Escape From New Mexico Costs $100 Extra

One of the things I've always liked about living in New Mexico is how convenient it is for business travel. I can hop on a plane and get to many of our nation's largest metros within three hours. Well, shortly after the New Year, it looks like it is going to cost me an extra $100 if I want to avoid being quarantined to New Mexico:

"The way it is right now, come Jan. 1st, residents of New Mexico and residents of about 25 other states wouldn't be allowed to board airplanes unless they had a valid passport."

And, why is this?

The biggest issue is that New Mexico gives driver's licenses to foreign nationals and illegal immigrants, which under the new law, would be illegal.

So, because our state government thinks it is important to make New Mexico a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants, I have to pay $100 extra if I want to travel freely in my own country. Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, I know some of you want to blame it on the Bush Administration for pushing the Real ID Law. For the record, I was not a fan of the expansion of a police state then any more than I am now. But, they've been gone for almost a year, so the new administration is just as much to blame for pushing this expansion of government and the resulting new tax on citizens.



And, that is exactly what it is - a new tax. Any time a government decision requires you to fork over more money to comply, it is a new tax. What really irks me is that no one at the state or federal level seems to care that this is going to cost me both a significant amount of time and money:

"Right now it's a game of chicken, between the federal government and the state governments," [New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Secretary Rick] Homans said.

A game of chicken? That's the game where two people in moving vehicles come right at one another and see which one swerves out of the way first, right? Well, it's really easy for state and federal government to play chicken with one another when the taxpayer/traveler is the one driving both cars. Nothing like taxpayer pain for bureaucratic amusement.

So, the states and the feds can't get on the same page to allow law-abiding citizens to travel freely within our national borders. Now, what do you think is going to happen when we have nationalized healthcare?

Reminds Me of the Last Time I Tried to Help

Happy Thanksgiving!

Duplication is Really Unneccessary

When times are tough, it is important to start taking a hard look at the various government commissions funded by taxpayers and ask, "Do we really need this?" For example, the Albuquerque Journal has an article today announcing that the New Mexico Commission on the Status of Women is helping Clovis area homemakers head back into the work force. How are they doing this?

The commission's Displaced Homemakers office is offering a free workshop called Effective Work Search Skills.

Lorraine Bantista, coordinator of the Displaced Homemakers Office, said the four-part workshop aimed at women will cover self-assessment, types of job search techniques, tapping into the hidden job market and preparing for the interview.

Let's deal with the obvious first. Every single one of these topic areas can be found online with a quick Google search. This is just another example of one of those government agencies that would be politically unpopular to defund, but is absolutely unnecessary. If you don't believe me, take a look around the NM Commission on the Status of Women website, and then tell me with a straight face this is a needed agency. Do you really think a single woman's life in New Mexico is improved by the work of this commission?

Politicians like to play games and talk about putting prisoners on the street, hurting education or letting people starve, but the truth is that until they start cutting these unnecessary commissions and agencies, they have no case to increase taxes.

Taxes Before Responsibility

There's a war brewing for the 2010 Legislative Session. The battle lines have been drawn, and on one side are those that believe government excess should be pared down, and on the other side are those that want to see the tax and spend party to continue by raising even more taxes. The spend, spend, spend people have formed the organization, Better Choices New Mexico, to make their case, which basically boils down to:

This alliance of small businesses, faith-based groups, working families, and nonprofit organizations believes cutting critical services and programs would be a terrible mistake. Instead, the Legislature needs to open the books on tax expenditures, close the loopholes for out-of-state corporations, and rollback the tax breaks for the wealthy.

What's amazing to me is that essentially what they are defending is the spending gone wild policies that have left us in an economic crisis that should not have occurred. Any organization that wants to be taken seriously about seeing better choices in New Mexico had better address the severe mismanagement of taxpayer funds by the state before asking for more money. Their one-pager makes the case over and over again for increasing revenue, but not once does it talk about cutting expenses. The closest it comes is to suggest shifting dollars from one area of waste to another.

And, mind you there is a lot of waste in government spending in this state. There are the obvious signs of waste that are uncovered everyday:

Nemazee and others connected to Carret Asset Management gave campaign contributions to Gov. Bill Richardson before and after receiving the contract, according to the magazine. “The contract with the State Investment Council, which oversees $12 billion in trust funds from oil and gas leasing fees, has so far yielded $1.7 million in fees for Carret,” the author of the article, Nathan Vardi, reports.

Of course, no one wants to take responsibility for this kind of waste:

Richardson’s spokesman says the governor, who is chairman of the New Mexico State Investment Council, played no role whatsoever in the hiring of Carret.

Only in New Mexico could the Chairman get away with full denial of accountability. Then again, this is the same Governor who can hand out multi-million dollar favors like candy on Halloween
without the least bit of economic restraint, no matter how bad out budget situation may be:

I'm positively shocked that Governor Richardson has been a long time friend of the Hool brothers who are behind the Santa Fe Studios. The project, which I wrote about a few months ago, is being subsidized to the tune of $10 million by state taxpayers with taxpayers in Santa Fe County chipping in another $6 million. The whole thing stinks.

Of course, at the same time as he is pushing for additional subsidies for an already-subsidized industry, Richardson is pushing for tax hikes on the rest of us.

Then, there is the wasteful spending that is not so obvious unless you're a government insider:

I am a state employee who is faced with trying to determine where to cut groceries, utilities, Christmas spending...I can accept the furlough...However, I looked at the salaries at executive agencies and must ask how did the agency on aging become a full Department? Military affairs? Where did some of these commissions come from? Do we need them or should we place higher expectations on persons employed in these areas? For example, why isn't the Department of Homeland Security part of the Department of Public Safety?

Why not consolidate programs and eliminate some high salaried executives? Why are we paying outlandish rents for private buildings when there are vacant government buildings? I am not placing the blame on any branch of government, just venting.

Well, someone better start blaming a branch of government. It's called accountability. But, then again, its easier to push for tax increases than to actually try to make a better choices in New Mexico. After all, it's all about our children, right?

Three sport utility vehicles purchased for school administrators from an out-of-state dealer. A $91,000 tow truck. Thousands of dollars for iPods for students. Paying athletes and cheerleaders to pull weeds. Lunches, including a $110 tab at the Rio Chama Steakhouse paid for by federal funds intended for low-income students.

These are just some of the questionable expenditures uncovered by audits of five medium-sized school districts that were discussed Thursday at a meeting of the Legislative Finance Committee. One LFC staffer said these audits "barely scratch the surface" of waste and abuse in some school districts.

Yeah, it's all about the children. Now, you tell me something. Do better choices start with putting more money in state coffers, or does it start by saying enough is enough? Until the people taking and spending our money are held accountable for their fiscal mismanagement, corruption and fraud, I say they don't get to increase taxes by even one tenth of one percent.

Chamber Advocates for Taxing Food

This is one of those "Say What!" moments. I actually had to read it two or three times before I could believe what I was reading.

Terri Cole, president and CEO of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, told the committee that she'd spoken with food banks and others who distribute food to the poor. "They tell me the tax break hasn't really been that helpful to the very poor," she said. Cole said it might be more helpful to bring back the food tax and have the state directly fund food distributions to the needy.

The food tax repeal costs the state about $200 million a year, Cole said.

Okay, this is wrong on so many levels. First a few disclaimers are in order. I used to be a Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce member. I opted not to renew my membership when the Chamber made the decision to be the only Chamber of Commerce in the State of New Mexico to support Governor Richardson's anti-business and ultimately ill-fated healthcare initiative. I've not looked back since, and with the Albuquerque Chamber now cheerleading regressive tax increases, I don't think I ever will.

The second disclaimer is that I support food banks. We are Roadrunner Food Bank Full Plate Society members, and I'd encourage all readers of this blog to consider supporting this or other food bank efforts during these trying economic times.

So, with the disclaimers out of the way, let's dive into the problems here. Teri Cole's assertion that the tax break on food hasn't been very helpful to those getting food from food banks is absurd. Of course, they aren't helped by the tax break on food. They're not buying the food. They're given the food. So, there isn't any tax for them to get a tax break. But, there are so many other families in need not utilizing food banks that are benefiting from that tax break.

Let's also consider the cost of this break we got on food. You might remember that when the food tax was introduced, it was paired with another tax increase that resulted in a net tax gain:

CLAIM #4
eliminating the tax on food

FACT #4
"So while New Mexico is giving up gross receipts taxes on these qualifying medical and food receipts, it is going to be taking more from all other taxable receipts. According to Fred Winter, local CPA, "This means that the overall gross receipts tax rate will increase from 7.00% to 7.50% for the Town of Taos."

Now, the Albuquerque Chamber wants to see the reduced tax increase piled on top of this previous tax increase. Are you kidding me?

And, the rationale for this increase?

The food tax repeal costs the state about $200 million a year, Cole said.

If the state passed a net tax increase along with the the tax cut. The state didn't lose any money. It gained money. If you take the Chamber's position to an extreme, consider how much money not having a 100% tax on all income is costing the state.

Since when does a Chamber of Commerce advocate for giving the government more of our hard-earned money?

New Mexico Experiences Exponential Growth

Usually congressional districts are added to a state after a census. The next census is not until 2010; however, it seems that as a result of some explosive, yet undocumented growth, the number of congressional districts in New Mexico has grown from three to forty [hat tip: New Mexico Watchdog].

Of course, as is evident by the chart below taken from government run recovery.gov, many of these new congressional districts are still waiting for their stimulus money.





But, it is expected that all eyes will be on New Mexico's 22nd Congressional District (once it can be located), which was able to turn less than $62,000 in Recovery Act funds into an amazing 25 new jobs. The cost of living in this particular district must be incredibly low as that amounts to a $2,480 salary per new job created.

Comparing the number of jobs created in New Mexico's 22nd Congressional District with the 15.8 jobs created in the state's 35th Congressional District for a whopping $8.9 million is the cause of more than one raised eyebrow. Rumors of political favoritism abound, but as of the writing of this post the congressional representatives from these districts could not be found for comment.

Now, for those of you who think this is no more than a programming glitch, please keep in mind this is a state of the art website built with no expense spared:

A Maryland-based IT firm that specializes in defense contracts was awarded the federal contract to build Recovery.gov, the government site meant to make stimulus spending transparent. The bill to taxpayers for this Web site will be $9.5 million in the next six months.

To put that in perspective, consider USASpending.gov, the Web site created by the Coburn-Obama Act of 2006 that tracks all federal contracts and grants. The government purchased the software for that site for $600,000 from nonprofit watchdog OMB Watch, which had developed the software for itself outside the federal procurement system.

Or, consider the many spending transparency Web sites that state governments have recently created. The most expensive of these is that of Texas, which cost $300,000 to develop. Most states spend less than $100,000 on transparency sites.

Maybe I'm not being fair. Maybe it was just a clerical error. Well, if they can't keep track of the money flowing into New Mexico, just how well do you think they tracked the trillion plus flowing into the rest of the nation.

Everybody starting to understand why unemployment numbers keep rising despite government "stimulus" spending.

Is Monday the New Sunday?

This is a decidedly unpolitical post, but a thought struck me over the weekend that I think is worth consideration. Maybe the attention given to Rupert Murdoch's recent decision is what caused the thought:

Is Rupert Murdoch bluffing? Making a bold high-stakes gamble that will save the troubled newspaper industry? Or pursuing a pipe dream that can only end in failure?

The News Corp. chairman has prompted a fierce debate among media watchers with his accusation that Google is "stealing" from his vast newspaper empire and his threat to block the search engine from accessing its content.

Personally, I don't see this strategy working. There are just too many sources of information. Basic information have become commodities (i.e. weather, sports scores, classifieds, catastrophes, etc). Does that mean news organizations are going to go away? I don't think so. People still crave and need news, especially local news. But, as the continued closures of local news organizations have made clear, the current model is broken.

I used to be a dead tree news subscriber. However, I haven't been for at least two years now, but I do still peruse the Albuquerque Journal daily. Well, at least I did. Now, it's becoming more difficult because I'm finding I've often "used up my sponsor pass trials for the week." So, what do I do when I'm presented with the option to pay $60 to become a six month subscriber? Naturally, I go elsewhere to get my news fix for the day.

See, the offer is out of sync with the action. I want to read a particular article. I don't want to spend $60 to get access to all of the articles for six months that I'm not interested in reading. What if the ABQ Journal allowed me to pay for just that particular article? Would I do it? Probably depends on the price. But, if that article only cost me a dime to read. I'd probably do it.

In fact, if the Journal allowed me to pay $10 for credits that I could apply toward reading articles of my choice at a dime a pop (think: iStock.com approach to news), I'd probably be all over it. After all, a dime is still a small enough amount of money for me not to think twice about spending.

So why don't they do it this way? I don't know. Actually, very little about how the Albuquerque Journal approaches sales makes any sense to me. Consider for a moment that if I want to sign up for home delivery, they'll charge me $60 for six months. But, if I want to sign up for six months of eJournal, it will cost me $76.50. Where is the logic in that? In what world does it cost more to deliver digitally than it does to deliver hard copy to my door?

My first job when I was 12 years old was delivering newspapers. Within a few months, I became the drop captain for all of the newspaper boys in my neighborhood. This meant a couple hundred newspapers were dropped at my house every morning, and at the end of the week, after they had collected from their customers, the newspaper boys came and paid me. I had my own delivery route, plus I made a little extra for taking on this added responsibility.

Paying a small amount weekly is an easier commitment to make. Heck, the smaller the amount the more likely we are to pay. News is an impulse buy. If you think about the heyday of the newspaper industry, hawkers selling papers on street corners for just a few cents, you'll realize that it has always been an impulse buy.

Consider something else...

What's the largest newspaper of the week? The Sunday paper, right? Yet, every online information source will tell you that attention to news drops significantly over the weekend. The next generation of news followers take a break on the weekends. Why isn't the biggest edition of the news on Monday? Because they're still doing business like they did in the past.

The Albuquerque Journal better figure out what it is doing wrong and soon, or we're going to find ourselves in a situation that the largest city of the state doesn't have a local newspaper reporting style source of information.

Why Should it Be Hard to Fire?

A new report released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gives New Mexico a "C" as its overall education grade. Sounds good, right? I mean we usually get an "F' on these things. Actually, not really as good as it sounds.

Last year, "Leaders and Laggards" focused on student test scores rather than innovation, and New Mexico ranked 49th, better only than Mississippi and Washington, D.C.

See, this year focused on "education innovation" to determine overall ranking. When the only thing that matters (defined: student performance) is measured, we're still way down there at the very bottom of the ranking. The exact same place as the year before.


Considering the budget crisis we're facing, it is interesting to note that one of those measurements in which New Mexico got a worse in class score, a big red F, was in the return on investment category. I've been beating this drum for years. We spend, spend and then spend a lot more, and have absolutely nothing that matters (defined: increase in student performance) to show for it.

Now before some of you start claiming that New Mexico can't be compared to other states because of our poverty levels, keep in mind this failing score was after being graded on a curve:

Student achievement in New Mexico is very low relative to state education spending (after controlling for student poverty, the percentage of students with special needs, and cost of living). This dismal return on investment earns the state a failing grade.

So, how do we start making inroads? Well, back in August I put forward a plan for education reform that would be a huge step in the right direction. If you read it, you might want to compare number two of my recommendations to the position of the teachers' union president:

But it got an "F" and was ranked 44th for removal of ineffective teachers.

To determine that grade, the report cited a survey of principals, most of whom reported that personnel policies and unions are barriers to removing ineffectual teachers. Garcia said such policies are determined by districts, not the state.

"Districts have their local policies, whether they work with teachers or give them another chance," she said.

Ellen Bernstein, Albuquerque Teacher Federation president, said she doesn't think New Mexico deserved such low marks. She said principals have discretion to fire ineffective teachers as long as they show cause.

"Is it hard? Yeah. It should be hard to fire someone," she said. "But it's not impossible."

I'm sorry I don't understand this position. Why should it be hard to fire someone? Why should it be harder to fire a teacher than say an accountant or a doctor or a retail clerk? What am I missing?

This mentality is why unions in general are struggling to find relevance. People who can't do their jobs need to find other work. If unions decided to focus on improving the situation for the high achievers versus protecting the status quo for the underachievers, they would find they had more relevance.

More importantly, as it relates to school, they would find they were actually being advocates for children as opposed to depriving an entire generation a quality education.

Anti-Incumbent Sentiment Confirmed

When considering the polling prior to the outcome of the recent Albuquerque mayoral election, I noted that a strong anti-incumbent sentiment was in play:

In 2008, incumbents were swept out of office. Sure, it was a huge Democratic sweep. But, it was just as much an anti-incumbent sweep. People wanted new blood. They voted for "change."

The Obama administration and the Democrats now in control of the Congress misunderstood this vote for change to mean the country was endorsing a shift to the left and bigger government programs. This wasn't and isn't the case at all. The vast majority of Americans are not extremist - neither right nor left. Instead, they are firmly planted in the center.

So, the change they were voting for was against the incumbents, and the direction in which they were taking our country, which ironically enough was towards bigger government programs. Now, it seems to me that the anti-incumbent sentiment has not subsided. It is still alive and well.

My observation regarding the anti-incumbent sentiment seems to be confirmed by a recent Pew Research Group study:

According to the Pew Research Group, the number of people who would like to see their own U.S Representative re-elected has reached a low point — the same type of low point seen in the 1994 and 2006 midterms when the parties in power suffered large losses.

“About half (52 percent) of registered voters would like to see their own representative re-elected next year, while 34 percent say that most members of Congress should be re-elected,” according to Pew. “Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys.”

And, in more bad news for Democrats, Republicans are currently much more enthusiastic about voting in 2010.

I'd argue that these results also apply to the Governor's office and any swing legislative districts in 2010. Spend time talking to people about politics, and you'll see its true. Its probably the reason behind State Senator Eichenberg's recent candid observation:

He wrote that Eichenberg told the crowd at the Southwest Learning Center in Albuquerque that due to Denish's "complacency or complicity" with the ‘pay-to-play’ atmosphere surrounding the administration of Governor Bill Richardson, and standing quietly behind him," that he was unwilling to invest a half million dollars in a 'losing campaign.'

Bralley writes Eichenberg said, "I looked her square in the eye when I said that. I told her I didn’t think she was going to win.”

I'd say the numbers support his assertion.

Veteran's Day Thoughts

There is an interesting interview with Veterans Service Secretary John Garcia over at nmpolitics.net. Secretary Garcia expresses grave concern about the budget cuts that are being incurred by his office and the impact those cuts will have on veterans. A very appropriately timed message for Veterans Day. But, this is what got me thinking:

Garcia said when he took over the department, which was elevated to a cabinet level post in 2004 and has 17 field offices, its budget was less than $2 million. After administrative expenses, including salaries for 20 accredited and certified veteran service officers, there was$200,000 left for veterans, or $1 per vet. That budget has since quadrupled, but he said it still only provides $4 per veteran.

Think about that for a minute. A state agency budget that went from $1.6 million to $6.4 million in five years. Based on what is noted above, administrative expenses and salaries accounted for approximately $1.4 million five years ago. Now, administrative expenses and salaries account for $5.6 million; whereas the direct benefit to veterans has only gone from $200,000 t0 $800,000.

That's what the numbers tell us. That's not the story Secretary Garcia is focusing on. No, he is appealing to our sense of patriotism and playing on our emotions to help protect the administrative expenses and salaries of his department. Now, mind you, I think he believes in what he is preaching. The problem is from the belly of the tax-spending beast his perception of reality is distorted.

Secretary Garcia talks about the challenges of reaching a new generation of veterans:

“With the recent war in Iraq and Afghanistan I’ve got an influx of new veterans — a new generation of veterans — and it’s tough to find them,” Garcia said. “Veterans just don’t walk into our office and say, ‘I want my benefits.’ We’ve got to find them. I don’t want them to wait 30 years, like I did and many Vietnam vets did. We have to be very proactive and do our outreach of services.”

Okay, so if the new generation of veterans don't just walk into their offices, why are they paying expenses for 17 field offices? Does anyone really think that conferences and seminars are the best and most economical means of getting information to a new generation of veterans? If you want to find someone, doesn't it make sense to go where they are to look for them?

But a recent survey from Pace University and the Participatory Media Network shows that only 22 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds use Twitter, while 99 percent have profiles on social networks.

We know where 99 percent of a new generation is located, and guess what, it won't cost millions of dollars in administrative expenses to reach them. Heck, it won't even cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, give me full control of 25% of the current budget (in other words a 75% budget reduction), and I will guarantee that I can document a doubling of the number of veterans receiving information in less than 12 months time.

Today it is important to recognize and thank all of those who serve and have served our country to fight for our freedom. Spending money on inefficient and bloated bureaucracies in their name is not the way to do it.

Siphoning off Money

I've noted before in response to some comments that I don't believe that Lt. Governor Diane Denish is corrupt. However, I do believe that she made a conscious decision during her seven years at Governor Richardson's side to just go along to get along. She opted to look the other way as corruption flourished and taxpayer funds were misappropriated and mismanaged.

Nothing demonstrates this more than the facts that Jim Scarantino has uncovered by doing a little digging around and then a little more digging around. Now, defenders of Mrs. Denish can call Scarantino names and try to dismiss him as part of some GOP ploy, but it doesn't change the facts. Facts, I think are captured perfectly by Heather Wilson in a recent note on Facebook:

"I served in Congress when we passed the economic stimulus bill in 2003. The funds we sent to states were to cover essential government services and unfunded federal mandates during a recession. Today's new revelations suggest that Lieutenant Governor Denish diverted those funds to pay contract staff for activities related to Senator John Kerry's Presidential campaign.

This is obviously inappropriate. It's time for the state legislature, federal and state auditors to decide they won't tolerate this kind of wasteful self-dealing in Santa Fe anymore and initiate an audit. It's pretty clear Mrs. Denish has a lot of explaining to do."

Now, fellow blogger Heath Haussaman, for whom I have the utmost respect, has noted that he's at a loss as to what's the big deal:

There’s been much ado this week following a report from a new Web site about the way Lt. Gov. Diane Denish spent federal stimulus funds she was given in 2003 by Gov. Bill Richardson.

I’ve been investigating the situation for two days and, frankly, I can’t figure out what all the fuss is about.

And, if you're focused on the amount of dollars spent five years ago to a contract employee to do PR on some questionable activities, he's right. I mean in a state where it seems not a month goes by without a news story breaking about millions of taxpayer dollars being stolen, who has time to pay attention much less care to what's got to be less than $1,000 of misspent money?

Right? Wrong.

See the problem is not whether or not Lt. Governor Denish took $500 from one account when she should of taken from another. Sure, that's wrong, and she blew it on day one by not taking ownership for the mistake and opting instead to go after the messenger. But, that's not the bigger issue here.

The bigger issue is the stated purpose of the $225,000 gift handed from Governor Richardson to the Lt. Governor. It was part of a stimulus package in 2003 "to cover essential government services and unfunded federal mandates during a recession."

Hmm, kinda like the situation we find ourselves in now.

I don't see the Lt. Governor getting run out on a rail for what she did (then again she wouldn't get very far on the rail). However, I DO think she failed a crucial test. No matter how you slice it, public relations, polling and chauffeuring are not essential government services. For a former Chairman of the Democratic Party, it's understandable how they may seem like essential political services, but they are not by any measure essential government services.

Now, consider the fact that the stimulus money flowing into New Mexico in 2003 was chump change compared to the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Here are some 2003 numbers in case you don't have them handy:

The federal government's May 2003 stimulus package included $20 billion in fiscal relief for the states. $10 billion was provided through a temporary 15-month increase of 2.95% in each state's Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP). The other $10 billion was in the form of revenue sharing, i.e., a "no strings attached" block grant to the states based on population. Both of these mechanisms allowed federal fiscal relief to flow to the states very quickly without the need for the establishment of any new programs or the submission and approval of plans for using the money.

That's right the entire redistribution was $20 billion as opposed to $787 billion now being handed out to states. According to former governor Toney Anaya, this round of stimulus spending is supposed to bring $1.4 billion to New Mexico alone.

And, therein lies what all the fuss is about....

The situation today is by all accounts drastically more dire than it was six years ago. In fact, it is quite possible that this is the worse recession since the Great Depression. Even if those pushing for tax increases get their way, non-essential government services are going to have to be cut.

Lt Governor Diane Denish wants us to elect her to be our next Governor during these difficult times. Yet, when she had a chance once before to use stimulus funds to cover essential government services, she chose instead to waste the funds on PR contracts, chauffeurs and polling.

With schools failing and unemployment rising, can we really afford four more years of leadership committed to siphoning off money from essential government services to fund political fancies?

Ripe for Cuts

When the government needs more money, it does two things. It goes into compliance enforcement overdrive, and it looks to raise taxes. I've always asserted we have a spending problem versus a revenue problem. The government, by contrast, believes it has a revenue problem and not a spending problem.

My position gets me labeled as a right-winger .

I've never quite understood why that is the case. I care about my community. I volunteer my time. I donate my money. I work very hard to take care of my family. Every time the government increases my taxes, it means that more of my time has to be spent to fill government coffers. It means less of my time can be spent giving back in ways I feel make a difference. In other words, it infringes on my personal freedom.

The government will come after people and companies with a vengeance if they fail to fulfill their tax liability. They will tack on penalties and interest to an unpaid amount that would make the most aggressive payday lenders salivate with envy. And, they've got their own way of "kneecapping" those that owe them money regardless of the excuse:

The department has obtained a court order to force the 38-year-old restaurant chain to pay up or close down. Homans said his department can take up to 60 months to pay off the tab, but the restaurant better do something quick."I would say it's a matter of days for the process to be completed and the order is finalized for them to shut down," Homans said.

Late Wednesday, afternoon founder Dave Garduno released a statement blaming a former employee for embezzling $2 million and creating the tax problem.

In the end, the heavy hand of government will always prevail. Yet, what happens when the government entities that empty your pockets fail to follow their own rules? Nothing. Absolutely, nothing.

There are no sanctions, however, for agencies that skip audits, something Balderas said he'd like to change. He'd also like to see lawmakers start withholding the budgets of groups with outstanding audits.

"These agencies are using taxpayer dollars and they should be accountable," he said. "These dollars have been spent and they are not accounting for it ... that's egregious and unacceptable."

So, you think the government has your best interests in mind? Think again. There are double standards in play here. If you fail to file your government mandated paperwork, they will do everything they can to make you comply. If a government agency fails to file their paperwork, well, nothing happens.

If we're looking for a place to start making budget cuts, I suggest cutting the budgets of all those who refuse to be held accountable as a great place to start.

Shooting the Messenger is a Mistake

Jim Scarantino broke a story yesterday on the New Mexico Watchdog Website about Lt. Governor Diane Denish's misuse of federal funds that is getting a lot of attention:

Lt. Governor Diane Denish used $225,000 in federal funds to pay for a driver to shuttle her to meetings and press events, a contractor to take Christmas pictures and write Christmas cards, a lawyer to make hotel reservations, opinion polling and public relations services. The money was given to her for “various projects” by Governor Bill Richardson. The money came from unallocated federal fiscal stimulus funds transferred to the New Mexico treasury under the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.

The fact that yet another misuse of federal funds by this Administration has emerged is not particularly surprising. Actually, it would be surprising to find an administration department or official that was not misusing federal funds. Luckily, we do have the New Mexico Watchdog to look into these inappropriate use of taxpayer money since the the defrauders are seeking to render useless the one state agency that can help uncover other violations of the public trust:

The Legislature and governor reduced the general fund money appropriated to the auditor’s office by 14 percent earlier this year, telling the auditor to replace that money with other cash. Now, bills awaiting action from the governor would cut an additional 4 percent from the auditor’s budget and take $500,000 from the fund the state auditor is required to use to supplement its funding.

The loss of that $500,000 would amount to an 81 percent reduction in the so-called “audit fund” – the very fund the Legislature told the auditor earlier this year to use to make up for the 14 percent reduction in its general fund appropriation.

The sum of those budget reductions would plunge the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) – the agency charged with ensuring that state government isn’t plagued by fraud, waste and abuse — “into a budget crisis,” auditor spokeswoman Caroline Buerkle said.

Oh, I know we're in a budget crisis. But, that is precisely why we should not be gutting the State Auditor's office. The one office in state government that has of late actually been looking after the public interest. Want to know who is misspending our money? I'd suggest looking at those who are most eager to see the State Auditor budget cut.

Back to Lt. Governor Diane Denish's problem. No, the problem is not the misuse of federal funds, the problem is, that in what has become the standard modus operandi of this Administration, Lt. Governor Diane Denish is attacking the messenger instead of owning the mistake and making an amends:

Denish's office provided records to the Journal late Wednesday. The office also sent a statement from Denish chief of staff Joshua Rosen, saying, "The accusations made by this right-wing organization and advanced by Republican candidates for governor are reckless manipulations of the truth.

Ok, you can call Jim Scarantino a lot of things, but right-wing organization is not one of them:

In 2000, Jim co-chaired the McCain for President effort in New Mexico. In 2004, in protest of the administration of George W. Bush, Jim switched to the Democratic Party. Since then, he has continued to support the person he believes is the best candidate for the office, left the GOP. Jim is currently registered Independent, but reserves the right to register with either party to support the right person in a party primary.

Anti-establishment guy? Yes. Right-wing mouthpiece? Absolutely not. [A disclosure here... I get along well with Jim, but he has oscillated over the years between attacking me and making nice. We are currently in the making nice period.]

And, attacking the messenger instead of taking ownership is not the only mistake being made by Lt. Governor Denish:

Denish's chief of staff, Joshua Rosen, said all the funds were spent for legitimate purposes. A list of talking points included in documents the office gave The New Mexican said, "The money that was given to this office under the federal act represented less than 1 percent given to the state."

Talked about your mixed messages. First, they try to pretend there is nothing wrong with the misuse of funds, and then they try and minimize the size of the crime. Sorry folks, that's just not going to fly. Just because this isn't as bad as, say the fraud perpetrated by the former Secretary of State, doesn't mean it isn't just as wrong.

Lt. Governor Denish had an opportunity here, and she blew it. She could have shown leadership, owned the mistake and made it right. Instead, she did what this Administration always does, try to dodge the bullet and shift blame.

The Make-Believe Results of the Stimulus

Republicans won in New Jersey and Virginia yesterday and not surprisingly the dismal state of the economy helped them earn their victories:

A plurality of voters in both states cited the economy as their top concern, according to exit polls. Majorities in both states said Obama's job performance was not a factor in their vote.

So, what does this mean for New Mexico and the 2010 elections? Well, it looks promising that those serving in leadership positions in the current Administration will be shown the door. Keep in mind, that New Mexico has always lagged behind other states when it comes to experiencing economic downturns, and this truth has continued through the current crisis. But, inevitably the piper has to get paid.

Spaceport funding for billionaires and trains serving the geographically privileged continue to drain state coffers, while talk of raising "painful" taxes on the masses, turning prisoners loose on a scared public and breaking contracts with municipalities is the Administration's agenda of the day. This set of priorities just won't sit well with voters come Election Day 2010.

Now, for those of you who think the economy is getting better, and all will be well by that fateful November day, I say think again. Earlier this week, we looked at the economic deception of the Cash for Clunkers program. Now, let's look at the reality of job creating/saving stimulus scam:

President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.

Of course, that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg the same article from which the excerpt above was taken also notes:

The latest stimulus report, released Friday, significantly overstates the number of jobs spared with money from programs serving families and children, mostly the Head Start preschool program. The report shows hundreds of the programs used nearly $323 million to provide pay raises and other benefits to their existing employees.

The raises themselves were appropriate — the stimulus law set aside money for Head Start salary increases — but converting that number into jobs proved difficult. The Obama administration told Head Start officials to consider a fraction of each employee as a job saved.

Nice. Turning pay raises for some government employees into make-believe new saved/created jobs. Now, you know why the phrase "stimulus scam" has entered the popular vernacular. Okay, so if jobs created/saved numbers are false, then what does that mean for our economy. It means we're in trouble. It means that the unthinkable is starting to be thought about:

Governments of rich countries are borrowing so much that it's conceivable that one day the twin assumptions underlying their burgeoning debt (that lenders will continue to lend and that governments will continue to pay) might collapse. What happens then?

Of course, that question is talking about governments on a national scale. The problem we're facing is an economic collapse in state and municipal governments. You'll recall that in the state of New Mexico government is the largest employer. Now factor in all of those in our relatively poor state that are living on the government dole and about to lose it. It's not a pretty picture.

Government is spiraling out of control, and the lack of real leadership has never been more obvious. If those connected to the hip with Governor Richardson think they are going to fare well come November 2010, well there is a good chance they also believe that the stimulus package created/saved jobs, and the that tooth fairy leaves money under pillows.

Bizarre Attorney General Behavior

Scandal plagued ACORN has been having government contracts canceled left and right and for good reason:

After a series of undercover videos surfaced showing ACORN employees giving advice to conservative activists posing as a prostitute and a pimp, opponents in Congress have sought to cut the group’s sources of federal money. In recent weeks, both the U.S. Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service have also ended partnerships with ACORN.

But, in a bizarre turn of events, New Mexico's Attorney General Gary King puts out a press release celebrating his "A" rating from this scandal plagued organization:

“I’m pleased to be recognized with a good grade. We were happy to meet with ACORN to discuss the foreclosure crisis and outline our thoughts for supporting legislation that protects consumers from predatory lending practices that have contributed to the crisis,” says Attorney General King. “We will continue to advocate for stronger consumer protection laws in New Mexico that can help prevent and mitigate the effects of foreclosure.”

He wants to meet and work with an organization that helps devise tax avoiding schemes for pimps looking to expand their underage slave trade? Even for New Mexico this is too much. I sincerely hope we have someone else looking at running for Attorney General. It could be a Republican. It could be a Democrat. It could be an Independent. Just please, someone with an iota of commonsense.

Update: Oops, my bad. I guess I should have looked at the date of the press release on the Attorney General's website (thanks, Mike). In all fairness to AG Gary King, his embracing of ACORN comes from prior to their outing for advising assumed prostitutes and pimps. It goes back to the days when they were only known for voter fraud, dissing the disabled and intimidation. My sincere apologies.

Cash for Clunkers Cost Taxpayers $24K per Vehicle

As the healthcare debate continues and a public option keeps being pushed, it is a good idea to do a reality check and see just how inefficient government programs truly are. The mostly highly publicized "successful" government program of late is the Cash For Clunkers program. This was a $3 Billion taxpayer funded bailout of automotive manufacturers. It was a small part of the overall redistribution of dollars from taxpayers to automotive manufacturers and their Wall Street investors.

The program was so wildly "successful" that it looks like Ford is back on the road to recovery:

Ford Motor Co. earned $1 billion in the third quarter, fueled by U.S. market share gains, cost cuts and the government's Cash for Clunkers rebates.

The Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker on Monday reported net income of $997 million, or 29 cents per share. Ford says it now expects to be "solidly profitable" in 2011. Previously the automaker said it would be break-even or better.

That's great news, right? Well, I guess that depends on who you are. If you work for Ford, or are an investor in Ford, definitely great news. If you were one of those folks who traded in your clunker and walked away with a new Ford, also, great news. If you are a present or future taxpayer who actually had to underwrite this latest government scam, well the news is not so great. You may have thought you were helping your fellow citizen get into that new car ( I'm sure a high priority for most of you) with a $4,000 subsidy, but the truth is actually a much bigger subsidy:

Edmunds.com, the premier resource for online automotive information, has determined that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program.

Ironically, the average transaction price for a new vehicle in August 2009 was only $26,915 minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

Nice, every taxpayer just paid to give away a free car. Only a federal government program could take money from the masses and redistribute it to a few, who would have bought a new car at some point in the future with their own money, in order to help some companies postpone their demise or exceed expected earnings. This is just too absurd.

Still having a hard time getting a grasp on this? Well, consider what the much heralded "successful" Cash for Clunkers program may as well have done.

For that price, the federal government could have purchased the 125,000 cars outright at manufacturer suggested retail prices, such as a Ford Fusion, Focus or even a Mustang, and then handed each of the recipients an additional bonus check averaging the Cash-for-Clunkers subsidy of $4,000. Or they could have bought every one of those 125,000 people a Smart car and then given them a check for $6,000.

Now, we're going to put these same government folks in charge of our healthcare programs in order to cut costs. Yeah, that's gonna work well.