Putting Healthcare Before Jobs

Congress and President Obama have made it clear that their number one priority right now is pushing through a healthcare "reform" bill. If you ask me, this is a political mistake that is going to come back and bite them. Estimates of the numbers of Americans without health insurance range from 10% -20% depending on the point that is trying to be made and by whom.

Not having health insurance only really becomes a problem if you are ill, and severely or chronically ill at that. And, even then, if you have access to healthcare, the lack of insurance is irrelevant. So, we are talking about a relatively small percentage of the population at any given time.

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Mind you, that's 45,000 deaths out of a U.S. population of some 300 million. In fact, this number is almost equivalent to the number of people that die every year in car accidents.

Highway fatalities account for more than 94% of all transportation deaths. There were an estimated 6,289,000 car accidents in the US in 1999. There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999. The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000.

Yet, we don't feel the latter is a crisis that deserves the full attention of Congress and the President. The healthcare insurance debate is a political sideshow at best. Yes, it is terrible for those who are struck with a chronic or fatal illness who do not have insurance, but it is not the the number one crisis facing America. Nor, for that matter is climate change, but I digress.

Let's look at the reality. People with cushy, protected government jobs, or the those at the highest and lowest levels of earnings scale are not impacted by a recession, but million of middle class Americans, who incidentally vote, are impacted. After all, they are the growing number of unemployed unable to find work.

Sure, the political elite and Wall-Street-Give-Me-A-Bailout-Followed-By-Large-Bonus types like to talk about how the recession has ended, and in their insulated bubble it may have. But, for millions upon millions of Americans, not only has the recession not ended, it is still expected to worsen:

National unemployment rates remain extraordinarily high, having reached almost 10 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, unemployment will climb to 10.2 percent in 2010 before falling to around 9.1 percent the following year.

Within particular states, the situation is dire. In Massachusetts, unemployment rates have reached a level not seen since 1976. Michigan's unemployment rate is at a little over 15 percent. State budgets, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, are still devastated by rapidly declining tax revenue. According to its study, collections by states fell by 16.6 percent from April to June.

Keep in mind that every time you read about another couple of hundred thousand jobless claims, those losses very often impact, not only the individual, but the other members of their households. Consider those millions compared to the 45,000 who die because they don't have health insurance. Now consider that the proposals in front of Congress are going to force 100% healthcare insurance coverage through punitive actions on business:

Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.

For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.

In other words, Congress is going to make it even more expensive to do business in the U.S. We'll see even more jobs evaporate in order to solve a problem impacting the lives of 45,000 of Americans. Not smart.

A World Turned Upside Down

Today marks the eighth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. It is a day that should always serve as a reminder of two irrefutable facts:

1. There are people in this world that hate America and the freedom it represents, and would do anything to destroy us.
2. There are unsung heroes that everyday put their lives on the line to safeguard our communities.
   

Let me first acknowledge that second point by thanking the firefighters and police officers that step up everyday when no one is looking to protect and to serve. Thanks for what you do.

As to the first point, I can't help but be concerned about the direction our country is heading. On 9/11, the terrorists failed to destroy America, but since that time, a greater and greater number of those elected to lead our country have made, and are making, decisions that might well accomplish what the terrorists failed to do those eight years ago.

On a state level, we've seen indictment after indictment against our elected officials. Yet, rather than outrage, the citizens of the state seem willing to accept this as just the way things are. Even the recent fleeing from the scene of an accident by the Governor and his staff is just seen as just another news story:

The state's boating law says the operator of a vessel has 48 hours to provide information about an accident, and Condit complied with that, according to Jodi McGinnis Porter, spokeswoman for the energy and minerals agency.

Porter said Fay, the boat's owner, stayed at the scene and provided information to investigators, while Richardson, Condit, Miller and the state police officers left. They were not required to remain there, she said.

What's been largely missing from this discussion is not what is legal, but what is ethical. Legally, the perpetrators of the accident may not have been required to remain at the scene of the accident, but ethically, they should have remained.

Think about it.

There are only two reasons that the Governor and his staff fled. First, there was alcohol involved, and it would have been determined that a crime had been committed. Or second, they wanted to avoid the unfolding public relations nightmare that would have been made worse by having their pictures taken at the scene of the accident. I'm reasonably confident that if cell phone records were checked, one of the individuals in the party will be shown to have called for advice on whether or not they "had" to remain at the scene of the accident.

There is always a lot of gratuitous talk about the need to legislate ethics in this state. But, this is just another example of why you can't legislate ethics. Unethical people will act in their own self-interests, and the shrewdly unethical will do it in within the letter of the law. You probably also noticed that not one Democrat running to lead our state in 2010 condemned the blatantly unethical act committed by Governor Richardson and his staff.

Speaking of speaking out, Representative Joe Wilson is in trouble for breaking with decorum by shouting out that the President of the United States was lying to the American people while giving his healthcare address. Yet, there was much truth to Representative Wilson's accusations:

A GAO report finds that illegal immigrants constitute more than one-third of all Medicaid-funded pregnancies in California. Elsewhere in the country, the GAO found: "From 1992 to 1995 in Texas, the number of Medicaid-funded births to undocumented alien mothers more than doubled, while the total number of births remained fairly stable." People respond to economic incentives. Even when the people and the incentives are illegal.

Missouri attorney general Chris Koster has estimated that one in ten Medicaid claims is fraudulent. How much of that fraud diverts money to illegal immigrants? Nobody knows for sure and don't ask the state bureaucrats for help in finding out: When the federal government passed new rules demanding better documentation of legal residency for Medicaid recipients, the states resisted. In California, officials representing the state's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, wanted to use such lamentably inadequate documentation as insurance records and school report cards in place of passports and birth certificates. We are entitled to question their motives, and their prudence.

So, Representative Wilson could use a visit from Miss Manners. But he is telling the truth, and President Obama is not.

Of course, President Obama's dishonesty on this topic is not limited to the question of whether or not illegal immigrants will benefit from the healthcare changes being proposed. There were numerous inaccuracies his speech. For example, take this:

OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."

THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.

Considering how much effort goes into writing a presidential speech, these careful manipulations of the English language cannot be considered accidental. Again, we deal with a question of ethics. Is it ethical to put something forward as factually truthful that is actually intended to deceive?

Of course, these unethical manipulations of language are not limited to our elected officials. They are also being used by "community organizations" to confuse the issues. Consider this taken directly from the ACORN site:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now does not apply for nor does it receive any federal grants.

ACORN has had contracts with other nonprofit organizations to perform work on projects which received federal grant support.

In illegal circles, what ACORN is describing is called money laundering. Organized crime has been doing this for years. In the case of organized crime, dollars from an illegal activity, take prostitution as an example, are flowed through a third party entity before making its way to a "legitimate" business. In this way, the business has deniability about the illegal source of the funds. Much the same way as ACORN has deniability about the federal source of its funding.

As long as we're on the topic of federal funding, ACORN and prostitution, you might want to consider this:

Two staff members of the Baltimore office of ACORN were fired Thursday after they were captured on hidden camera appearing to give advice on evading tax laws to a man and woman posing as a pimp and a prostitute.

The video depicts a man and a scantily dressed female partner visiting the Charles Village office of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, where they appear to ask two employees about how to shield their work from state and federal tax requirements. The supposed pimp also appears to ask the employees how to conceal underage girls from El Salvador brought into the country illegally to work for him.

"If they don't have Social Security numbers, you don't have to worry about them," the employee says.

If you haven't seen the videos, I strongly urge you to watch them. It's like watching an SNL skit from when SNL was actually funny.





Of course, the only problem is that this isn't a comedy skit. It's actually real. Now, factor in the economy, our increasingly uncompetitive educational system, the ever-growing size of government, and the you'll see why I'm so concerned that America may be doing to herself what the terrorists failed to do on 9/11.

Did We Let Our Kids Watch President Obama?

Aren't you a little curious? Did this right-leaning blogger, who criticizes just about everything this administration does, allow his young impressionable children to watch the President of the United States give his "first day of school" speech.

Of course, I did.

However, they watched it at home with both parents and sans federal lesson plans. I encourage my kids to take an interest in politics, and what goes on in the world. Of course, I also encourage them to use critical thinking skills. Something that the original lesson plans from the Department of Education were lacking. I say "original" lesson plans because they were changed after the uproar.

Teacher Lauradean Morganti used some of the U.S. Department of Education's lesson plans for the speech. She required students to complete the homework assignment: "Are we able to do what the president is asking of us?" "Does the speech make you want to do anything differently?" "What would you like to ask or tell the president?"

Suggested lesson plans had drawn fire, particularly for a section that said students could write to the president and tell him how they could help him meet education goals. That section was later removed.

I had a conversation with a fellow blogger the other day after I put up my last post on this matter. His thoughts were I was overreacting about the "you must listen to politicians" indoctrination being pushed by the federal government on school children. He felt this was especially true regarding young children. His argument was that elementary school children should be taught to listen to authority figures like police and politicians. It is not until they get older that they should be expected to think critically.

I disagreed. I think all children should be taught to be respectful of others, especially their elders. However, being respectful does not mean blindly following whatever an adult says. I shared the following story with my friend.

One day, a couple of years after 9/11, our family was driving north on I-25 by the Sunport. A plane was flying in low and getting ready to land. Our oldest son was looking out the window and commented, "Look at that plane, it kind of reminds me of when the Iraqis flew those planes into those buildings."

My wife and I looked at each other, and I responded, "It does. But, it wasn't Iraqis who flew the planes into the buildings."

Our son thought about this for a few seconds, and then asked, "If it wasn't the Iraqis, why are we fighting a war in Iraq?"

He was seven.

Kids are inherently curious. They constantly question the logic put forth by adults. The questioning starts shortly after they learn to talk. Anyone who has ever been around a very young child knows has heard, "But why?" more times than they can count. We don't need to teach our kids to submit and be blind followers. We need to teach our kids to respect, but to question.

Will Bob Dylan Get a Beer Summit?

I'm not sure if someone has notified the White House, but it looks like President Obama might need to hold another Beer Summit at the White House:

Bob Dylan was detained by police in Long Branch, N.J. last month, when a young officer failed to recognize him, police said. The officer proceeded to go to earnest lengths to ensure the hooded, disheveled, rain-soaked music legend was, in fact, who he said he was.

The great lengths included putting Dylan into the back of the police car and driving him to a hotel to verify that he was who he claimed he was. Just how did Dylan respond to this oppressive profiling by police (the police officer assumed he was a homeless vagrant):

"OK Bob, why don't you get in the car and we'll drive to the hotel and go verify this?' " she said she told him. "I put him in the back of the car. To be honest with you, I didn't really believe this was Bob Dylan. It never crossed my mind that this could really be him."

Buble made small talk on the ride to the hotel, asking her detainee where he was playing, she said, but never really believing a word he said.

"He was really nice, though, and he said he understood why I had to verify his identity and why I couldn't let him go," Buble said. "He asked me if I could drive him back to the neighborhood when I verified who he was, which made me even more suspicious.

Huh. I guess you probably don't get a beer with the President for being nice and understanding that a police officer is just doing their job. Otherwise, the President would probably have to buy the vast majority of us a beer. Come to think of it, that's a stimulus package I could probably get behind.

Racism in America

Is there still racism in America? The simple answer is yes. However, the vast majority of us are not racists. As a nation, we have made tremendous strides. Unfortunately, recent events involving Henry Louis Gates, Jr. show that too many people are clinging to the past:

Gates had trouble getting into his home because of a damaged door.

Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley was dispatched on a possible break-in. He found Gates there and asked for identification.

Police say Gates initially refused, became angry and accused the officer of racism. Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, which was dropped.

In response to a question at a news conference, Obama said Gates was a friend and said he didn't know all the facts, but that the police acted "stupidly" in making the arrest.

Personally, I wouldn't be offended if a police officer asked me for identification while I struggled to enter my home. In fact, I would be grateful that they were so responsive to policing the community and protecting my property. Based on what I've read and heard, it seems to me that Professor Gates is the one with the problem here.

I actually had something like this happen to me once. When I was much younger and living in Los Angeles, I was driving a $500 car with a broken backseat window. I had broken the window myself because the locks didn't work on the car and the way for me to let myself into the car was from the inside. Well, while driving around, I was pulled over one day by a police officer.

He flat out told me that he pulled me over to check and see if I had stolen the car. At the time, I was in my early twenties. It was summer so I was pretty dark and sporting a mustache and goatee, which my wife always thought made me look like a gang member. Probably a pretty accurate assessment since I actually landed a role in a low budget film as a gang member with that look.

Did I take offense that the police officer pulled me over? Did I become belligerent and argumentative? No, he was doing his job. If Professor Gates had assumed the same instead of jumping to a conclusion that officer's actions were motivated by racism, this all would have been a non-issue.

Of course, the real problem here is that the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, felt the need to chime in on the incident. Moreover, he did so in a way that assumes racist motivation on the part of the police officer. That's wrong. Of all the things the President should be focused on, this just doesn't rank.

Strange Polls Emerge

It must be the season of nonsensical polls. No, I'm not talking about the Westside only mayoral poll with no percentages being released by Joe Monahan. I'm actually thinking about the CNN poll under the headline, American's Think Obama is on Track with the Economy. It reads a little something like this:

Hours before President Barack Obama on Tuesday morning delivers what the White House calls a major speech on the economy, a new national poll indicates that nearly six in 10 Americans think he has a clear plan for solving the country's economic problems.

Fifty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday morning say Obama has a clear plan to deal with the recession. That's more than double the 24% who think that Republicans in Congress have a clear plan on the economy. Nearly three in four polled say the GOP doesn't have a clear economic plan.

Maybe it's just me, but the whole article seems somewhat biased. First off, shouldn't a poll compare Republicans in Congress to Democrats in Congress? Anyone who pays any attention to polling numbers in recent years knows that Congress lags the President. Even when President Bush had his lowest approval ratings, Congress had even lower approval ratings.

Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.

The article attempts to put positive spin after postive spin on the public perception of President Obama:

Sixty-two percent of those surveyed say Obama is doing enough to cooperate with Republicans in Congress. Though that's down from 74% in February, it's still ahead of the 37% who think that congressional Republicans are doing enough to cooperate with Obama. Six in 10 say the GOP is not doing enough to reach out and work with the president.

Again, comparing Presidential polling numbers to Congressional polling numbers is a reach. In the paragraph above, it is clear that the focus is trying to be switched away from the fact that there is a 12% drop in those that perceive the President is trying to act in a bipartisan manner to tackle the economic crisis.

I fully expect that 58% number to continue to decline in the coming months. No, it's not because I wish failure upon the President. I don't wish failure upon anyone, and especially when that failure means hardship for more of my neighbors, friends and family. But, I do believe the policies introduced are dooming us to failure. Sure, there are those that are trying to paint a rosy picture:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday there's been "tentative signs" that the recession may be easing. But he also warned that any hope for a lasting recovery hinges on the government's success in stabilizing shaky financial markets and getting credit to flow more freely again.

Specifically, the Fed chief mentioned improvements in recent data on home and auto sales, home building and consumer spending as flickering signs of encouragement.

But, I'm sorry. The blips up in one sector are no more a sign of economic recovery than that the radical fluctuations from day to day in the markets. Need proof? Well, consider at the same time that the Fed chief was talking about improvements in the economy we can also read about the following declines:

Retail sales suffered an unexpected big decline in March which broke two straight months of improving sales, the government reported Tuesday.

The Commerce Department said total retail sales fell 1.1% last month, compared with February's revised gain of 0.3%. Sales in February were originally reported to have dipped 0.1%.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had been expecting an increase of 0.3% in March.

Until we start facing reality, we are not going to be able to deal with the crisis at hand. No amount of spin can turn this around. Spending ourselves further into debt isn't the solution either.

For the 42% of you that feel the same way, I hope you'll come out tomorrow to Independence Grill and join the Albuquerque Tea Party Tax Day Rally.

Cross Your Fingers That Today's the Day

It is being widely reported that today is the day that President-elect Obama will announce Governor Richardson's selection as Secretary of Commerce [Hat tip: Heath Haussamen], and it's not a moment too soon.

It seems that there is growing movement, already 4,000 strong, by Chinese-Americans in the Silicon Valley to stop Richardson's appointment to Commerce Secretary:

In a move bound to create political tension between Latinos and Asian-Americans, a group of Chinese-American activists in Silicon Valley has launched a nationwide grass-roots movement to fight President-elect Barack Obama's nomination today of Bill Richardson as commerce secretary.

The group is upset at the New Mexico governor for his handling of the nearly decade-old case of Taiwanese-American Wen Ho Lee, a former nuclear scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. U.S. officials once suspected Lee of giving nuclear secrets to China when Richardson was President Clinton's energy secretary.

The Chinese-Americans say they realize that challenging the nomination of Richardson, 61, the nation's most high-profile Hispanic politician, will ruffle the Latino community, many of whose leaders felt he should have been named secretary of state instead of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

But the Chinese-American group insists that Richardson's refusal to acknowledge making serious errors in the case makes it a moral imperative to oppose his nomination to Obama's Cabinet. They say their criticism of Richardson has nothing to do with him being Latino but everything to do with his lack of judgment in the case.

Which raises the question, if the announcement does indeed occur today, will Governor Richardson immediately do the right thing and tender his resignation? Or, will he hold onto power in order to insert himself in political machinations of the Democratic wing of the legislature until such time as he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate?

Tales of Richardson calling senators up to his office to lobby them on the leadership battle have circulated for weeks around the Capitol and were heard by more than a few lawmakers, including Sen. Mary Kay Papen, D-Las Cruces, a Jennings supporter. Papen said Monday she heard the same thing, although she didn’t know the names of those summoned to the governor’s fourth-floor Roundhouse office.

I, for one, am really hoping the Governor Richardson does the right thing for once, and puts New Mexico first. No, it's not because I'm concerned about the political infighting of Senate Democrats. Something much larger is at stake here:

Gov. Bill Richardson is backing a proposed overhaul of the state's school finance formula, which will cost an additional $350 million to implement.

Richardson said Tuesday he supports the increased funding for schools but wants voters to decide how to raise the extra money, possibly through a referendum or constitutional amendment.

Uh oh, there it is, and it's hard to miss. Okay, I added the bold emphasis. If I hadn't, some of you might have missed it. Raid me once, shame on you. Raid me twice, shame on me. This is the first official acknolwedgement that a second raid on our Permanent Fund is on the table.

Folks, it's only been five years since the first raid. Heck, the original changes have yet to run its course, and they're already putting another raid on the table:

Amendment 2 would increase the annual distribution rate from the Land Grant Permanent Fund in fiscal 2004 from 4.7% to 5% of the fund's average market value over the previous five years. The rate would increase to 5.8% starting in the 2005 fiscal year and continuing for the next eight years. The rate would then drop to 5.5% for the next four years, after which it would decrease to 5%.

The distribution rate could not exceed 5% if the five-year average market value of the fund dropped below $5.8 billion.

Legislators could set the rate at 5% at any time with a three-fifths majority of each legislative chamber.

The Land Grant Permanent Fund was established to fund education with income earned on assets, including revenue from oil and gas royalties earned on land granted to the state by the federal government when New Mexico attained statehood.

Here's hoping the today is the Governor's big day, and not a moment too soon.

Obama Please Take Our Governor

So, let's see if I'm understanding this correctly... New Mexico is facing a half a billion dollar shortfall (subscription) that threatens education funding:

New Mexico faces the prospect of a larger than expected budget shortfall this year because of declining energy prices and the economy continues to weaken.

Senate President Pro Tem Tim Jennings sent a letter Monday to public school and higher education officials warning that revenues could run $500 million short of what's needed to cover spending in the current budget year. Lawmakers were told last month the budget shortfall was at least $200 million to $250 million.

"I'm really afraid that we could be in a place where they have the perfect storm," Jennings, a Roswell Democrat, said in an interview.

He and other lawmakers say all areas of government should prepare for possible cutbacks because of the bleak revenue outlook. Public schools and higher education account for three-fifths of spending from the state's general budget account.

And, Governor Bill Richardson's immediate focus is to do WHAT? (subscription)

Gov. Bill Richardson has abandoned plans to build a $25 million state-of-the-art equestrian center at Mesa del Sol in Albuquerque and instead wants to put it at Expo New Mexico, home of the State Fair.

"Gov. Richardson decided to locate the new equestrian center at Expo New Mexico as part of a larger effort to redevelop the property following the loss of the Downs at Albuquerque," Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos confirmed Monday.

"While Mesa del Sol is an attractive location, the governor's immediate focus is on transforming Expo so it will thrive as a cultural and entertainment destination for all New Mexicans," Gallegos said. "A state-of-the-art equestrian center will be part of the new Expo New Mexico's future."

For the sake of New Mexico, everyone please write President-elect Obama and ask him to appoint Governor Richardson to something... anything, and the sooner the better.

Federal Government Intervention to Hit New Heights

Or could it be called New Lows?

With the country continuing deeper into a recession, it is expected that one of President-elect Obama's first actions will be to work with Congress to expand a second round of bailout packages (subscription):

Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people. Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end — an effort Obama supports. But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.

Don't be fooled. They may call it a "second economic aid plan," but the ugly truth is that it is the nationalization of yet another industry - the automakers:

In late breaking news, Treasury Secretary Paulson has announced a new plan to expand TARP coverage.

Congress was behind the push as Pelosi, Reid Press for TARP Aid for Auto Industry.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent to send a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging him to assist the Big Three auto makers by considering broadening the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to help the troubled industry.

The two top Democratic leaders in Congress are likely to make the request in a letter to the White House, which could be forwarded as soon as Saturday afternoon, said individuals familiar with the matter. President-elect Barack Obama is generally supportive of the appeal, but at the moment is moving on his own track to assist the industry, these individuals said.

Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with President George W. Bush at the White House Monday.

Though the administration is reluctant to widen the program to cover autos, there has been discussion among Bush officials of expanding use of the $700 billion to buy equity stakes in a range of financial-sector companies, moving beyond just banks and insurers. The focus would be on assisting companies that provide financing to the broad economy, such as bond insurers and specialty finance firms such as General Electric Co.'s GE Capital unit, CIT Group Inc. and others, individuals familiar with the matter said.

I doubt this will all have an immediate effect on the daily lives of you and me, but make no mistake the impact of these flawed decisions will impact the lives of our families for generatiosn to come.

Speculation on Obama's New Mexico Appointment

Is Governor Bill Richardson going to take a cabinet secretary position in President-elect Obama's administration? I think it depends on which one he is offered. If Bill Richardson were offered the position of Secretary of State, I think he would jump at the chance. It's a high profile position in a tumultuous time that would allow him to travel the world and play the Diplomat - both things he loves to do.

However, I don't see him chomping at the bit for any of the other cabinet positions. Instead, if he serves on the transition team, it would be more likely for him to encourage our next President to appoint Senator Bingaman as Secretary of Energy.

Senator Bingaman has always been something of a policy wonk. He has served for a very long time as Chairman or ranking member of the energy committee. He was instrumental with Senator Domenici in crafting and passing the last energy bill, and after serving 25 years in the Senate, he is in the sunset of his career. So, why not go out with a bang?

We are at a critical juncture with regard to energy policy in this country, and being at the helm as Secretary of Energy during this historic time could provide a lasting legacy for Jeff Bingaman - a man who spent much of his political career in the shadows of Senator Pete Domenici.

What would Governor Richardson do if this were to happen? He would naturally appoint himself to the position of U.S. Senator. Normally, this goes over with voters like a ton of bricks. But, as much as it pains me to admit it, I think the voters of New Mexico would likely forgive Richardson this transgression, and he would gain membership in the world's most exclusive club that he could in all likelihood keep until the end of his career.

Lt. Governor Diane Denish would take over as Governor and appoint State Auditor Hector Balderas as Lt. Governor. Denish is going to be a formidable candidate in 2010, and adding a Hispanic Northerner like Balderas to the ticket will make her that much stronger. Their biggest problem will be overcoming the looming budget crisis that they will inherit from the departing Richardson.

Now, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought of this scenario. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that this scenario has crossed NM House Speaker Ben Lujan's mind:

If Gov. Bill Richardson is appointed to serve in the administration of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama - should Obama win Tuesday's general election - New Mexico could find itself reaping the benefits.

That's according to House Speaker Ben Lujan, D-Santa Fe, a longtime Richardson ally who recently told the Journal a Washington D.C. job could be the governor's for the taking.

"I think if (Richarsdon) wants it, Senator Obama would find a place for him in the White House," Lujan said. "With him being in the Cabinet or being part of the national administration, it would be very beneficial to our state."

See, it makes perfect sense for Speaker Lujan to push for Richardson to take a position with the administration. With Richardson out of the way, Congressman-elect Ben Ray Lujan would be the Democrats natural choice to replace Bingaman when he does decide to retire. And, we all know that his father has always done a heck of a job of clearing out the candidate field for his son.

Of course, the biggest question is if Governor Richardson and Senator-elect Tom Udall are sworn into the Senate on the same day, who gets stuck with the role of the Junior Senator from New Mexico? On second thought, based on personalities, it's not hard to figure out who would steal the limelight from whom.

I usually resist making predictions, but it's not too difficult to envision this scenario playing out.

Middle Class Income Cap Continues to Drop

I love it when I'm right. If you watch me on KOB-TV's Eye on New Mexico tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m., one of the topics you'll here me discuss is the rapidly declining middle class income cap. In order to stir the fires of class warfare, Senator Barack Obama first indicated that he would only be increasing taxes on those making over $250,000 per year in order to "redistribute wealth."

In his 30 minute Barackomercial, he dropped that number down to $200,000. His running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has moved that cap even lower to $150,000, and now campaign surrogate, Governor Bill Richardson, has it pegged at $120,000 per year.



Think about this for a minute. We're still in the campaign phase, and on a daily basis the Obama campaign is increasing the number of people who will see their life savings redistributed.

Mark my words, if Obama is elected, it won't be long before that number is lowered to $100,000. To put that in perspective, consider that if you have a household with two experience teachers or police officers or firefighters, they will probably be earning over a $100,000 a year. Obama and his friends want to see their "wealth" redistributed.

National Health System Falling Apart

"Universal health care for all" is a frequent rallying cry for Democrats from the Roundhouse to the White House. Take for example Barack Obama's health care plan for America:

My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”

Keep in mind that any time a politician tells you that they can provide you more, and you'll be paying less, they are, well to put politely, full of... it. It just doesn't work that way. And, take a look at that last promise, "no one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness." Is the issue really about people with preexisting conditions unable to get health insurance, or is it about them unable to get health care? It's the latter not the former.

Of course, that leads to the next argument supporting a government run health care program. We need to join the other industrialized nations, Canada and Great Britain always being held out as shining examples, in providing nationalized health care. But, here is the ugly truth about these national health care programs (subscription) that very rarely sees the light:

In Britain right now, the national health system is falling apart, for the same reason our system is struggling. It costs too much. The British ration care by withholding services and making people wait. Americans ration care by allowing 47 million people to have no insurance.

Polling shows that the British will accept the waits and the lack of services as long as everybody has the same wait and the same lack of services. Egalitarianism is a value system, and the health system reflects it.

See, you can't eliminate the costs of a program by changing who is paying for it. And, despite what Winthrop Quigley would have us believe, Americans do not "ration care by allowing 47 million people to have no insurance." People without insurance walk into emergency rooms everyday and receive treatment. Guess what, it's being paid for by you and me. We pay for it with our premiums, and we pay for it with our taxes.

Of course, waiting hours upon hours in an emergency room to receive care is no one's idea of an ideal health care system. Yet, if the nationalized health care advocates get their way, we'll all be waiting months upon months for rationed care in what will undoubtedly be an increasingly expensive system.

Palin Confirms Her Status as the Perfect Pick

I was on the road last night, so I didn't get to watch Sarah Palin's speech at GOP Convention. However, I just watched it this morning, and all I can say is that there is no more perfect candidate for Vice President of the United States.



There were several times during her speech where Governor Palin seemed to be speaking straight to New Mexicans:

A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

Before Governor Palin was selected, I had a conversation with a producer from a PBS show, and I told him that one of Senator Obama's biggest challenges in winning New Mexico would be the urban versus rural divide. As an urbanite, who time and time again shows he is out of touch with rural values, Senator Obama has some serious challenges in appealing to the two thirds of the state population that lives in rural New Mexican towns. It was this population that turned out and delivered New Mexico for President Bush in 2004.

Every time the Obama camp and the mainstream media question Governor Palin's readiness because she comes from a small town in a sparsely populated state, they strengthen the resolve of proud rural New Mexicans to once again have their voices heard in the White House.

Ethics reform is another hot topic in New Mexico. Over the last several years we have been plagued by scandal after scandal with no end in sight. Politicians like Governor Richardson talk a good game publicly, while privately continuing their lucrative practice of pay-to-play politics. Governor Richardson, a beltway insider and key player in the Obama campaign, came to office and immediately purchased a jet to complement his lavish lifestyle. When his driver races his back to the Governor's mansion, he has a staff of personal chefs waiting to pamper his every need.

Compare Governor Richardson's approach to leadership to that of Governor Palin:

I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

The Governor with five kids at home doesn't need jets, drivers and personal chefs, but the Governor in a two-person household does? Where's the logic in that? Supposedly, the Democrats are the party of the masses, but you tell me which Governor lives more like you and me?

Of course, I realize that Governor Richardson is not running for President. So, let's bring it back to a Presidential ticket comparison. McCain/Palin versus Obama/Biden. When it comes to proven leadership at the top of the ticket, McCain/Palin win hands down. When it comes to a track record of change and bucking the political establishment, McCain/Palin win hands down. When it comes to dealing with energy or experience in world affairs, McCain/Palin win hands down.

On every measurement and in every category McCain/Palin is the more impressive ticket. And every time, someone tries to make the case that Governor Palin is not ready to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, we'll think of this:

When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

Governor Palin's proven track record of meeting family and community responsiblities combined with Senator McCain's proud history of fighting for this country means much more than Senator Obama's and Senator Biden's "experience" of winning elections.

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.

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.

The Oil Policy Difference

Just a couple of months ago, it was widely predicted that prices at the pump would hit five dollars by Labor Day. Now, it seems that we might actually see a drop in prices at the pump between now and the election in November.

However, don't be fooled. If we see temporary relief, it will be just that - temporary. Relief designed to give the impression that we don't need to increase domestic oil exploration. If the Democrats expand their control of the legislative branch and take control of the executive branch, we will see gas prices north of five dollars a gallon for a very simple reason (subscription):

Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, supports lifting a drilling ban along the Outer Continental Shelf and encouraging more offshore drilling and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. Sen. Barack Obama, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee, has opposed lifting the current offshore drilling bans.

"There is no way for at least a generation that we can get by without more and more oil," Domenici said. "If we could just use our own, we could save American dollars from flowing out of America."

Meanwhile, President Bush on Wednesday renewed his request that Congress lift its moratorium on coastal oil and gas drilling.

"The American people are rightly frustrated by the failure of the Democratic leaders in Congress to enact commonsense solutions," Bush said. "All the Democratic leaders have to do is to allow a vote. They should not leave Washington without doing so."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, relented on the offshore drilling issue earlier this week, offering Republicans a chance to offer four amendments to the speculation bill, including one that would bring the drilling proposal to a Senate vote.

Look again at the bolded sections from Michael Coleman's article. Even a goof like "Give 'em Hell Harry" recognizes the fact that domestic drilling deserves to be on the table. Yet, the Democrats presumptive nominee for President, Senator Barack Obama, remains stubbornly opposed to any common sense solution to ultimately returning market control of gas prices to Americans.

Instead, Senator Obama is perfectly happy to leave us hostage to the dictates of a cartel:

OPEC has rejected US pleas for raising production and the president of the cartel says he expects oil to stay at current price levels through the end of this year. That stands against a market where oil demand has gone up 1.5 million barrels a day for the last ten years.

Now who gets hurt the most when Democrats in the U.S. government insist on blocking domestic oil production? The working poor and middle class families is who:

If gasoline prices move from their current average price of $3.20 to $5, the cost of fuel for a family that spends $50 a week for gas would move up over $1,000 a year. That would wipe out any tax rebate payments from the Federal government and drive the economy deeper into its currently slowdown. It would also further fracture already delicate P&Ls and balance sheet at large auto makers and airlines. Retailers would get less traffic. Very few industries would be spared some effect.

"... wipe out any tax rebate payments from the Federal government and drive the economy deeper into its currently slowdown." That's also an important fact to keep in mind for Governor Richardson's upcoming taxpayers funded Special Session.

We're an oil producing state, yet the Governor is doing everything in his power to discourage oil production. He did it when he passed unnecessary pit rules, and he'll do it again in the upcoming regular session by trying to bring the cap and trade scam to New Mexico.

Of course, in characteristic Richardson fashion, he is hoping to dupe New Mexicans into believing that by giving us a rebate, he is alleviating our pain. However, the plain and simple truth is that, like all other Richardson fiscal decisions to date, he is making it more expensive for most New Mexicans to live.

The Child Walks Among Us

What can I say? I thought this was pretty funny.

Obama Says Whatever You Want to Hear

Obama to Build Security Force to Rival Military

Listening to this recent speech Senator Barack Obama gave in Colorado Springs brings to light some pretty scary stuff....

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

That statement comes at 16:42 into the speech, but strangely has been scrubbed from the transcript of the speech released to the press. Is it just me, or does Senator Obama's goals seem a little Stalinesque?

Hat tip to Blue Collar Muse for pointing this out and putting Obama's goal into perspective:

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?

A new $439 billion second civilian national security force is not something that should be ignored. This deserves some straight answers from the Obama camp.

Obama Ad Analyzed

Despite efforts to portray Senator Barack Obama as the second coming, a quick review of the facts in one of Obama's ads shows that he's nothing more than politics as usual:

Obama sponsored or co-sponsored -- but did not "pass" -- the welfare and tax measures but does not mention that these were in the Illinois legislature in 1997 and 2000. He sponsored congressional measures that helped hospitalized veterans, but in a relatively minor way: extending beyond 90 days the period in which they can receive free meals and free phone calls to family members.

Obama may have turned down Wall Street jobs after graduating from Columbia University in 1983, but he spent a year working for Business International Corp. in New York before becoming a community organizer in Chicago, and he later joined a law firm there.

Change is a good thing. That's why we have term limits for President. But, despite the great marketing effort, the unfortunate truth is that Barack Obama does not represent change. The more we get to know him, the more it be comes clear - it's the same old bloated political promises with little in the way of performance to back them up.

Obama's Inartful Statement

What the heck is an "inartful statement?"

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The only thing consistent about Senator Barack Obama's position on the Second Amendment is that he is against protecting the rights of law abiding citizens:

But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'

Well, thank goodness the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States has a better understanding of the Constitution than Democrats nominee for President. Senator Obama's stance on this issue is a frightening reminder of why he should not get our vote in November.

Where's the Public Outcry?

Legislative session after legislative session in New Mexico we've had to endure the demands from the left to "reform" our election system by instituting public funding of elections. Yet, when the presumptive "champion for change" of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama opts out of public funding for his presidential race, the left is eerily silent:

Obama broke a previous pledge last week and announced that he would opt out of the public-financing system for presidential candidates. On a practical level, it wasn’t surprising: The Democrat has displayed a rare ability to raise huge amounts of money from average Americans, and that would have been hindered by accepting public financing.

But reducing the influence of money in politics is central to Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In” slogan and the message of his presidential campaign. It’s true that his campaign has found a different way to raise money, but the reality is that he pledged to use the public financing system in the general election if his opponent also agreed -- which McCain has done.

Now Obama, the candidate who asks Americans to be idealists and believe change is possible, is instead acting like a realist by deciding to break a promise because doing so will increase his chances of being elected.

So, how about it my friends on the left? Are you going to call on Senator Obama to opt in for public funding? If you don't, that's okay. I understand that winning is more important than pushing for public funding. Just do me a favor, okay? Don't get back on your high horse when the November election is over.

Obama Can't Afford Military Mistakes

Throughout the Democratic Primary Senator Hillary Clinton has questioned Senator Barack Obama's readiness to assume the role of Commander in Chief. Now, two recent occurrences indicate just how unschooled Senator Obama is in the military arena.

First, there was this Clintonesque type "oops" during his Memorial Day visit to Las Cruces:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is taking fire from Republicans after erroneously saying during his town-hall meeting with veterans in Las Cruces that his uncle was among the American soldiers who liberated Auschwitz during World War II.

Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians, not the Americans.

Then just a few days later, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton had this to say:

"John McCain's proposal [to visit Iraq] is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."

Say what????

Senator Obama is promising to pull the troops out of Iraq. Don't you think as a potential future Commander in Chief, he ought to be willing to spend some post-surge time on the ground with our generals in Iraq? Or maybe Senator Obama is afraid he might learn something while visiting. Something like:

According to the Military Times poll, more than 60% of active-duty servicemen believe the US is either "somewhat" or "very" likely to succeed in Iraq. But less than 20% of them think "the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops" in 2 years or less. That suggests that a sizable number of the troops on the ground think that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would amount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Imagine if a soldier, marine, or guardsman were to express that opinion to Obama's face, in public, on the ground in Iraq.

Yeah, we couldn't have that happen, could we?

New Mexico Superdelegates Ignoring Majority

It's interesting to observe as one New Mexico Democratic superdelegate after another comes out in support for Senator Barack Obama (subscriotion). What is interesting about it is that the majority of New Mexicans voting in the record turnout state caucus voted for Senator Hillary Clinton.

New Mexico Democratic Party Chairman Brian Colón on Saturday threw his support behind Barack Obama's presidential bid - the 4th New Mexico superdelegate to endorse the U.S. Senator from Illinois.

"He really does represent what the youth in this country want to see in terms of the direction of this country," said the 38-year-old Colon, one of the youngest state party chairs in the nation.

Colon's decision capped months of heavy lobbying by backers of both Obama and his opponent, Hillary Clinton: Colon told the Journal he's received hundreds of phone calls and "thousands" of e-mails since New Mexico's Feb. 5 Democratic presidential caucus on Feb. 5, which Clinton won by a sliver.

Hmm, I believe that "sliver" is called a majority. I wonder what message this sends to that majority?

Second Soros Funded Organization Appears

Two George Soros funded organizations land in New Mexico in the same month. Coincidence? Uh, I don't think so. Now, before you think I've gone all black helicopter on you, let just look at the facts.

We're a battleground state. We're a battleground in the Presidential race, and we're a battleground for at least two Congressional seats and one Senate seat. There is a lot at stake here. And, if you're a businessman, on either side of the aisle, there is no better state in which to make a political investment. The odds are in your favor. So, I don't blame George Soros for choosing the Land of Enchantment for his playground.

I just don't think much of his tactics.

Obama is supposedly the candidate of "change." Clinton is well a Clinton. The two are quickly becoming caricatures of what most people despise about politics, outright lies and empty promises.



This all reeks of politics as usual. And, George Soros is adding the icing to the cake by launching, albeit through a proxy, an attack ad on a candidate in a fight that hasn't actually begun. Then to top it all off, the organization to which he has given millions, launches the attack based on the same set of lies and purposeful misrepresentation that the Democratic National Committee has been trying to seed with the American public.

But, hey don't take my word for it. Watch the latest video to be launched by MoveOn.org:



Now read the truth from a truly non-partisan source:

The clear implication is that if McCain is elected, we can expect to be battling in Iraq for many decades to come. But the admakers cut off the rest of McCain's response, which provides some badly needed context:

McCain, town hall meeting, Jan. 3: Maybe a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world.

The DNC ad doesn't mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence. And the text of the ad paired with images of Iraq under siege leave a clear impression that McCain proposes to allow a century more of war, with U.S. involvement. That's not what he said, in New Hampshire or in other settings when he's been asked about it.

Pretty convenient to leave out the context, isn't it? It's also pretty sad. If they want to attack Senator McCain, they should do so on the facts. Instead, Soros & Co. show a disturbing commitment to purposely misleading the public.

Which, conveniently brings us full circle back to beginning of this post. I don't have a problem with George Soros trying to influence the outcome of New Mexico politics - that's just the way the game is played. I do have a problem with his tactics - lies and distortions.

After my last Soros post, I received a couple of nice notes from New Mexico Independent's paid contributors. As a result of those communications, I feel I should set the record straight. I don't judge any of those folks for taking a stipend. I don't have a problem with the left leaning tendencies of the majority of the contributors. I don't even have any problem with most of their views, despite the fact that they are contrary to my own. I believe we are all contributing to a discussion.

However, to pretend this site just accidentally in a non-partisan way happened to bring several left-leaning bloggers under one banner is not exactly being truthful. As to those who have commented that I'm listed on the blogroll... Yes, I've been aware of that from the get go. I'm also listed on the blogrolls of Democracy for New Mexico and State Senator Dede Feldman's blog. Are you going to tell me those are also non-partisan sites?

There is nothing wrong with being partisan. A partisan system is what makes our government work. It's all part of checks and balances. It is the failure to disclose that is the problem here.

Do you think it is just an oversight that MoveOn.org's latest ad is not analyzed on this "independent" site for what it is. Now, in all fairness, after my last Soros post I did receive an offer to submit articles to New Mexico Independent for consideration (as proof that they're a truly unbiased site).

So, I'll be happy to submit this one for publication. Please just let me know where to pick up my $1,500 stipend.