Contact
Subscribe
Task force takes aim at public health regulations
Tracy Dingmann
Twelve days after it was due to the governor, the office of Gov. Susana Martinez has at last released the final report of the Small-Business Friendly Task Force.
With its utilitarian name, you might think it wouldn’t be a very exciting report.
But within that 13-page document (read it here) are dozens of recommendations for the governor to rescind, revise or repeal environmental, labor, construction and various other public health regulations that exist to protect us all.
Oh, I’d call that exciting – but not in a good way. Here’s why.
The task force’s final report to the governor contains much of the same language of the group’s midpoint report, a public document I was able to obtain in February only after filing a request under the state’s Inspection of Public Information Act.
The governor formed the task force minutes after taking office on Jan. 1. She said later that she did so to protect the “mom and pop” small businesses of New Mexico from excessive “red tape.” She asked the task force to evaluate each state regulation for its economic impact.
What made the cut?
Rolling back all state rules and regulations so as not to exceed federal standards? That’s in the final report.
Setting up a whistleblower hotline within the Economic Development Department so businesses aggrieved about being reported for environmental abuses can report on the Environmental Department employees who reported them? That’s in the final report.
Wiping out the rules put in place by the state’s Water Quality Control Commission to regulate dairy waste and protect drinking water wells? That’s still in there.
Revising and/or rescinding the pit rule, surface waste management rules, general mining regulations and any carbon cap proposals previously passed by the state? All still in there.
Fast-tracking environmental permitting? In there.
The ominous-sounding passage about mid-level Environment Department classified managers who are left over from previous administrations (and can’t be summarily fired) being a problem because they have an “anti-business agenda?” That stayed in too – though exactly what the task force thinks Martinez can or should do about them is still a mystery.
New stuff
There’s some new stuff in the final report as well.
Rolling back state child-care regulations to 2001 standards? The task force endorses it.
Revising state labor laws to re-categorize specific categories of workers under the Public Works Minimum Wage Act in an attempt to reduce the prevailing wage the government pays to workers on public works projects? It’s in there.
Consolidating mechanical, electrical and plumbing inspections? The task force says the governor should do it.
Why ask questions?
Why should any of us care about this? Quite simply, because these and many more of the regulations that the task force is targeting for radical change touch every single one of us in some way. Want clean water to drink? Want clean air to breathe? If you’re a state Environment Department employee, want to do your job without worrying about being the subject of a secret complaint?
That’s one reason. But there’s more.
Who are these people who are advising the governor on these rules? I found out back in February (again, only after making a public information request) that the task force consists of a number of lobbyists for large, out of state corporations, as well as some owners of local businesses – none of which could be considered “mom and pops.”
The interests they represent lean heavily toward dairy, mining and the oil and gas industry – all of which have strenuously objected to nearly every kind of rule or regulation, no matter how much evidence is there to show that it is reasonable and needed for basic public health and protection.
Many of these folks made large contributions to Martinez when she was running for governor. When you consider that Gov. Martinez’s main tactic when running for office was shaming the other side for alleged “pay to play” tactics, I’d say that’s another reason to care.
Here’s one more: What criteria did this influential group use to determine which rules should be rolled back or changed? What expertise do the task force members have to be making such important recommendations?
How much of what the task force is recommending is even possible – and how much of it would simply be setting the state up for a series of costly lawsuits? After the midpoint report was made public, many New Mexicans in the position to know said much of what the task force wants to see happen is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
And finally, what are the interests of the people on the task force? A preamble to the final report notes that the members of the task force “collectively” represent more than 10,000 businesses across the state. What does that even mean? Who are those businesses, and why are the people who represent them so dead set on rolling back regulations that just happen to be wildly unpopular with certain industries and cost business owners money to implement?
Maybe, if you live in New Mexico and work in oil and gas or mining or dairy, this is all just fine with you.
But I don’t. I just live here and care about raising my kids surrounded by clean water and air and land. If that makes me part of a “special interest group,” as Gov. Martinez calls people like me, then so be it.
I’m proud to be in that special interest group. Too bad that it will never get me or people like me a seat at her table when she’s deciding which rules to keep or throw out.
Tracy Dingmann is an independent investigative blogger and commentator. She is a former newspaper reporter and columnist for the New Mexico Independent who most recently was new media director for the Center for Civic Policy.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
29 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks you for your understanding and support on anonymity IP, it is much appreciated. Actually I am thinking of using one of my alumni email addresses (so Dr. Hays will not know my actual email) to send a photo of my academic regalia. The colors on my hoods and robes will give him all the information he needs, if he can read it.
The Huffpo headlline today
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/science/earth/16enviro.html?_r=1&hp
” governor of Maine, Paul LePage, a Tea Party favorite, announced a 63-point plan to cut environmental regulations, including opening three million acres of the North Woods for development and suspending a law meant to monitor toxic chemicals that could be found in children’s products.”
“Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, has proposed eliminating millions of dollars in annual outlays for land conservation as well as cutting to $17 million the $50 million allocated in last year’s budget for the restoration of the dwindling Everglades. And,cut staff members to 40 from 358 at the Department of Community Affairs, which regulates land use and was created to be a control on unchecked urban sprawl.”
“North Carolina, where Republicans won control of both houses of the Legislature for the first time in 140 years, leaders recently proposed a budget that would cut operating funds to the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources by 22 percent.”
” Republicans in Congress aligned with the Tea Party have fought hard for rollbacks to the Environmental Protection Agency, clean air and water regulations, renewable energy and other conservation programs.”
” New Jersey, for example, Gov. Chris Christie, another favorite among Tea Party loyalists, has said the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, which preserves more than 800,000 acres of open land that supplies drinking water to more than half of New Jersey’s residents, is an infringement on property rights. Mr. Christie has moved to shift power from planning boards and government agencies to administrative judges, political appointees who, environmentalists say, tend to rule more often in favor of developers’ interests.”
Susanna Martinez violates the constitution in the attempt to dismantle our protections. She is going to DO IT regardless of the courts or the legislature.
This is the advantage of having big corporate money behind an issue such as assaulting our environmental protections. The is a CONCERTED and coherent effort nation wide by all the republicans all at the same time all with the same goal. The republican propaganda machine professionally develops their message and deploy it nation wide.
The democrats are left chasing their tails in disorganized reaction locally with mealy mouthed reticent always on the defense amateurish wording. The democrats not having a concerted message rely on individual democratic politicians to speak for the environment each in their own way according to individual dedication and belief incoherently.
Mordor invades all the lands and waters and air.
This report about out-of-state corporations NOT PAYING TAXES ON PROFITS from April 16, Santa Fe Journal (ABQ/Journal North):
“According to Sen. Phil Griego, D-San Jose, chairman of the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee where Sen. Wirth’s bill died (SB 6 to close the tax loophole), Wirth couldn’t pinpoint the amount of money his bill would generate.”
Red Chili Revolution’s comments: Sen. P. Griego blames Sen. Wirth. But it was Sen. P. Griego who voted against SB 6 in committee, and killed it.
“SB 6 died,” Griegio said, because “it seemed to us [me] it was another tax increase on business.”
Red Chili Revolution’s comments: Another tax increase on business? PLEASE! Out-of-state corporations don’t pay ANY state income taxes.
“If you have a loophole in the tax code, it would behoove (the New Mexico) Tax and Revenue (Department) to come in and close that loophole,” Griego said.
Red Chili Revolution’s comments: Sen. P. Griego wants someone else to do the dirty work, but it’s his responsibility as a state lawmaker to lead efforts to close this out-of-state corporate tax loophole.
Sen. P. Griego said, “Don’t come before the Corporations Committee and ask us to raise taxes on businesses when the economy is as bad as it is and these are the only companies hiring anyone.”
Red Chili Revolution’s comments: Sen. P. Griego lives on Planet Pluto. There are no jobs.
New Mexico has the highest unemployment rates since the 1940s. $100 million in revenues from closing this tax loophole would help stop the firing of public education employees.
Sens. Phil Griego, George Munoz, and John Sapien (they also voted in committee to kill SB 6) must be replaced during the 2012 primary elections.
Ah, Dr. J’s increasingly paranoid attitude rears its ugly head once again; “I disagree with you on policy matters, therefore you must be a dishonest/immoral/etc.”, all encapsulated in a series of personal attacks that you have long since substituted for actual contributions to the debate. I (obviously) have no problems with your anonymity, but since you have repeatedly shown so little grasp of the science you purport to practice – and, additionally, have ceased to bring much more maturity to the debate than the average schoolyard gang – I’m perfectly content to assume that it is nothing more than a clever pseudonym.
And Dr. Hays, I would not trust you with my personal information any further than I could throw you. You are not the kind of person that engenders my trust, as evidenced by your rhetoric and attitudes.
“I let my facts and arguments speak for themselves.” Now I really do believe you have a Ph.D. in English. Spoken like a true academic who thinks they are qualified to be an expert at all things with an English degree and after teaching classes to teenagers.
Dr. J, it is this comment which calls into question your claim to a doctorate: “And, as to ‘lays claim to the expertise and appeals to the authority thereof to address some issues,’, what expertise and appeal to authority are you making Dr., in discussing this subject? “Michael L. Hays (Ph.D., English) is a retired consultant in defense, energy and environment; former high school and college teacher; and continuing civic activist.”
First, you try to dodge an explanation why you cannot provide in confidential manner your school, your major, or your dissertation topic.
Second, instead, as usual, you try to equate my biographical statement on my column with your bogus claims. My paper wants a brief statement of my background; I provide it.
Third, I have never, ever, claimed, as you do, that because of my degree or my experience that my ideas are correct; I let my facts and arguments speak for themselves. You, however, make an empty claim to a doctorate and then claim that your degree is support for your opinions.
Fourth, it is absurd for you to pretend that you cannot substantiate it because someone would take you seriously enough to retaliate. Honestly, identifying your college and major in private to me would hardly constitute a threat. All talk, no walk. You are a fraud.
IP, I don’t need your advice, I doubt you have anything I want. Your reason for being here are obviously different than mine, no big deal.
Well that’s a fairly childish attitude to take, stever; if you want to contribute anything to public policy debates, ever, you should want as many people as possible to take you seriously; they don’t have to agree with you to do so. If instead you’ve decided to be a dogmatist who is content to criticize active participants in the public policy process from the sidelines – with, by your own admission, no regard for the factual accuracy or feasibility of your beliefs – then frankly, you don’t deserve to be taken seriously, any more than a panhandler who uses the same sob story about needing change for the bus every single day.
Does this apply to all of your political ideas or just some of them?
Yes
IP, I’m glad you don’t take me seriously, that’s company I’d rather not keep.
And, as to “lays claim to the expertise and appeals to the authority thereof to address some issues,”, what expertise and appeal to authority are you making Dr., in discussing this subject?
“Michael L. Hays (Ph.D., English) is a retired consultant in defense, energy and environment; former high school and college teacher; and continuing civic activist.”
Perhaps some persons are ignorant of the statistics and facts of illegal immigration to the US, giving that ignorance the benefit of the doubt (and thus not assuming deliberate attempts to mislead with knowingly false statements), I offer the following facts:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/charts/final.fb.shtml
You will notice the sharp upslope of illegal immigrants near the end of Bush 41′s term, and the extreme numbers thereafter. Also, from the same source we have this statement of facts:
“Nearly one-third of all Mexican foreign born in the United States arrived in 2000 or later.
As of 2007, 31.3 percent of the 11.4 million Mexican foreign born entered the country in 2000 or later. Another 32.0 percent entered between 1990 and 1999, 20.0 percent between 1980 and 1989, 10.9 percent between 1970 and 1979, and the remaining 5.7 percent prior to 1970.”
And as to job creation numbers vs. population stats (and speculation on cause/effect of the trillions of $$ spent in typical Keynesian style and effectiveness of same), woud any of you liberals care to post the stats for Pres. Obama’s first 2 1/2 years in office?
However, when frequent commentator not only adopts a title indicating a formal education, but also lays claim to the expertise and appeals to the authority thereof to address some issues, then it seems entirely fair to see the paper.
Fair enough, and as I stated, there’s at least one manner of producing said paper that would still keep anonymity. So we’ll see if anything happens on that issue…
stever, that would be this article, which uses the word “immigrant” or “immigrants” seven times. One of these is a reference to a mythological being but the other six don’t have the word “illegal” in front of them, which confused you as to what she meant. Reading through the piece it is fairly obvious that State Rep. Chasey meant people who are designated by the term “illegal immigrants”, although the State Rep. refused to use such a term because of her own linguistic preferences.
Why do I say it is fairly obvious now, and why did I say it was fairly obvious then? Probably because of sentences in State Rep. Chasey’s commentary like “In the last eight years, immigrants without social security numbers…”. People who are here on a work visa have to have SSNs in order to work. People who are here because they smuggled themselves or were smuggled across the US border more often do not than do have a SSN. As social security taxes are taken out of everyone’s paychecks, and most “illegal immigrants” do not have any ability to collect these social security funds, these are moneys that are taken directly into the U.S.’s revenue stream.
This fact is one of the “facts and statistics” that I was referring to before which I use to argue that undocumented workers are less of an economic strain than they are believed to be, and in some cases may actually be an economic bonus.
As you stated back then, “As for my facts, I don’t need any. ” You disagreed with the issuing of licenses to undocumented workers not because of any factual analysis of the benefits and costs of such an action but because of principle. Does this apply to all of your political ideas or just some of them?
PS Unless your ancestors were in the Americas before Columbus you have absolutely no political high ground to stand on in regards to the “open immigration regulatory environment” that you think people like me are in favor of. But I don’t know what your DNA looks like so maybe you actually do have the right to defend New Mexico from invaders. In which case, kudos.
artiofab, I appreciate your concern with anonymity, although I fail to see why most people require it. Indeed, far too many anonymous contributors diminish discussion rather than contribute to it. (I know only one instance plainly meriting it–a police officer addressing local issues on his force.) On most issues, I cannot imagine anyone being in any peril or under any threat of retribution. Certainly, I rile some people, but I do not feel threatened by their ad hominem outbursts. However, when frequent commentator not only adopts a title indicating a formal education, but also lays claim to the expertise and appeals to the authority thereof to address some issues, then it seems entirely fair to see the paper. I have been challenged about my Ph.D., and the Goodled information is available under my name.
stever:
Would this be the conversation where I said it was all immigrants from the beginning, and you spent several posts trying to change the premise of the conversation to fit your narrative? Come to think of it (and I actually checked this just now, so I know I’m correct), my fist comment to you was about… your poor word choice: Specifically, you wrote, “As for my facts, I don’t need any,” and I pointed out that such a statement was a good way to ensure that no one would take you seriously afterwards – a lesson you clearly still haven’t learned.
IP, its just like several weeks ago when we argued about the statistics that “immigrant” compliance with the drivers license law was so profoundly helping New Mexico. After several days of back and forth, it became clear that it was all immigrants not illegals that were being counted. The meaning was not clear to obscure the reality.
So please no excuses about poor “word choice”.
Dr. J, Mr. Hays said “the number of jobs declined”. He meant “relative”. You took it to mean “absolute”. It is both a case of that he made a mistake in words and that you took his words to mean something different than what he meant to say. Let’s move on, shall we?
That said, Mr. Hays, I don’t like your statement that “He [Dr. J] never has refused [sic] to prove that he is a Ph.D.”. Internet anonymity is a cause I will always support, and I think that Dr. J has the right to not have to prove a doctorate, even in a manner which would still be compliant with complete anonymity, such as emailing you a picture of a diploma with the name blanked out taken in front of this website to provide evidence of ownership of said diploma.
So you’re showing the data without acknowledging that it essentially proves Mr. Hays’ point, if not his word-choice? That is far more disingenuous than a misstatement that may or may not be (and, according to Mr. Hays himself, is) an error in word choice rather than an error in data. Your “truth” rarely, if ever, bears any relations to “fact”, which frequently your own commentary provides the proof for; you have proven yourself time and again a fairly good researcher with little to no ability to actually analyze your own collected data, so you’ll pardon me if I am more than a little suspicious of your sudden claim that you were merely providing all the facts without embellishment. Also, claiming that President Bush (the elder) and Gerald Ford weren’t dealing with millions of illegal immigrants – a demonstrably incorrect statement – and then accusing someone else of making things up is myopic in the extreme.
artiofab, I have a hypothesis I am testing that extremists lie and exaggerate to make political points while hiding all the facts from view. I was testing the statement that “… the number of jobs declined.” That is a false statement, as you have said and the facts show, the number of jobs did not decline but increased. If you had wanted to say the ratio of jobs to Americans declined, I’m with you as the facts show that. That is why I showed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with the data. I did not shade, guild, or otherwise misrepresent the data, I showed it all so you could see the facts. If you see the whole truth you can examine the facts and come to a rational conclusion supported by the data. When you state “the number of jobs declined” you are obviously an extremist not being truthful wrt the facts. If you want to say the Bush admin. was not very good at creating jobs, I would agree (as dismal as Bush 41 and Ford, however they weren’t dealing with millions of illegal aliens pouring into our country either), but why not just use all the facts instead of making something up?
artiofab, thank you for the correction. I should have said employment rates, instead of employment numbers. Trust Dr.J. to try to score a point than serve the truth. Am I alone in tiring of his ideologically driven comments. He never has refused to prove that he is a Ph.D., though I gave him a chance which would avoid his proclaimed fears of retribution. My guess is that “Dr” is a self-ascribed honorific.
Does anyone else love it when Dr. J provides us with proof that he’s wrong? Why on Earth did you not see that putting those last two lines of data was a bad idea? Three million jobs added in a period with twenty-two million in population growth is (as any third-grader could tell you) a net loss on nineteen million jobs. To be fair, not all of that twenty-two million was working age, but then again, I think your population growth figures are actually low. According to the Economic Policy Institute, we would have needed an average of 4.7 million new jobs added annually in that period… in other words, more than 4.3 million more than your figures claim there actually were. Worse still for your argument – and for the American people – is the increase in average wages, which in that same period went up 12.4%. Inflation, however, was a staggering 21.4% In other words, Dr. J has kindly provided us with data that shows that fewer Americans are doing more work for less money.
Dr. J, please note that while the absolute number of jobs increased from 2001 – 2007 (which is the six years that Mr. Hays was pointing to), the population of the country also increased. You point that out right there in your comment: 3 million jobs were created but these 3 million jobs were for an additional 22 million people.
According to BLS numbers, the civilian labor force increased from 143.7M to 153.1M from 2001 to 2007. The number of people employed in that time increased from 136.9M to 146M. …this was actually a .7% decrease in employment.
By the BLS’s numbers, the GOP (partially) controlled Congress and White House of 2001-2007 did not result in a net gain of employed Americans, it resulted in a net loss. Not a substantial one, but still a loss.
“In the Bush administration, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress for six years, they cut or failed to enforce regulations and lowered taxes, and the number of jobs declined.”
Indeed? Here are the facts:
President George W. Bush
Jobs created 3.0 million
Jobs at end of term 135.5 million
Jobs at start of term 132.5 million
Payroll expansion 2.3%
Jobs created per year in office 375,000
Population growth 22.0 million
Percent change in population 7.7
Two other points:
One, the various Republican claims that fewer regulations and lower taxes generate jobs are retreads of ideas which have repeatedly failed to work. In the Bush administration, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress for six years, they cut or failed to enforce regulations and lowered taxes, and the number of jobs declined. The Republicans try to make suckers of everyone by using jobs as a bait for their switch to more money for the rich. Such an approach will do no better in New Mexico.
Two, even so, their claim that cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid also, by reducing the national deficit, will create jobs is not only false, but also inane. Increased employment does nothing for those retired who need living income or medical assistance or children in need of medical attention or 50 million who cannot get insurance. Moreover, the idea of making some or all of social security a set aside for retirement accounts means the certain uncertainties of the stock market and the certain wealth transfer of account and transaction fees to brokers. Think of this proposal as a brokers’ revenue enhancement act.
Yes, many excellent recommendations to be implemented if we are serious about creating wealth and jobs in New Mexico. Let’s hope the Guv and the Legislature do them all, if they do NM will be much better off and competitive with our neighbors who are far ahead of us in creating jobs and an envirnoment where business can grow and prosper. Many obviously do not understand that all these “feel-good” regulations and attitudes have many unintended (perhaps, giving the benefit of the doubt to the inexperienced people who passed them) consequences. These consequences make NM a more expensive, bureaucratic, and uncompetitive place to do business. It is time to reverse that trend and improve NM’s standing in the nation.
Let’s face it: Republicans hate government and they hate it because it is of, by, and FOR the people. It is not for their profit. Every regulatory cut affecting safety, health, and the environment increases the costs or adverse consequences to people, whether customers or beneficiaries of business or not, and decreases costs to, and increases profits of, companies. Lowering production costs by, say, relaxing the pit rule means increasing the contamination of soil and water. While I am at it, Republicans are all about individual responsibility, but not corporate responsibility. So the attacks on safety, health, and environmental regulations are really efforts to free corporations of the responsibility for the consequences of their operations. Anit-business regulators–no; pro-safety, pro-health, pro-environment regulators–yes, and a good thing for all of us.
Several of these recommendations are okay even though the state has evolved into a regulatory giant. For example, the Construction Industries Division has gone way beyond reasonable permitting and inspection processes that add costs (in time and money) to both business and private parties. Back in the day, on-site wastewater inspection systems followed federal guidelines almost word for word – then things changed as the Environment Improvement Division (EID) grew and decided more was better. There were conflicting requirements between the EID and the Construction Industries Division for inspection and permitting on-site systems: conflicting requirements, lack of coordination, and duplication of services gave way to waste and inefficiency.
In any event, it’s doubtful that that state agencies ever really look at regulation from the standpoint of purpose, cost, and benefit – that’s not what they do. Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating and are inflicted with a culture that is difficult to change. Their “SOP” is lots of red tape, duplication, poor communications and lack of coordination among departments; and the inevitable “cover your ***” syndrome. It’s time to have a hard look at what they do and what it costs.