Contact
Telling the truth about budgets
Susana Martinez (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
Susana Martinez continues to consistently claim that state government has grown by 50 percent (sometimes she says 54 percent) during the last 7.5 years. Her allegation about state government is simply not true, and it’s not even close.
Oh, it could be twisted into being kinda true, if you ignore things like inflation and population growth, and you cherry pick the years you want to use. Of course, if you ignore inflation and population, Susana grew her own piece of government by 70 percent in the same time frame — 16 percent more than she alleges the state grew. Is that what she means?
She flat out says, over and over, that New Mexico government has grown by 50 percent or 54 percent, using the present tense. She said it twice in the education debate, and has said it for months. The lie is making its way around GOP letters to the editor, indicating that both Susana and the party are trying very hard to repeat it enough that they hope no one will challenge it. The Republican Party has even included it in press releases.
Since Susana has a tendency to deny that she ever made a claim when she’s challenged on it, here’s video evidence: Go to 0:28 of this YouTube video of Susana praising Sarah Palin when Palin endorsed Susana in the Republican primary, here. The exact quote from Susana is that “Sarah Palin understands how New Mexico has grown government by over 50 percent and that is unacceptable.” She uses present tense, doesn’t qualify it, and is trying to trick New Mexicans into thinking that government is bigger than it was in the last Republican administration.
Just. Not. True. Here are the real statistics about state budgets, population growth and inflation. With sources and methodology.
Population
The U.S. Census Bureau has made population estimates from 2003-2009, using July 1 each year – in sync with our fiscal years in New Mexico. During that time New Mexico grew from 1,867,909 to 2,009,671, a 7.589 percent population growth over six years (1.265 percent annually). U.S. Census data for 2009 is here. Census numbers for 2000-2008 (including, obviously, July 1, 2003), can be found here.
Carter Bundy
We’ll have 2010 census data hopefully by the end of the year, but to measure population growth during the eight fiscal years of the current administration, we’ll have to extrapolate through the end of this fiscal year. No one thinks we’re shrinking, so in the absence of hard data, assume the same annual growth rate of 1.265 percent. That means an estimate of 2,060,832 by the end of this fiscal year. If someone has a better estimate, I’d be happy to hear it, but absent that, this seems pretty fair. That’s a 10.328 percent population growth in these eight fiscal years.
Inflation
If you take self-proclaimed libertarian, anti-government growth Republican Gary Johnson’s last fiscal year (FY ’03) budget of $3.897 billion and factor in CPI (see below), it is $4.736 billion today (for those who want to do the math themselves, take $3.897 and multiply by 1.019 for the first year, then multiply that number by 1.033, and so on).
The most common measure for inflation is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index-Urban (often used even in relatively rural states). For reasons described below, this understates the real increase in government costs, but let’s be conservative and use this lower CPI-U number.
The below numbers are on a calendar year basis, so the eight year period of Jan. 1, 2003 to Jan. 1, 2011 doesn’t quite match our fiscal years. But fortuitously, the 2003 inflation rate and the current rate for 2010 (through June) are within a tenth of a point of each other, so it seems fair to use that number for the remainder of the administration. Again, if someone has better numbers for inflation or something more up-to-date than the end of June 2010, by all means say so.
Here is the link for annual inflation for the last eight years, from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Detailed Report of June 2010 (see Table 26 at page 81). For those sane people who don’t feel like perusing the entire document, here are the annual inflation rates:
- 2003: 1.9 percent
- 2004: 3.3 percent
- 2005: 3.4 percent
- 2006: 2.5 percent
- 2007: 4.1 percent
- 2008: 0.1 percent
- 2009: 2.7 percent
- 2010: 1.8 percent (through June, annualized number)
Then simply account for the above-detailed population growth of 10.328 percent (multiply $4.736 by 1.10328), and the much longed-for lean, mean Johnson Republican machine budget, accounting for inflation and population, is $5.225 billion today.
How does that compare to our “big spending” budget today? Republican Johnson’s budget is actually BIGGER. The state’s FY ’11 budget was $5.343 billion. See page 6 of the appropriations section of the Legislative Finance Committee’s 2010 highlights here. The most recent $150 million in cuts puts it right around $5.193 billion — LOWER than the Johnson administration. Yes, accounting for simple inflation and population, the last budget of this administration is smaller than the last Republican budget.
What about the feds?
Heath deserves praise for raising an issue that the next governor and Legislature will have to grapple with: federal help for the state. The feds are adding several hundred million dollars to keep the state going in FY ’11, so if those dollars are included, state expenditures were closer to $5.604 billion (according to Heath’s research from the LFC) before the most recent $150 million in cuts. Heath’s column is here.
After the cuts, even including all federal spending replacing state spending, total state expenditures are $5.454 billion. That’s 4.283 percent higher than Johnson’s last year, or almost exactly half a percent growth per year — even counting Heath’s full federal numbers.
Generous assumptions
I’ve been very conservative in my assumptions, and generous to Republicans Susana and Gary, in one important way: I used CPI for inflation, even though it’s not a big secret that medical inflation is far higher than regular CPI. Since a big chunk of the state budget is devoted to health care (think coverage for poor children, high-risk people, and small businesses), if we’d adjusted the FY ’03 budget for the real increase in costs associated with state expenditures, Gary’s budget would almost certainly have been larger than the FY ’11 budget even with federal dollars counted. Several experts at a recent LFC meeting estimated medical inflation to have been roughly 9 percent over the last few years — three to five times higher than CPI most years.
Since parsing out medical inflation and applying it to those parts of the budget going to health care is something requiring a lot more time, health expertise and accounting analysis than most anyone has, I’ll stick with the more conservative estimate of inflation and call the FY ’03 and FY ’11 budgets roughly a draw. But more thorough inflation analysis would show state government smaller today than at the end of the last Republican administration.
Either way
Susana is saying state spending is out of control, when it’s virtually identical to — or lower than — the budget that ended 8 years of libertarian Republican leadership.
Whether you count federal help or not, and whether you use CPI-U for inflation or do a more detailed application of real cost increases, the state budget is either a fraction smaller now than under Gary Johnson or a fraction bigger. The margin is minuscule no matter what numbers you use.
And don’t blame the 90s legislature or state employees for the last Republican administration — Johnson not only had veto power that he used regularly, he had control over the entire executive personnel system, and for his last term, no unions.
Seriously?
So Susana’s big complaint and reason to elect another Republican administration is… a flat budget?
That whole story — that state government overall has stayed flat while Susana’s cushy slice of it grew — is not nearly enough to fire up Susana’s Republican base. In fact, quite the opposite — they’d be disappointed to know that the present administration, partly due to the ongoing national economic crisis, but also largely due to massive Democratic tax cuts, is as thrifty or thriftier than both an icon of the national libertarian movement and the current GOP gubernatorial nominee. To motivate those who want to believe that Republicans magically run a tighter ship of state, Susana and her political consultants have told and re-told the “50 percent” story to enrage voters and scapegoat state and educational employees.
Does she know?
Would it change Susana’s position if she knew that New Mexico was 49th in the country in teacher salaries at the beginning of the current administration, and bringing us into the 30s in that category accounted for hundreds of millions of dollars? Does she want to slash teacher salaries further (they’ve already been hit) and work our way back down to Mississippi pay levels? If so, say so. How does that square with recruiting, retaining and rewarding great teachers?
Or should we further decimate our prison staffing? How’s that working for Arizona, where murderers wire-clipped their way out of a cheap private prison on their way to kill again in Santa Rosa?
Who would really notice if the poorest kids in the state — many of whom live in Doña Ana County — were cut out of Medicaid? Right?
Does Susana even know that over 75 percent of our budget goes directly to K-12 education, higher ed, and Medicaid? Which of those will she cut? All of them? None? OK, Does she realize that the remaining 24 percent includes things like corrections, the judicial system, and law enforcement? The remaining 24 percent includes help for small businesses and high risk individuals’ health care? That it includes CYFD, which both helps vulnerable children and protects society from the kids who have turned violent?
Does she want to underfund our roads and leave our infrastructure to rot, as Republican Tim Pawlenty did for years in Minnesota, right here in New Mexico? These aren’t scare tactics, these are real consequences of politicians not understanding the important role government plays in keeping us safe.
All the cuts we’ve endured in the last few years have come at exactly the same time that our citizens are relying more than ever on state services. When jobs are scarce, more people than ever turn to our universities and community colleges for training. Unemployment lines are around the block. There are more poor kids losing private health insurance every week. Tough times, sadly, tend to put more demands on our police, judiciary, and correctional systems.
Demands for many state services are known as “counter-cyclical.” That is, when the economy goes down, the public’s need for help goes up. Susana’s and the Republican Party’s cold attempts to blame the effects of a national and worldwide recession on public servants are wrong.
Not ready for prime time
This isn’t an academic quibble. If Susana thinks we’re 50 percent bigger than under Gary, that means she thinks there’s 50 percent fat to cut to get back to Gary’s number. Problem is, we’re already there — or lower. Our next governor has to understand the budget, what’s in it, and where it can be tightened without jeopardizing public safety, health, education or infrastructure.
If Susana starts out misunderstanding the state budget by a billion or more dollars, that’s a real problem regardless of your party affiliation. Further, if Susana thinks that Dems raise taxes, she has the wrong state and the wrong party. This administration has slashed taxes well below the levels of Susana’s Republican Party, much to the disappointment of many education, health care and public safety advocates.
If Susana really thinks we’ve grown 50 percent or had a net increase in taxes, she doesn’t know much about New Mexico state budgets and isn’t ready for prime time. If she knows better but keeps up the deceit for political gain, well, shame on her for scapegoating teachers, corrections officers, nurses, police and the many other public servants who are doing more than ever with less than we’ve had in decades.
Maybe Susana really didn’t understand our budget, its size, and what it funds until now, but going forward, she can’t plead ignorance. She’s even free to have her own team of Texas Republican Swift-boat donors and political operatives check sources and methodology. Lord knows they have the money. It seems a bit wonkish but it’s all easily confirmed by a calculator and access to official websites and budgets.
State government is the same size as it was 8 years ago, period. In some key ways (specifically, number of state employees per capita) it’s actually significantly smaller. But if Susana and her Republican Party keep telling the 50 percent bloat fable, well, after their dissembling on vouchers, we’re going to have a bit of a pattern emerging.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.
20 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mr. Bundy, I admire and respect your honesty about your biases and your job, I would not attack you for doing your job. You are a paid advocate for your union, and that is all well and good and yu should be doing what you are doing. But, I would contend that the Richardson/Denish administration has grown government since taking power in 2003. The expenditures grew from $3.8 billion to $6.0 billion from 2003 to 2008. Five years and a 58% increase in expenditures. That’s not “cherry picking” anymore than you chosing different years and stating a % growth over a differnt period. They are just numbers, but this is the period when Richardson/Demish went wild with spending our money. Now, if we are much better off for it, tell me how? Has our competitve place in America improved for the additonal monies spent over and above the inflation and popualtion growth (and I would also argue that government, like businesses need ever improving productivity, not just lock-step increases in that equation)? I see NM mired in the same 48-49th place it started as 2003 began. Are more students graduating (per capita) from our high schools and universities? Is our medical care greatly improved? Can you get things done at MVD much quicker than ever before? I realize cuts have been made in government the last two years. But remember we still have a deficit to find, and the base of government, grown since 2003, has not been greatly cut. Thus the machine built since 2003 is still in place ready to gobble more money.
Interesting that you chose to include some of Gary’s years in there
Carter, if Dr. J did as I did, the numbers avaliable on the site are what he included. There was no intention one way or another. Still looks like tremendous growth that is hard to explain with population growth and CPI.
Thanks to everyone for some of the more substantive responses. Dr. J, we agree on the numbers, but you’ve done what Susana does: cherry-picked years and ignored inflation and population growth. Of course those have to be counted. Otherwise, we could make the claim that we’re far richer than smaller states like Delaware (we’re not–you have to measure per capita) or that standards of living have about doubled in the last two decades (they haven’t–you have to take inflation into account). That’s about as basic a standard as there is for measuring any kind of growth. And yes, mi amigo, I do understand how you and Susana arrive at your numbers. There’s just not an economic analyst in the world who would ignore inflation and population.
Interesting that you chose to include some of Gary’s years in there, because the jump from FY ’01-FY ’02 was 9.3%. If I were playing with statistics the way you and Susana are, I could say “the Republicans put us on pace for a 74.4% growth of government over 8 years”. But that would be cherry-picking years and ignoring inflation and population. It’s a cute political game, but it has nothing to do with reality.
Getting it right is important, because Susana isn’t asking to take the reins of the FY ’09 budget, and she’s not running for governor of a state with 1.8 million people. If she wins, she inherits the FY ’11 budget, and she has to govern a state of over 2 million people. Knowing the real size of the budget really does matter.
MJM raises some good points about the private sector and asks good questions about the impact of the recession on public sector work. The public sector is down anywhere from 10%-20%, depending on the entity. That is probably larger than the impact felt by many in the private sector. In the case of larger employers like the state and Albuquerque, so far the force reductions have all been done by hiring freezes, because with larger employers you have enough turnover each month (between 100-200 a month in the state) that you can shrink fairly rapidly. Plus, governments usually have a bit more lead time than some private employers in calculating revenue problems, meaning that the cuts don’t have to be quite as quick. But make no mistake, the public sector has been hit as hard or harder than the private sector in New Mexico when it comes to loss of revenue and staff.
CrucesVaquero, government is not a business. If it were, they would try to maximize revenue by taxing all of us more (we’re well on the left side of the Laffer Curve by any economist’s measure, even for the very richest Americans, so tax increases would still easily generate more revenue). Instead, the current Dem legislature and Dem administration have given up revenue in the form of massive tax cuts. Over the last 8 years, even counting last year’s increases, taxes have been slashed by huge amounts (particularly personal income tax and capital gains). There are many things business can do that government simply cannot, and vice versa. Government could cut costs by eliminating police, fire, teachers, corrections officers, parks, roads, and many other things, and thereby turn a “profit”, but most New Mexicans like having good roads, public safety, and recreational opportunities. And the private sector simply can’t/won’t/shouldn’t be in at least some parts of those industries.
John Fremont, great points. Prioritization becomes even more critical in tough times, and I don’t envy any legislator or the next governor in deciding what gets cut and what doesn’t, especially after the amount of cuts already made.
For the many comments questioning my objectivity, you’re right–it’s true that I don’t think government is intrinsically evil, and I think the main things it provides, including education, public safety, health care for small businesses and poor kids, basic infrastructure, clean water, wastewater disposal, etc. are pretty great things. And yes, I work for a union made up of public sector nurses, corrections officers, wastewater employees, university librarians, and others who provide all the services most people take for granted. But I’m completely transparent about that, I believe in what I do, and I’ve provided direct links to some quality data and explained my methodology in excruciating detail, even going so far as to explain how to calculate inflation and population numbers. If someone has better numbers or methodology, please feel free to offer them up. If someone doesn’t understand how inflation and population are related to budgets, well, there’s probably not a lot more to debate. Just be consistent and blast Gary and Susana for budgets that are thousands of times bigger than those of governors of 98 years ago.
one more thing….everyone likes to bash the Dems for tax, spend, big government, but we all forget that President Bush had the largest expansion of government spending in his term than in any previous presidency. Independents and reasonable Republicans should not be bamboozled again with the small government rhetoric that our friends the Republicans shout from the mountain tops about. C’mon Susanna we aren’t as unsophisticated as you might think– and you are better than that.
Nice job Bundy! It’s obvious that for some of the people commenting on your piece, facts will never be enough to help them with their myopic view.
Congrats! You snatched the truth from the jaws of deceit and you should be proud.
TerrySchleder, do the math on these numbers:
Fiscal Year General Fund Budgeted General Fund Actual
2000-2001 $3,543,300,000
2001-2002 $3,870,430,000
2002-2003 $3,895,800,000
2003-2004 $4,119,800,000
2004-2005 $4,406,400,000
2005-2006 $4,707,400,000
2006-2007 $5,115,100,000
2007-2008 $6,015,000,000
2008-2009 $5,719,000,000 $*
*Actual expenditure data is not yet available for Fiscal Year 2009
Do you still think that government hasn’t grown under Richardson/Denish? Another hint, why would the largest, most powerful, and richest government employee union in the state want you to think government hasn’t grown, while endorsing the candidate that supposedly hasn’t provided the job growth they are in business to provide their members? Is that logical?
Good article by Bundy. While he has focused on Martinez, and previoiusly endorsed Denish, what he fails to state is that neither candidate seems to have a full appreciation for the real budget morass in which the state finds itself. Neither candidate will support raising taxes, but neither candidate will cut eduction budgets nor medicaid which, as Bundy points out, is 75% of the budget. While it is true that budgets have been cut considerably in the past couple of years, it was done without establishing priorities … and we’re in a position where the leadership of this state is going to have to identify priorities – what is important. There are comments on this article that accurately reflect that government has a role to play … to protect and defend, to facilitate commerce with connective infrastructure (roads, bridges). Should safe bridges trump smooth roads or vice versa? Should smooth roads trump a new community center? When both candidates state they’ll put more money into the class room – how will they do that (they’ll need to change the formula) and what will they sacrifice to make that happen. So – what will they cut? What are the priorities? What things must be placed on the altar of streamlining goverment and helping to keep funds IN the economy to grow the state and make it stronger … which will drive more funds into the state coffers.
Mr. Bundy your position is well thought out, but a few things must be kept in perspective. The same inflation rates and other costs that you have outlined have had a similar impact on the private sector. Many private sector employers and employees have had to take either reduced pay or benefits or both during the ongoing recession. Some budgets have been reduced for state and local government impacting employees to be sure. But sir do you think those impacts have been as bad on public sector employees relative to the private sector? Have the lay off’s in the public sector been as bad as the private sector? (I am only talking about NM). NM tax revenue is continuing to show modest declines. Do you propose then that we raise taxes on higher income individuals in NM? What rate do you think is fair? Do you think raising taxes in these brackets will raise revenues? What makes you think this?
For the record I was a union member for a period of time, and have also worked in both the private and public sector.
I would suggest those who want to believe Mr. Bundy, that government has not grown under Richardson-Denish, should look here at the actual expenditures over the last decade:
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/New_Mexico_state_budget
So Dr. J can’t do his own math, and the Vaquero & Ksparks hate unions. Ho-hum. Ignorance is bliss.
But show me a Republican who’ll willingly live without his government when he needs to, say, flush his toilet into a public sewer, cross a bridge, stop a fire, get an ambulance, take his kids to school or cash his Social Security check and I’ll gladly pay for a Math tutor. And a History lesson, to boot.
Oh, you’re welcome for the 40-hour work week and the prohibition of child labor, brought to you by strong unions & fair government. (Or perhaps you long for the good old days?)
Terry
Mr. Bundy, “facts” in politics are nothing like facts in science, engineering, economics/finance, etc. (where I would welcome an objective discussion on that basis). “Facts” in politics are usually half-truths colored by partisan opinions to resemble actual facts, but are approached on a partisan basis seeking to further a political agenda. This is not objective analysis. You look at two parameters, inflation and population growth, and one starting point, Johnson’s last state budget, and presto-chango you aquit Richardson/Denish from any growth at all in government. Sorry, but this is much more complicated than your simplistic “equation”.
You admit yourself that: “Oh, it could be twisted into being kinda true, if you ignore things like inflation and population growth, and you cherry pick the years you want to use”. What I am asking for is an objective analysis by a neutral person without a partisan political agenda who knows and fully understands the “facts” behind the Martinez claim (which you yourself admit you don’t) and the “facts” in yours. One-sided, partisan analysis of alleged “facts” is what we see daily in the various attack ads by the candidates and their rich surrogates on their opponents, on both sides of the political spectrum, and it does nothing to further the understanding of people, like myself, who are still very much undecided about who to vote for for Guv since I simply don’t trust partisan operatives. You are in effect asking me to trust you and your “facts” without any other info or objective facts, when my gut tells me NM is and has been in a terrible shape for the last 8 years on most ALL fronts. It is just illogical to praise the current government as a model of fiscal responsibility and focusing on citizens’ interests when the results are diametrically opposed to such a concluson. Don’t you see these Emporers’ have no clothes?
Thanks Hemmingway for the education on unions. I learned all that at home when my dad and grandpa were blue collar union members too.
That’s the way they USED to be. Now, unions are controlled by greedy bosses demanding more and more from tax payers.
There USED to be a day when public sector employees were paid less than private sector. So unions helped make things more equitable. Nowadays, all unions want is their COLA and their retirement and their “rights” while the rest of us get fleeced.
I think we should ask all the publicly traded companies all over America to restate their earnings to today’s dollars using CPI. Because surely we cannot make comparisons between years of balance sheets without computing CPI. Using CPI as your basis for justifying government growth is about the most laughable thing I’ve read lately.
So Mr. Bundy, since you’re playing Mr. Economist now, please tell all us readers how you think productivity plays in all of this? (Just wanted to throw another “big word” at you to see if you can figure it out). The private sector gets more productive each year but government just keeps doing the same things the old way and we tax payers never see the value. Discuss.
This is why I left the Democrats this year for once and for all!! The greed is sickening, it really is.
Inflation plus population growth plus Gary Johnson equals the type of spending we’ve seen from 2003 to present that doesn’t represent a significant increase in the size of the state government? Really?
Primitive unions and guilds, of carpenters and cordwainers, cabinet makers and cobblers played a significant role in the struggle for American independence.
I “hate” union bashing! Obviously some people have no idea about the advantages of unions. I guess ignorance is bliss. Unions go back to earliest part of our history. Here is an excellent article on the positive effects of unions.
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp143/
I’m disappointed in Dr. J in particular, who often posts here and often does so substantively. There’s a reason I gave everyone links to the Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics site, and explained my methodology step-by-step: to ensure that no one has to take my word for it. Unions are the scapegoat du jour for Beck and his followers, so I wanted to make sure the column was transparent and based entirely on verifiable facts.
The only substantive critique so far is that Dems oppose TABOR. Unfortunately, the person raising that issue seems unfamiliar with Colorado’s history, where most Republicans ended up opposing it as well. The TABOR formula issue is addressed by my pointing out that CPI-U doesn’t capture the real increases in costs for medical care. The main reasons to oppose TABOR are that CPI-U understates inflation for states, and that, depending on the state, the populations served by the state (for example, school-aged children) may or may not be growing at the same rate as the population generally. Colorado’s version had particularly non-sensical “ratchet-down” provisions that helped make opposition to TABOR a bi-partisan affair. The support for freezing TABOR five years ago came from unions, Dems, and educators, but also from the chamber of commerce, the CO bankers’ association, and Republican leadership, past and current.
I’m sure there will be plenty more ad hominem attacks, and that’s OK. But each one strengthens the case that substantively, government now is the same size as in FY ’03. It doesn’t fit the GOP narrative, but sometimes it’s OK to think for oneself instead of following a party line.
The authors association with AFSCME is all I need to know to discredit his writing. He knows that his employer and his powers are limited with a Republican administration because as CrucesVaquero amply stated, “Labor Unions – purveyors of generational theft since 1917″ is the way we feel about organized labor.
Leave it to a union organizer (one step below “community organizer” in my book) to try to justify to the people why inflation should justify the growth of government. Remember TABOR in Colorado? You all gutted it because even with inflation plus population growth, you people weren’t happy! You wanted bigger government above and beyond that and that’s what happened when Democrats got elected.
So Susana doesn’t say “nominal” instead of “real”……big fat hairy deal. You think the general voting public understands basic economic terms like that? Of course they don’t (partly because NEA/AFT members in this state are partly responsible for keeping our kids dumb — i.e, a mid 50% graduation rate, but I digress).
Did my household income go up over 50% in 8 years? No and why is that? Oh, that’s right, I’m not a public sector employee who thinks I’m entitled to COLA increases regardless of whether or not I earned it! Oh, and I don’t get to retire in my mid 50′s and live off the government for the rest of my life either.
The point that We the People are making is what are we getting for our money? Ever heard of the term VALUE? We spend more on education but are we getting results? NO!
So thanks, union guy. My kids are poorer each day because of people like you.
Labor Unions – purveyors of generational theft since 1917
Why of course we can trust a union lobbyist to tell us “the truth”, and that Richardson reduced government in NM, so nothing to see here, move along…. Maybe Richardson also cleaned up government from corruption, reduced cabinet secretaries and staffs, and was very frugal on his personal expedictures as well. We must all be laboring under misconceptions of how wonderful life has been the last 8 years of Richardson-Denish’s regime, NOT.
Mr. Bundy has hit the nail on head – excellent commentary on Ms. Martinez’s tall tales!