

In 2004, amidst much uproar, the "Electronic Government Act" was being pushed:

A bill that calls for organizing government records through a system called "e-portal" was pending at the end of the 2004 legislative session. Backed by Gov. Bill Richardson, the "Electronic Government Act" would create a pricey e-portal system that would use the fees generated from government records to manage and fund the system. In order to obtain government records, members of the public would have to use e-portal and pay according to its tiered pricing system. (HB 291; SB 314)

It was that "pricey e-portal system" (read: pricey for you and me to access public information) that had folks like the New Mexico Press Association and New Mexico Foundation for Open Government up in arms. The bill was defeated.

But, now that they think everyone is distracted by the economic crisis plaguing the state, the Richardson administration is back up to their usual backdoor manuevers. Without much fanfare, the Taxation and Revenue Department has put out an 88-page RFP to do exactly what the legislature had previously rejected.

I hope someone in the legislature calls the administration to task before it's too late.

$500,000 Limit for Failing Executives

It seems like every news stations yesterday was talking about the $500,000 cap that was going to be forced on corporate executives of failing companies that opted to go on the dole:

The president aimed for a target — extravagant corporate behavior on the public dime — that fit the mood of the day. His $500,000 salary limit on executives from a limited number of companies was part of a broader assault on what he called a "reckless culture" that has helped wreck the economy.

"We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded," Obama said. "But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure, especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

First, let me state, that I'd be willing to take $250,000 a year to run a multi-billion company into the ground, and I would be more than happy to fly commercial, but I would expect to fly first class where the pillows and blankets are still free. If any Board of Directors is interested, I'm sure you can find my profile on Linked-in or Plaxo or Facebook.

Okay, with that said, I think it is pretty amusing that the "salary cap" for these CEO's who have so miserably is a $100,000 more than the leader of the free world and double that away from the person a heartbeat away from being leader of the free world:

The President of the United States earns $400,000 a year. The vice president's annual salary is $221,100.

Then again, to put this all in perspective, it's probably important to remember that a Vice President/CFO position at UNM pays more than being President of the United States:

Months before imposing a partial freeze on hiring and taking other cost-cutting measures, the University of New Mexico gave Vice President and Chief Financial Officer David Harris a $10,000 raise and an extra $50,000 in deferred compensation. The extra money pushed Harris' compensation package for the current fiscal year to $428,000 -- a 16.2 percent increase.

Now, does all of this mean that I'm a big believer in CEO caps for private companies? The answer here is a resounding, "No." But, a company taking billions of dollars in taxpayer funded bailout money is exactly private, is it?

Our Own Sheriff of Nottingham

Looks like State Representative Mimi Stewart has a plan to turn New Mexico into the Land of Disenchantment. We've all read the reports that indicate that our fair state is not proving immune to the economic crisis plaguing the nation. People are losing houses and jobs here as well, and let's face it the poorest among us are going to be the hardest hit.

In a bizarre turn of events, "the progressive" Representative Stewart has decided to take on the role of one of the most hated antagonists in literature - the Sheriff of Nottingham. You know, that cruel tax collector who cares not how much the people are suffering. No, the Sheriff has only one thought in mind - collect the taxes and track down those who would get in the way.

Representative Stewart is the author of HB346: Gross Receipts Surtax Bill. And, get this, the bill proposes a double whammy:

This bill proposes the gross receipt tax rate be increased by .5%. In addition the bill also proposes an increase in the personal income tax rate (PIT). The PIT would increase in tax year 2010 from 4.9 percent to 6 percent for married persons filing jointly with taxable income of at least $24,000 and for single persons with taxable income of at least $16,000.

Ouch. Let me put this in perspective. Gross receipt taxes (GRT) - like all sales taxes - are widely considered to be a regressive form of taxation. In other words, they hit the poorest amongst us the hardest. And, Representative Stewart wants to see those taxes increased.

But, Sheriff Representative Stewart is not satisfied with just increasing the GRT. No, why stop there? Consider for a moment that she wants to increase personal income taxes, and the level she wants to start levying this additional tax - $16,000 for a single person. In case you're wondering, a person making $16,000 per year is earning a whopping $7.69 per hour.

Anyone know where we can find Robin Hood?

Wondering What's Wrong with APS?

This is truly amazing to me, 8 School Board Candidates Don't File Financial Disclosures (subscription):

Three of 11 Albuquerque school board candidates filed voluntary financial disclosure forms by the 4 p.m. deadline Monday, with others saying they had forgotten or were busy.

That's right. One candidate, Carolyne DeVore-Parks, running in District 5 actually had the gall to say that she didn't do it because "she had been busy." We're really getting the cream of the crop here.

Just a Stimulus Thought

There is one thing that keeps irking me about the stimulus package. Ok, there is definitely more than one thing. But, here is one aspect I can't get out of my head. I keep wondering how many people, who are on the verge of losing their homes or who have recently lost their job, are tapping their own retirement accounts to help keep going. Then, I keep thinking about the fact that the government is going to charge them a penalty for withdrawing their funds. Big bailouts to multi-billion dollar companies, and additional taxes for Americans just trying to keep the lights on. So much for caring about Main Street.