2010 was a year of change in NM and DC
The Democratic wave that carried Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 was countered in 2010 by a GOP wave that led to lots of Republicans being elected in New Mexico and Washington.
One thing that’s notable about NMPolitics.net’s top 10 stories of 2010 is that a number of them are policy related. Even in an election year, politicians in Santa Fe and Washington still found a way to get some things done.
Read on for NMPolitics.net’s rankings of the top 10 political and government stories of 2010.
Honorable mention: Cap and trade
Despite Democratic control of Congress, Washington failed to approve a cap-and-trade bill to reduce carbon emissions. His vote for the doomed legislation in 2009 may have helped ensure that U.S. Rep. Harry Teague’s time in Congress was short.
But New Mexico and the West moved forward with their own efforts to reduce carbon emissions in 2010.
The N.M. Environmental Improvement Board approved a state carbon pollution reduction program earlier this month. The unique state program was applauded by environmentalists, fought by the industries it affects, and criticized by many as something that should be done by Washington, not individual states that must compete for business with their neighbors.
Meanwhile, thanks to voters in California, the Western Climate Initiative, of which New Mexico is a part, stayed alive. The EIB’s vote earlier this month also approved New Mexico’s participation in the regional cap-and-trade system starting in 2012, but California’s participation was necessary if the initiative was to have an impact.
The initiative is on shaky ground. Though several governors joined the partnership, only California and New Mexico have enacted rules that actually allow them to participate. And incoming N.M. Gov. Susana Martinez wants to reverse the EIB’s vote. Whether she can do that is unclear.
10: The new Obama
Between Obama’s tax compromise with Republicans; the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; a new nuclear arms pact with Russia; and a bill to give health benefits to 9/11 responders, the lame duck session of Congress that just ended was arguably the most productive in decades.
Obama said after his party was shellacked in November that he was largely to blame for not delivering on his promise of bipartisan governance and cooperation. He made efforts to do things differently during the lame duck session. Many Democrats, including those from New Mexico, were upset with Obama’s tax compromise.
But some have argued that the compromise opened the door for the lame-duck approval of other legislation that had been sought by Democrats.
Time will tell if the new Obama can continue to be this productive.
9: Wilderness bill fails
The Organ Mountains (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
Many in the Las Cruces area have been pushing for years to have the Organ Mountains and other land in Doña Ana County designated as wilderness – the highest level of protection from the federal government.
With the election of Teague, a Democrat, to represent the 2nd Congressional District in 2008, many believed the chances for passage of such legislation were greatly improved.
But Teague’s tenure is coming to an end without a wilderness bill passing. He never announced support for or opposition to the legislation, or said what he wanted such a bill to look like. Instead, he largely stayed away from the issue, except to say he supported conservation but shared opponents’ concerns about border security.
That meant a push by New Mexico’s U.S. senators wasn’t enough to get the bill passed. With Republican Steve Pearce, a critic of wilderness, replacing Teague in January, any efforts to protect the Organ Mountains and other land are probably going to look much different next year.
8: Health care reform
The controversial health-care reform bill pushed through by Washington Democrats colored the 2010 election. Republican candidates used it to campaign against big government. Many hailed it as long overdue and much needed. Some on the left were upset that it didn’t go further. Lawsuits followed (New Mexico hasn’t filed suit) and are pending.
The legislation illustrates the tension between the left and right in these polarized times. Look for more talk from the right about “Obamacare” as the 2012 election approaches.
7: Increased transparency
The webcam in the back of the Senate chamber. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
New Mexico took a huge leap forward in government transparency in 2010 with the creation of the Sunshine Portal and increased legislative webcasting.
People now have easier access to financial information from state government than they ever have before. And New Mexico is one of the states at the forefront of utilizing the Internet to provide such access to information.
There are more steps to be taken. Audio and video webcasting should be expanded to all policymaking bodies in state government. Webcasting should be archived online. The sunshine portal should include real-time information, not just recent information. Actual documents should be scanned and put online.
But New Mexico took significant steps out of the darkness in 2010.
6: Las Cruces gains prominence
The state’s second-largest city gained prominence as a result of the 2010 election. Its longtime district attorney was elected governor, but there’s another significant player from Las Cruces who gained.
State Rep. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, has already been a prominent dealmaker in Santa Fe. He’s considering trying to form a bipartisan coalition to become speaker.
Regardless of whether he becomes speaker, Cervantes and a handful of other House Democrats from Southern New Mexico – who have already announced their support for a Cervantes coalition – have enough votes to control the House. They can go with their party on contentious issues, or they can work out deals with Republicans and push legislation through in a bipartisan manner.
Look for politicians from Las Cruces and Southern New Mexico to play a big role in Santa Fe in 2011.
Martin Heinrich
5: Heinrich survives; Teague loses
Considering the GOP wave that hit Washington in 2010, it’s simply impressive that freshman U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., survived in a contested district that, before him, had always been held by a Republican. He summed up his own re-election this way:
“Those of us who won did so by having the courage to stand by our legislative decisions – to run on, and not away from, our records.”
Heinrich is a favorite of progressives, but he’s also found a few areas of agreement with the right – most notably, work for the military and national labs. His re-election solidifies his position as one of the heavy hitters in New Mexico politics.
Teague, on the other hand, was a casualty of the GOP wave. I analyzed his tenure earlier this week. Democrats fought for decades to win this seat, and they weren’t able to keep it for a second term.
The state’s other congressman, Democrat Ben Ray Luján, had a more difficult time winning re-election than expected. Look for a bargain during the 2011 redistricting negotiations that shifts more Republican voters into the 2nd Congressional District that’s about to be represented by Pearce and more Democrats into the districts of Heinrich and Luján.
4: Republican gains in N.M.
2010 was historic for Republicans in New Mexico. Voters elected a Republican governor, the first Republican secretary of state in 80 years, and gave the GOP eight new seats in the state House.
Republican Dianna Duran is the first Republican secretary of state since E.A. Perrault served from 1929-1930. During Perrault’s tenure, 37 of 49 House members were Republicans – and you have to go back that far to find a time when Republicans had greater influence in the House than they will in January (33 Republicans to 37 Democrats).
The Senate is already controlled by a bipartisan coalition. The possibility of a bipartisan coalition in the House to make Cervantes speaker could give Republicans an even greater voice.
Republicans generally campaigned on a platform of less government regulation, lower taxes, and greater accountability and transparency. They’ll have a lot of influence over policy in Santa Fe come January and a chance to back up their words with action.
3: Economic woes continue
The struggling economy continued to be the issue at the forefront of voters’ minds in 2010, and it had a massive impact on the election. Voters decided to give Republicans a greater voice in government in Washington and Santa Fe largely because of economic issues including high unemployment and falling home values.
The state plugged a massive budget deficit in 2010 with spending cuts, tax increases and federal money. There’s another big deficit to deal with next year. How long will these troubles continue? Time will tell.
Bill Richardson
2: Richardson leaves office
Bill Richardson’s effect on New Mexico can’t be understated. With the spaceport and Rail Runner and other ideas, he convinced New Mexico to dream big. With his presidential run, he excited New Mexicans (his popularity reached 74 percent in May 2007). And with the pay to play scandals that came to define his administration, he deeply disappointed New Mexicans.
Richardson likes doing things big, and he came back to New Mexico to run for governor in 2002 as a big fish in a little pond. By the end, though, this little pond couldn’t wait to get rid of him. That’s a primary reason Lt. Gov. Diane Denish didn’t win the governor’s race.
Many will analyze Richardson’s tenure (I published my own analysis on Wednesday), but one thing is undeniable: Bill Richardson left his mark on New Mexico.
Susana Martinez
1: Martinez wins governor’s race
When an article published on this site in July 2009 labeled Susana Martinez as a “game changer” in the governor’s race, many laughed and dismissed it.
They were wrong to do so. Martinez is the first woman to be elected governor of New Mexico and the first Hispanic woman to be elected governor of any state in the country. She’s a Republican, so the historic nature of her victory has made her a national GOP star even before she’s taken office.
Of course, Martinez still has to answer some questions – like whether she can govern a state – before the national stardom is justified. But she does have an inspiring story as a Hispanic woman and district attorney who is making the leap to being talked about as a potential 2012 vice presidential candidate.
So far, her cabinet appointments have been impressive. Even many critics concede that she has generally selected qualified people.
That’s a good sign, because these are serious times that call for serious leadership. Martinez has a steep learning curve, so let’s hope she adjusts to her new job quickly. 2011 is going to be an interesting year…
And even more to clear up what is happenig to EIB rules:
http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_17021030
If they are not published, they can’t take effect, smat move Governor.
Heath said: “And incoming N.M. Gov. Susana Martinez wants to reverse the EIB’s vote. Whether she can do that is unclear.” It just got much clearer Heath:
http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/?p=2772
Congratulations Governor, this is a huge step forward to making NM’s economy more diverse, less dependent on the government dole, and growing tax revenues. Only one EIB member is worth anything, the rest are just political footnotes and will have to go back to their daytime jobs of lobbying to destroy the economy.
…because your average city is equipped to deal with airliners careening into skyscrapers, killing thousands of citizens, and causing long-term damage to the health of thousands of others who risked their lives to rescue those people.
Conservatives are always willing to lay claim to the mantle to 9/11 as a national tragedy, but when it comes to actually dealing with the direct consequences of that day, they suddenly think about it as a local issue.
In the 9/11 bill, the Congress is not telling the state and city of NY how to spend their money. The bill Kirsty and Charlie promoted here (and Whining Weiner in the House) takes all our tax money (assuming you are in the 40% who actually pay federal income tax) and pays for NYC and NY employees. I was merely opining that the city and state of NY should be the first to pay for their employees, not all the US taxpayers. Does that seem callous to expect a state and city to be financially responsible for their employees, who they sent into harms way without the proper equipment, information, and training? I actually would encourage the trial lawyers to get hold of Bloomberg and Patterson (Cuomo now) instead of all of us paying the bills. This is actually something trial lawyers should be doing.
Does Dr. J’s attitude towards people who risked their lives to save others remind anyone else of the 18th-century British Parliament deciding that since a war involving the entire empire was fought primarily on colonial land, the colonists should have to pay for it? For a man who is constantly trumpeting the rights of the states, he seems remarkably willing to let Congress tell a state and city how to spend their money in this situation.
wedum59, if you check the Congressional records you will see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were key in creating the mortgage bubble and greatly assisted the Bush in expanding the “ownership society” to all comers, deadbeats and those who couldn’t pay included. That bubble was a truly bipartisan affair. As for the 9/11bill, my opinion is that NY and NYC should be the first deep pockets to pay, it is after all, their employees here who need help. and they are responsible for them They also have medical and workers comp protection, and that should be exhausted (and hasn’t been yet) before all US taxpayers have to pay, IMO. The bill finally passed after these and other issues were recognized and the blank check proposed was modified. As such, of course all could support it.
DJ, the Bush administration created the conditions that led to the bursting bubble of the mortgage meltdown. As IP stated, “Most of the debt issues were caused by congresses before the 111th.”
On another milestone, the passage on HR 847, the Zadroga bill, the Bush administration had approximately 5 long years, with total control of our government, to recognize the surfacing medical problems of the 9/11 first responders. And when Carolyn Maloney, a NY Democrat, introduced H.R.847, AKA the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Republicans fought it all the way. The US Chamber of Commerce and “Americans for Tax Reform,” Grover Norquist’s organization, opposed the bill. It passed the House on 9-29-10, and it finally passed the Senate on 12-22-10. I wonder if the Senate Republicans would have stopped blockading it even then if it had not been for Jon Stewart’s impassioned call for action on December 16. See
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-december-16-2010-mike-huckabee.
Huckabee was on the show, and is one of the few Republicans willing to (mildly) chastize his fellow conservatives for their opposition.
I checked the votes against cloture that took place on December 9 at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-269, and every single Republican present (41) voted against the bill. Democrat Reid also voted no, but that was most likely a procedural move, as he could then bring it back up for a vote later.
Again, the timeline was rather interesting. Dec 9, vote for cloture fails in the Senate. Dec 16, Jon Stewart show, with interviews with 4 first responders with medical problems. Dec 22, HR 847 passes the Senate by a voice vote (chicken Republicans).
Yes, I do. However, as with all things in the body politic, you are entitled to your opinion that the 111th Congress was not the biggest spending and most debt laden Congress in history and that the ObamaPorkulus bill (and many others) created and saved many millions of jobs and saved the country from ruin with massive government spending and expanding government control over much of our economy. But, if you remember the last election (you do remember the outcome nationwide and in NM, don’t you?), I would say the data show your opinion was in the distinct minority of citizens who voted. And of course in politics, that is the only data that is solid and has consequences.
Wow, you really don’t have a. Basic understanding of the process, do you? Non-discretionary and continuing programs still add new debt. As for your Fox-esque cutesy nicknames, would “Porkulus” be your name for a jobs bill that is credited with saving or creating three million jobs? And conservatives accuse us of “class warfare”…
No, the Treasury figures show new debt that is required to be issued as new laws are passed and not paid for in the legislative process. As you know, when new laws are put on the books, they must be recognized in the government books, that’s a law. A portion may be paid with current cash funds, and then new debt must be issued if those funds do not cover the expenditures of the new laws. Perhaps you forgot the $1 trillion ObamaPorkulus? Or the hundreds of other new programs and spending undertaken by the 111th Congress? The Clerk of the House reported these debt levels to the Treasury for the 111th Congress:
Jan. 6, 2009 $10,638,425,746,293.80
Dec. 22, 2010 $13,858,529,371,601.09
New Debt: $3,220,103,625,307.29
Sorry, you can’t wiggle out of these facts. And remember what Pelosi said in her historic inaugural speech as Speaker of the House and pledged to do in the 110th Congress:
“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”
Guess she just lie.
Actually, yes, it is. You really have absolutely no idea how budget resolutions, non-discretionary funding, and appropriations work, do you? Nothing in the Treasury report nor the OMB reports show that the debt in question is due entirely to new spending, or even a majority of it. Learn how our system of government works, please, and maybe you can actually contribute something to the discussion rather than blindly attacking any person or idea that disagrees with your increasingly-disjointed preconceived notion of reality.
Icarus, you sir are the one with reading disabilities. What part of this fact; “The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)-during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury. “, don’t you understand? This is about only the debt taken on by votes in the 111th Congress, Marty’s Congress, is that clear? It is not debt taken on before that.
Dr. J:
Seriously, your reading comprehension gets lower with every passing week, doesn’t it? Most of the debt issues were caused by congresses before the 111th, which I made quite clear, but you chose to ignore in favor of pretending that you actually know anything about reality.
Icarus, you actually believe Marty was not a part of the 111th Congress (which also has the lowest approval rating in history at 13%), and that he was just “following orders” from Pelosi even if he was? That is denialism and blind partisanship at its’ peak my friend.
Yes, Dr. J, we do. Most recently (and on this subject), we have the one where a single freshman congressman in the majority party isn’t demonized for voting in favor of programs proposed by his own party that a majority of his own constituents actually support. Along the same lines, there is the one where we can do basic mathematics and read something called a calendar, in which we don’t blame a sitting congress for debt accumulated due to budgets passed before they were seated. I know reality is inconvenient, but sooner or later you’re going to have to come to terms with the fact that conservatives have been opposed to almost every instance of progress in American history, and frankly, while being a liberal requires one to accept that their opposition may have valid contributions to political discourse, it is becoming increasingly difficult to take people seriously who lack a basic understanding of little things like history, mathematics, and the Constitution that they spends so much time talking about but almost no time learning about.
Hey Jivaroo, you are quite hilarious. Re Martinez… “To try to trip her up or tear her down without a chance to see what she is made of is treasonous to the state of New Mexico and works against the people of the state.”
And you had nothing bad to say about Obama when he was elected, before he took office? If you answered no, I am sorry but after reading all of your previous rants about how Obama (and all Democrats in general) are lower to the ground than a snake’s vest button, I don’t believe you.
So it’s OK when your side is elected to be bi-partisan and work with them on implementing policy, but when other side is elected it isn’t? Please.
Ambrose Bearce once wrote, “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” . Please feel free to take off your headwear now. You can throw it off of the nearest cliff with your credibility.
Icarus, you want basic history? We conservatives (Democrat and Republican and Independent ones) see the historic record of Marty’s totally left wing Democrat controlled Congress and Executive branches very clearly. The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)-during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury. That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census. The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States. In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt. And yet the country is still mired in a deep and seemingly unending recession with historic unemployment continuing unabated. Do you liberals have another view of this history? Bet you do.
Ok, first of all, the 150th is an ANG wing… they were alreay flying “crumbs”. Quite frankly, we’re lucky they weren’t disbanded entirely. As for “ObamaCare”, it’s a strange thing to insist on naming a bill after a sitting President when the bill in question is almost entirely devoid of executive initiatives. As for the stimulus and bailout bills you’re referring to, the bank bailout occurred before the congressman took office, so you’re remarkably disingenuous to imply that he voted for it, and the stimulus you claim did “nada”… well, congratulations, you apparently know something that an overwhelming majority of economists are unaware of, because they have stated quite the contrary. Basic history and mathematics really aren’t that hard, so why do conservatives feel that they need to ignore them? Might it have something to do with the reality that facts contradict almost everything they say…?
Ramirez makes a very valid point, Marty did NOT run on his record, at least in the TV ads. Where were his ads that showed “…the courage to stand by our legislative decisions..”? He had none about his “courageous” votes on carbon taxes, Wall Street and corporate fat cat bailouts, and the $1 trillion porkulus spending that did nada, and of course ObamaCare. Maybe with his left wing base he was touting those things, but certainly not in mixed company with the public at large (he knew how stupid that would be), so that is “couraeous”? He did mention his tiny pieces of pork rewarded him by Pelosi for doing as she told him to do. And he somehow seems to think he single-handedly saved our famous “Tacos” by surrendering to far more powerful forces and relegating them to flying junk on nothing “missions”. To have the Tacos flying what crumbs fell off the table (without fighter jets for the first time in their history) due to Marty’s weak “support” is embarrassing. We have to rename them the “Biscochitos”. So to describe Marty among “heavy hitters in New Mexico politics.” is a gross exaggeration.
We might want to question the every move of our new Governor and whether she will be able to lead this state, but past performance is what shows her character and drive. She is a very intelligent woman and very far-sighted, but she will need the help of all her constituents to pull this state together, and that means Republican and Democrat. To try to trip her up or tear her down without a chance to see what she is made of is treasonous to the state of New Mexico and works against the people of the state.
To be faithful to your state stand behind her and help her in every way you can and the state will prosper and bloom. Tear her down and the state will wither and suffer. Put aside your petty differences until we see what Governor Martinez does to further out state. It comes back to a saying similar to one John Kennedy said in one of his speeches. “Ask no what your State can do for you, but what you can do for your State.” Remember that most states are set up on the guidelines of our nation, so they are naught but a small nation to govern. Beware that proof of the pudding is in the eating. Wait until you take a bite and then judge.
Ramirez: Let’s set aside for the moment that the only way to redistrict the congressman out would be some serious gerry-mandering, since he lives more-or-less in the middle of Albuquerque (i.e. Nob Hill), and address your rather adorable belief that anyone who disagrees with your is automatically a “liar”; negative advertising is (regrettably) an integral part of American politics whether we like it or not, and pointing out that his opponent lobbied for certain organizations is hardly a lie. However, attacking completely unrelated small businesses, like Mr. Barela did in one of his final ads, is hardly the act of an honest man. Since your tendency always seems to be to automatically go for the most negative statement you can come up with about any given person, I’m also not entirely certain that you are a particularly good judge of what constitutes a positive campaign.
Martin Heinrich did not run on his record. He ran a campaign of false and negative smear attacks, and prevailed with fear tactics. He is a liar and should be ashamed of his conduct this last campaign.
I hope he is re-district out- and someone who genuinely cares about the district is elected.
All in all a good list and mostly good analysis, though some is off base. But when you said: ” And incoming N.M. Gov. Susana Martinez wants to reverse the EIB’s vote. Whether she can do that is unclear.” Not unclear at all. If an executive order to halt it doesn’t work, replacing the entire, partisan and biased enviro-lobbyist board is easy. Then you hold sham, prefunctory “public” hearings for a few weeks (as was done to implement it against all scientific and economic logic and reason) and rule to dismantle it. Piece of cake.
You must be logged in to post a comment.