Contact
Subscribe
Both guv candidates would cut exempt jobs
Susana Martinez (left, courtesy photo) and Diane Denish (photo by Heath Haussamen)
No matter who is elected governor in November, expect the number of exempt or “political” appointees working in state government to drop significantly. Both candidates also plan other steps to reduce the state payroll.
In addition to “immediately” reducing the number of exempt jobs to get rid of positions that were “created purely as political patronage,” Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez said she would restore fiscal health to state government by eliminating the “roughly 3,200” currently vacant positions that are funded in the state budget. She also said she would prefer to cut other jobs through attrition.
Democratic candidate Diane Denish said she would cut the number of exempt jobs back to pre-2003 levels, which would include reducing the number of cabinet secretaries. She said she would offer classified employees one-time buyouts to reduce the state payroll, and would also work with the Legislature to try to close the grandfathering loophole in the recently enacted law that bans “double dipping.”
The context? Lawmakers and Gov. Bill Richardson have already cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the state budget and raised taxes to cover massive deficits. Earlier this week, the chairman of the Legislative Finance Committee said the state is currently facing an $80 million shortfall for the fiscal year that began July 1.That situation could improve or worsen as the year progresses.
For Martinez, this isn’t just a matter of covering deficits. She has said she wants to trim government beyond what’s necessary to balance the budget so the state can also reduce taxes.
With that as the backdrop, here’s the question I asked the gubernatorial candidates:
“Will job cuts be necessary to restore fiscal health to state government? Why or why not? If you plan to cut jobs, how many would you cut, and what specific jobs would you cut? If you don’t believe job cuts are necessary, what specific steps would you take instead to restore fiscal health to state government?”
The responses:
Susana Martinez
“The Richardson/Denish administration has grown government by over 50 percent. We are now facing a massive budget deficit, forcing us to choose between reducing spending or raising taxes. Raising taxes will only further hurt our economy, so I am committed to reducing spending to get our financial house in order. However, I believe we can trim state government down to size without widespread job cuts.
“There are now almost 25 state employees for every 1,000 New Mexicans, which far exceeds the national average of 14 per 1,000. And this massive expansion of government spending has failed, resulting in the loss of nearly 50,000 New Mexico jobs, a school system that fails too many children, rampant corruption and widespread illegal immigration. While this does not mean we need to hand out pink slips to government workers, it does mean that state government must be more efficient, accountable and effective at producing results for taxpayers.
“The first jobs I would eliminate is the roughly 3,200 vacant positions that are funded in our budget. Next, I would reduce the number of political appointees that has grown under the Richardson/Denish administration. Many of these positions are unnecessary and seem to have been created purely as political patronage. These will be immediately eliminated. Beyond that, my preference would be to realize identified efficiencies through attrition, rather than through the elimination of existing positions.
“Like every New Mexico family cutting back in these tough times and living within their means, my administration will ensure state government does the same and focuses on ways to make government work better, not make it bigger, while funding critical priorities such as education and public safety.”
Diane Denish
“Several months ago, my first campaign announcement was a detailed plan to save taxpayers $450 million over the next five years through a series of reforms and efficiencies and without cutting one dime from education or health care. Government simply must tighten its belt while also maintaining high standards of service for our state’s citizens. Given the news this week that the projected budget shortfall is $80 million, my reform plan would more than cover the deficit we face.
“Two key pieces of this plan involve reducing the size of government. First, I would reduce the number of political appointees to pre-2003 authorized levels, including reducing the number of cabinet secretaries. This would save the state about $8.8 million a year. Second, I would offer classified state employees a voluntary one-time buyout based on their years of service. The voluntary buyout is projected to save anywhere between $24 million and $33 million a year.
“These ideas were part of a larger plan that included greater use of video conferencing to cut down on employee travel costs, reducing the state’s car fleet, instituting a government accountability office to root out fraud and abuse, and reforming the capital outlay system. In addition to these ideas, I would work with the Legislature to close the grandfather loophole in the double dipping law. We cannot afford to pay employees twice, and the sooner we can require double dippers to make a choice between a salary or their pension the better.”
You can find Denish’s plan to save $450 million over five years by clicking here.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
9 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Susana wants to cut spending without job cuts, then she complains that there are too many employed by the state. She wants to use “attrition” and indiscriminately cut the 3200 vacant jobs. That is an extremely static and short sighted point of view as vital positions must be created to keep this state up to date technologically. The old obsolete positions are the ones Denish would be trying to buy out with discrimination. Nothing very specific about which budget cuts Susana will make.
How is the loss of 50,000 jobs related to the size of state government? The national and world economy is in the toilet due to national Republican policies. How does the actual “size” of state government cause school failure per se?
History shows that both sides, Democratic and Republican, are rampantly corrupt. The Democrats just happen to be in power right now.
Illegal immigration is basically unrelated to state government except for law enforcement. If this state goes the way of AZ with (failed) drug warrior Susana at the helm, the people will be living under an authoritarian prison proliferating machine.
I suspect that “… an officer of the legislature who investigates complaints about actions of executive branch agencies of the state and county governments” would be called “a violation” of separation of powers under NM Constitution and would therefore require constitutional amendment. That said, yes it would be good to have that kind of office in New Mexico.
The Lt. Governor’s prime function as a so-called ombudsman is simply directing citizen’s complaints to the proper state agency and “to resolve problems between state agencies and constituents in an effective and professional manner.” To see a “true” ombudsman, see the Hawaii ombudsman website
http://www.ombudsman.hawaii.gov/about-us
It would be good to have this kind of office in New Mexico
Hemingway,
It isn’t a joke; you are at least partially correct in writing; the Lieutenant Governor’s position under the New Mexico constitution is responsible for only one thing: to serve as the president of the Senate! There are other responsibilities; for one, she is supposed to be our ombudsman; an immensity important but neglected responsibility .
To the extent that you are correct, you are only correct under “the law”; the lowest standard of conduct among civilized people. There are those who believe not only in higher standards of conduct than the law, but further, that those standards apply (albeit, not in a court of law) to politicians and public servants and anyone else who holds the public TRUST.
I suspect that if you could get Diane Denish to even acknowledge the question, she would aver that she holds herself personally accountable to a higher standard of conduct than the law; an ethical standard of conduct for example.
Under any meaningfully higher standard of conduct, higher than “the Law” she had an obligation to stand up and declare war on corruption and incompetence in state government. She had an obligation to stand up for what she believed in.
With only a very few exceptions, she did not. She may have shown up for a battle or two, but she was a no-show in the war. Do you really suppose that if, upon election, she intended to throw out all the corrupt and incompetent (Democratic) good ol’ boys, that she would have been selected as the candidate, by the Democratic Party leadership?
The joke is the Lieutenant Governor’s position under the New Mexico constitution is responsible for only one thing: to serve as the president of the Senate! I doubt if Governor Richardson consulted Ms. Denish in any matter!
It is probably unrealistic to ask either candidate to identify by name, which jobs they try to eliminate. It would be rash to make decisions in the absence of ALL of the facts.
The person we should be looking for is the one who will describe the transparent process by which it will be determined which position should be kept or eliminated. Do we really want another 59, or 590, or 5900 state government positions to “disappear” with no record of what happened?
Which candidate promises state government that is transparently accountable to the people? What is their plan to fold stakeholders into the process? Which of them is willing to begin robust webcasting in the executive branch?
rtmtdem, I totally agree with you. We need to elect someone who can display the financial responsibility that the Richardson/Denish/Lujan administration has. The RailRunner, paper ballots, rebate checks we could not afford to dole out, inexperienced political appointees with inflated salaries, the governors personal plane at taxpayers expense, etc., etc., etc.
Not to mention pay-to-play schemes.
If Denish claims that she was not aware of any of these “screw-the-taxpayer” initiatives, then she wasn’t paying attention.
What a joke.
It’s spelled “Susana”. Anyway, it seems they are both ready to cut unnecessary cabinet secretaries, combine departments, and reduce the size of government bureaucrats and agencies without raising taxes. What’s not to like? Flip a coin and vote.
Susanna doesn’t realize that the 3200 vacant jobs are not in the budget this year therefore no savings will occur from that tactic. I suggest Susanna learn about the budget process before she latches onto ideas that have no merit. So far Susanna is very vague about her plan other than employee reduction. Susanna should be more forthcoming about which taxes she would cut or reduce so the voters will know who will be raking in the dough if she gets into office.