Contact
In New Mexico, The Democrat status quo has to go
Monty Newman
Democrats have not been able to get it right in 60 years of control of the state Legislature. Why is this year any different? Hint: It’s not.
Democrat policies are the status quo in New Mexico and, this year, the status quo has to go.
The power to reform our state lies in the hands of every New Mexico voter. With the primary election now behind us, each one of us has a choice to make that will determine the future of our state.
Who we choose to represent us in government speaks volumes about the direction we want to see New Mexico go.
Democrats have boasted for years about their commitment to provide for middle-class New Mexicans. The problem with their lofty promises is that their results don’t live up to the hype. Democrats have not been able to get it right in 60 years of control of the state Legislature. Why is this year any different? Hint: It’s not.
The solutions are within reach
Middle-class New Mexicans are not flourishing under the thumb of the Democrat-controlled legislature. Democrats have enjoyed an uninterrupted 60 years at the helm and yet they have, by every conceivable metric, failed us. New Mexico is still at the top of too many bad lists and at the bottom of too many good ones.
Governor Martinez is working hard to change the status quo and to make bold reforms. In less than two years in office, she has cut wasteful spending and enacted commonsense education reforms to improve our failing schools.
Meanwhile, the Democrat leadership in the state Legislature is doing everything they can to bog down Governor Martinez’s commonsense reforms. Obstinate obstructionism is making the road to economic growth, rapid job creation and a better education for our kids a lot longer than it needs to be.
The solutions to grow our economy and create jobs are within reach. To get there, we need to make New Mexico open for business. That means lowering taxes on small business owners and other job creators. As our neighbors — Oklahoma, Arizona and Texas – fight tooth and nail for jobs and innovators, New Mexico must reform how we treat employers so that we can compete one-on-one with any state for the jobs we need to put people back to work and build a vibrant economy.
The status quo has to go if we expect New Mexicans to be able to find good-paying jobs and life-improving career opportunities.
Join us
With Democrats in control of the Legislature for the last 60 years, what has changed? Not enough for the good and too much for the bad, and that’s why the status quo has to go. New Mexico families deserve better than a future shoddily built on more of the same failed promises.
If you are looking for a brighter future for tomorrow, we hope you will consider voting to change the leadership of the New Mexico Legislature. In recent years, Democrats — both nationally and locally — have promised hope, change and grand visions for the future; however, they have failed to follow through on those promises.
If you feel — as we do — that the status quo has to go, we hope you will join us and elect commonsense Republicans who will empower job creators, improve education and ensure public safety for New Mexico families.
Newman is chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico.
50 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
IP thanks for the thoughtful criticism and sage advive.
stever:
You seem to have much the same regrettable handicap of many of our citizens; your understanding of basic civics and your sense of civic duty seem lacking, and you seem to be translating those weaknesses onto others; in short, it is not Mr. Schneider who is demanding that you meet his standards, but you who is demanding that the rest of us conform to your own. The pattern has become familiar; you make a statement that is blatantly false or wildly misleading, and you couple this act with a refusal to provide any evidence for your statement. Someone else corrects or contradicts you, not because we expect or even hope to change your position, but because it is both our right and our duty as Americans not to let such falsehoods stand, and other people should not be subjected to only your opinion without a counter-balance of opinion or – more frequently – contradiction by reality. You then demand that the person with the audacity to disagree with you should leave you alone and not respond to your ever-more-wild statements, thus leaving your misstatements unchallenged and granting yourself a superior right of free expression to anyone else, or at least to anyone who exercises their patriotic duty to disagree with you. It is remarkable to me that any person in the so-called “Information Age” could be so incapable of recognizing such a flaw of hubris.
Also, it’s worth noting that claiming I wasn’t part of the conversation simply because I didn’t agree with you doesn’t change the fact that my involvement in the conversation actually predates your own, thus providing more evidence that you are more interested in self-righteousness than accuracy.
MS I have no desire to meet your standards on here. As much as you value your own opinion, I hardly think its worth even trying. Others can draw their own conclusion about me but you not demonstrated anything that makes me care about your opinion of me. I have no need to always be “right”, you have never not been. If my behaviour bothers you, stop responding to me. Just think of me as cancelling your vote.
“not my job” is the Republican motto.
Since when is it my job to keep IP up to date on a discussion he wasn’t part of.
It’s your job to participate productively in governing this country. That’s what being a citizen of a democracy means.
That means it’s your job to
- bring facts to the table
- help bring others up to speed
- make sure everyone is included
- use facts that are verifiable and reasons that are debatable, rather than simply saying ‘it is so because it is so’
This isn’t between you and me, or you and someone else. This is about all of us, and our democracy, and whether we can keep it. This is about public discourse in a democracy.
We’re all in this boat, and it’s sinking. Standing around saying “not my job” isn’t helping.
For a whole bunch of posts and comments about the responsibilities of commenters and moderators, and a lot about discourse in the digital age, try this:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/013672.html
<I>If someone doesn’t know something, and you do, the polite and courteous thing to do is to try to explain to them what you know, and how you know it. </I>
Since when is it my job to keep IP up to date on a discussion he wasn’t part of. My point was addressed to Dr J about you. IP comes along two weeks after the initial incident and makes a snarky (not polite or couteous) comment, rather than ask what the situation was, it was just an opening to attack.
What’s wrong with you people?? We’re all responsible for making this country better. That means we’re all responsible, each of us, for paticipating productively in the governance – by learning, discussing, and supporting the policies and representatives which we each believe (after debate) will best make the country the best place it can be. That’s what it means to live in a participatory democracy.
There is no way I can think of professional politicians as “human”.
You’re responsible for choosing our politicians. Even if you’ve never voted for anyone who has won an office, you’re responsible. That’s what ‘consent of the governed means.’ You’ve accepted the benefits of living here (such as they are) and that makes you responsible for our representatives.
So it’s your fault if our politicians aren’t human. Your fault, and my fault, and everyone’s fault – and if you don’t like non-human representatives, you darn sure should be doing something to change that. You can’t just stand back and say “not my problem” – because it is your problem, and your duty to do something about it.
IP If you are going to insert yourself in the middle of things about which you are not fully informed, don’t confuse your lack of knowledge as my lack of evidence.
That’s simply churlish. This is an open forum for discussing politics – including discussing the meta level of how we discern the facts and theories on which we base our conclusions about how best to govern the country. After all, if we can’t discuss how we come to think what we come to think, what’s the point of living in a participatory democracy? Participation is only meaningful if we can also participate in figuring out what is true and what’s not true.
If someone doesn’t know something, and you do, the polite and courteous thing to do is to try to explain to them what you know, and how you know it. Saying “I know, and you don’t, so shut up, nyah nyah nyah” is no way to behave in an adult political discussion.
We – this country – is facing a number of situations which could cause the end of civilization, or the end of democracy, or perhaps just the end of the US of A. Unless we can come together despite our differences and reach some sort of rational decisions, we’re doomed.
The economy has stalled because there isn’t enough spending. It matters not at this point if it is government spending or private spending. If the private sector is not spending and the economy remains stalled we are all in trouble. Repubicans are under the delusion that a dollar spent in a store somehow has a self-realization that it is a government dollar or a private sector dollar. The small, medium or large business receiving the dollar does not care, nor does the rollover effect of that dollar in the economy. The Republican myth that all government debt is evil needs to be exposed for the danger it has for our economy. Spending needs to be substantially increased, either by government or private sector means. What we are now seeing is that the Republicans have chosen to strangle adequate government spending at a time it is desperately needed in order to punish Democrats and the country rather than lend a hand and help stimulate the economy. Were they to be in charge they would (as history proves) have no problem spending at levels they have in past and stimulating the economy. They are willing to see people suffer for years and further damage the economy rather than allow the president and the Democrats a victory. If the Republicans win the result will be the same amount of spending they are now refusing to do.
We obviously have a difference in perception arti. There is no way I can think of professional politicians as “human”. They just don’t possess the human characteristics I look for to be human. Politicians are a different breed of our species, they show it most everyday in many ways, just watch some news conference or speech, I don’t recognize “human” in their character. I recognize selfish, ego-maniac, power hungry, money hungry, demagogue, uninterested in what humans think or want, etc. People need to realize politicians are not on your side or care about the common human, only the side where the power, money, and influence lies.
IP If you are going to insert yourself in the middle of things about which you are not fully informed, don’t confuse your lack of knowledge as my lack of evidence.
“IP, when I’ve done it, he goes away.”
This is a perfect example of what Mr. Schneider is talking about: an absolute declarative statement with no evidence to support it whatsoever.
You just refuse to see the data, J
I doubt any data will emerge that shows one side or the other is “richer”,
I’ve provided data addressing your original contention. If you now want to change your contention from “there is a left wing enviro, union, etc. group” to “the left and right spend about the same amounts of money to promote their candidates and ideas“, well, I’ll call foul. You should say what you mean, and stick by what you say. If you want to change your claim, admit you’re moving the goalposts.
You have not actually provided any information whatsoever on the question of total relative spending levels. All you’ve done is make claims based, as IP points out, on ‘what you choose to believe.’
IP, when I’ve done it, he goes away. So you are not fully aware of the history.
I don’t recall you ever having done it. Since you are claiming something that actually happened in the past, you should be able to provide a link so we can all see it.
This is important, people. There’s such a thing as reality. There are such things as facts. I know that stever and J have both said that they don’t believe in facts (at least, facts of certain kinds) but they’re just wrong.
Epistemology. It’s important. It’s the study of how you know what you know. It’s also the study of how people are wrong – how people end up thinking they know something they don’t actually know.
If we can’t all look at facts and see them, if one side insists on believing whatever they choose to believe and refusing to see facts, then our country is doomed. We can’t move forward if one group insists on shutting its eyes and ears.
Dr. J, it’s also possible that agreeing with Democratic positions (which is a potentially admirable trait for the leader of the party in one of the chambers of Congress) is not the same thing as being liberal in a global definition of the word. …which is my fault, I was thinking of Mr. Reid as a human, instead of as an American politician.
FWIW, the article you linked to showed that both Democrats and Republicans are both doing their best to move away from one another, at least on some politically-important issues. So if the Democrats are “out of far left field” today, the Republicans are only helping the quagmire by being more and more conservative.
IP, when I’ve done it, he goes away. So you are not fully aware of the history.
My original contention was that the left and right spend about the same amounts of money to promote their candidates and ideas, and/or attack their opponents. I doubt any data will emerge that shows one side or the other is “richer”, or spends more by any significant amount. We are a very closely divided country and society, the polarization is about equal in terms of money and influence and power. That is what is so frustrating to either side, they can’t seem to change the balance of power enough to have their own way all the time.
stever:
It’s hard to “out fact or out link” someone without providing either yourself. “Because I choose to believe it” doesn’t actually count as evidence.
DrJ, you’ll never out fact or out link MS. He’ll always be right. Bet your splitting hairs on it.
I found a little more information. If you go here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
You’ll get information on how much money has been raised by Super PACs, identified by the tilt of the SuperPac. Looking at the SuperPACs that have raised more than a million and sorted by total raised in descending order (that’s including Restore Our Future with $64.5 Million, down through CREDO, $1.2 million), and doing the arithmetic, I get:
Conservative: $161,787,113
Liberal: $47,038,269
That may be a little closer to direct information on which groups have the most money to spend.
Wrong again, J. Please learn to read carefully.
You show the entire liberal fundraising as 1/10th of what Obama has raised for himself here:
Your previous comment talked about “there is a left wing enviro, union, etc. group out to do the same thing with almost the same amounts of cash flowing”
Note your word: group.
So I got the data which, on the link I gave you, was for “outside spending groups”. It was described that way in the linked site.
I described it as “giving me the dollar amounts to liberal vs. conservative outside groups.”
Note that word: Groups.
Barack Obama is not a group.
Now it’s true that looking at the biggest donors doesn’t actually tell me which groups collected the most money. It’s possible that 100 million liberals have given $10 each to liberal groups, and that this adds up to more than conservative groups have been able to collect. I haven’t been able to find that information. If you can find it, I’d like to see it. I’m figuring, however, that looking at where the hundred largest donors gave their money will give us a proxy measure for which groups got the most.
Well arti, it is possible that Harry is just another two-faced professional politician who changes his stripes and principles depending on which way the wind is blowing in his party, such as out of far left field today, and merely adapting to retain his power and money positions. But that couldn’t be it, could it?
Dr. J, I had no idea that National Journal considered Harry Reid to be so liberally-voting in 2010. I’m not sure if one year of voting undoes the rest of his career, but, interesting trend nonetheless.
And S, your numbers don’t add up. You show the entire liberal fundraising as 1/10th of what Obama has raised for himself here:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Does none of this Obama fundraising count as “liberal”? OpenSecrets is missing a huge chunk of money someplace, and notice how Obama is doing vs. Romney so far, still think the poor liberals are outspent by huge amounts?
Thank you for the evidence and information, EW-aif. I did a little looking at other categories on opensecrets.org and the pattern seems consistent. While at the presidential level there’s some parity, and there’s contributions to both sides by people who want influence no matter who wins, it surely looks like the Republicans are outspending Democrats by a bunch.
Evidence, J. Facts. Actual information. That’s what you need here.
Wrong again S
Simply saying “you’re wrong” isn’t the same as coming up with evidence to show that I’m wrong. I know that since you tell us you have all kinds of wonderful education and experience that we should simply believe that anything you say is the indisputable truth – but it doesn’t work that way. Anonymous people on the internet don’t get to rely on their own unsupported word.
Right now the only evidence we’ve got is that you’re wrong. In the areas we’re able to measure, Republicans have around four times as much money as Democrats. Now it’s entirely possible that there’s other, unmeasured areas that tilt the other way – but you’ve given us no reason to believe in the existence of those other areas.
As long as the only evidence we have shows that you’re wrong, the only rational thing to believe is that you’re wrong. Again.
Wrong again S. That data does not include the recent SuperPAC spending like is being done by Defenders of Wildlife and the other enviro groups running ads against Wilson here, for instance. This data is but the tip of the money iceberg for both parties.
Bloomberg Businessweek
The Management Blog
The Case for Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-22/the-case-for-private-partnerships-for-sustainable-development
Posted by: Gib Bulloch
Mr. Bulloch says: “At every sustainable-development conference, debate, or keynote presentation, public-private partnerships (PPP) are touted as a panacea for the enormous challenges the world is facing.”
***************************************
…it is not a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy fact. Here is the meaning of PPP:
1. Public-Private Partnerships – when private industry provides public services for profit. The original taxes for the services remain in place, but a duplicative “service for FEE” structure is added. It is FASCISM, and it should NOT be considered as a solution to the State’s budget woes. It promotes monopolies and destroys small business. If the stakeholder is not a shareholder, he has no voice.
https://sites.google.com/site/erikhawkes/Home/ppp
2 Redflex has a public-private partnership with Albuquerque and Las Cruces.
http://www.mvd.newmexico.gov/Drivers/Driving-Privileges-and-the-Law/pages/Red-Light-Tickets.aspx
3. The private company Redflex issues a photo ticket and the state provides the muscle to collect.
4.”LAS CRUCES, N.M. — Las Cruces residents who have unpaid traffic citations from red light cameras risk having their city-owned water, sewage, and gas shut off, according to City of Las Cruces officials.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/new-mexico-town-residents-may-lose-utilities-for-unpaid-red-light-violations/
MHS, I noticed a similar disparity ($88M from conservatives, $24M from liberals) when I analyzed the primary campaign finances for my Republican opponent for the SD 34 race (Ron Griggs) and me. He, of course, far outraised me and outspent me, but after all, he was in a contested primary. But his donations average out to $484 for each donor, while mine averaged out to $100 for each donor. (BTW, I posted this info on my campaign web site, which is finally up and running).
Wrong again, J.
And for every right wing group out to accomplish their sworn goal with money, there is a left wing enviro, union, etc. group out to do the same thing with almost the same amounts of cash flowing
Considering that you’ve told us that you’ve published articles on ice cores, you’ve done graduate work in economics, you’ve travelled internationally including sub-Saharan Africa, and served on Boards of Directors and Audit committees and followed GAAP and FASB rules, I’m surprised you didn’t look at the following site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php#
That’s the list of top contributors to parties, candidates, and independent organizations, with the totals contributed and the percentages to D/R and liberal/conservative candidates and groups. I took that data, copied it into a spreadsheet, and multiplied the percentage to conservative/liberal group by the total contribution to outside groups, giving me the dollar amounts to liberal vs. conservative outside groups. Assuming I got the arithmetic right, here’s what I found:
Donations to liberal outside groups: $23,967,831
Donations to conservative outside groups: $88,369,685
To me, $24 million is not “almost the same” as $88 million, but perhaps in your experience the difference is negligible.
If government doesn’t create wealth, how do you explain the Erie Canal and Albany NY?
Government doesn’t create wealth.
I was just reading Tom Coburn’s despicable new book, The Debt Bomb. Even he agreed that the Interstate Highway System made us all richer and created wealth (although he mistakenly described it as “Keynesian stimulus”, which it wasn’t).
its about cutting government spending
That’s what Coburn is arguing, but his argument didn’t make a lick of sense. He was willing to agree that certain government functions are good and necessary and that we should collect enough taxes to pay for them. However, he went on and on about how other things were a total waste of money – yet he never directly addressed the question “how do you decide what’s a good thing for government to spend money on?”
Clearly he, like many today, thinks that the Congress has claimed far too much authority under the Commerce Clause. Yet he simply assumed the truth of this claim, rather than arguing it. He seemed to find this principle just peachy keen: a conception of Interstate Commerce developed in 1789 is entirely adequate in a time of internets, airplanes, and credit cards. His sole argument was that “the founders wouldn’t have approved”.
On the other hand, he has a more rigorous argument than Mr Monty Newman, whose sole argument seems to be “we’re wonderful in unspecified ways, they’ve screwed up in unspecified ways.”
p.s. I blame the Apostrophe Demon for this embarrassment: buried at a crossroad with a stake through it’s heart:
Yes arti, this Harry Reid:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/25/majority-leader-harry-reid-among-most-liberal-senators/
Just because he panders to a few conservative ideas with empty rhetoric, like the death penalty, NRA, pro-life (remember, he is a Mormon), does not exclude him from being one of the most liberal Senators based on his voting record.
Republicans: wrong on the facts. Small businesses don’t create most of the new jobs, nor do tax cuts create jobs.
To get there, we need to make New Mexico open for business. That means lowering taxes on small business owners and other job creators.
Small businesses (<20 employees) created only about 1 in three new jobs, 1992 – 2004. See Table 1, http://www.nber.org/papers/w13818
… larger businesses are more productive (this will come as a shock to anybody who spends most of their life in meetings, but it seems to be true), and they even create more jobs, once you control for firm age. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/24/the-unhelpful-lionization-of-small-business/
Nor do tax cuts create jobs:
But do tax cuts create “real” jobs? The answer appears to be no for companies big and small.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/
‘nother topic: EW-aif: you have to remember that Dr. J is using his own, uh, unusual definition of “democrat”. He has said that he is ” … a moderate to conservative Democrat … .” (1) By that standard Reagan, Rockefeller, and Eisenhower are also Democrats, and LBJ was a radical socialist.
‘nother topic: There’s a logical fallacy that should be decapitated and buried at a crossroad with a stake through it’s heart:
If the Democrats have been in strong control and power in NM for 60 years, why do we still have poverty, discrimination against minority groups from Hispanics to gays, a dwindling middle class, and even global warming? Did the Republicans do all this?
You might as well ask
- why do we still have crime, after umpteen years of police?
- why do we still have disease, after billions of dollars of medical research?
- why do we still have wars, after millennia of defense spending?
If Dr. J’s logic were sound, we should eliminate police, medical research, and the DOD.
(1) http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2012/04/heinrich-balderas-have-made-each-other-better/
Crystal clear EW-aif, thanks. And yes, it is the sworn goal of conservatives to remove as many liberals as possible from government, the same as it is the sworn goal of the liberals to remove as many conservatives as possible from government. That is what we call politics, statesmanship and governing are far different and both extremes do not practice that. And for every right wing group out to accomplish their sworn goal with money, there is a left wing enviro, union, etc. group out to do the same thing with almost the same amounts of cash flowing. That is what I call dysfunctional, polarizing politics which leads to a dysfunctional, polarized society that we are in today and no governing or statesmanship exist.
DFoley, there are problems with this statement: ”Or the comment that says government jobs are good because of the money they spend? Well they spend less then they get paid therefore it is a looser for the state of NM. ”
1) Of course they spend less THAN they get paid, I thought a good Republican like you would not want them to go into debt!
2) The word is LOSER, not looser.
Please check your posts carefully for spelling errors. I see a lot of this in my own posts and try to check, sometimes twice, to make sure I have corrected all my errors before hitting the “Submit” button, and still miss a few. ”Haste makes waste.”
Government doesn’t create wealth. Government produces nothing. Whatever it gives it must first take from somewhere else. And earlier comment suggested that jobs have been cut from state government and because of this there are fewer consumers to stimulate the economy. How did the government get the money to pay those employees in the first place? It was first taken from someone else.
Another question I wonder about is why do government employees pay taxes? How much money can we save in bureaucracy alone by just comparing a state employee’s position with that of his private sector counterpart, determine how much taxes he would end up paying, deduct that from his salary and just pay him a tax free salary? If a state employee gets paid 40,000 tax free while his private counterpart gets paid 50,000 but has to pay 10,000 in taxes, they both end up getting paid the same except the government saves money by not taking taxes from its employees only to give it back.
Just to point out how government does not produce wealth – lets imagine there is no private sector. Just government and its employees. All 10 of them. Each employee’s salary is 10 dollars. Each employee pays 5 dollars in taxes. How does the government pay those employees their 10 dollar salary from the taxes it has collected? Better yet, where did government get the money to pay the employees the initial 10 dollar salary?
What is seen and what is not seen. Those jobs are cut from government, and according to you, there are now less consumers to spend money. But what isn’t seen is how would private sector individuals spend that money if it wasn’t taken by government in the first place?
Its not about cutting taxes for the rich. Its about cutting taxes for everybody but more importantly, its about cutting government spending which is always a tax. Republicans are as much at fault as Democrats. It just so happens that Democrats have been in power in New Mexico for too long not to shoulder the majority of the state responsibility. Cut spending, including subsidies to the rich. Companies don’t need privileges from government, to do so would only take the power away from the consumer. Leave the power to decide a company’s success in the hands of the consumers and on its own merits.
IP is correct in interpreting my comment. For DJ: Feingold, Kuccinich, and Brown are true liberals. Two of those three, Feingold and Kuccinich, have been defeated in the last two elections, and Brown is the top target of the Republican PACs, including Crossroads GPS, Rove’s PAC.
Is that clear enough DJ? More at http://www.midwestvaluespac.org/blog/2011/huffington-post-sherrod-browns-ohio-senate-race-target-of-most-third-party-spending-by-republicans/
Huffington Post: Sherrod Brown’s Ohio Senate Race Target Of Most Third-Party Spending By Republicans
8tweets
Democratic Senate candidates Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) may be soaking up national attention from progressives during the 2012 campaign season, but the GOP has its eye on Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), whose race is attracting more third-party spending by Republicans than any other Senate contest.
Outside conservative groups not officially affiliated with the Republican Party have spent nearly $2.9 million on the Ohio Senate race, according to numbers compiled by a Senate Democratic campaign operative. Big spenders include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($1.5 million), the 60 Plus Association ($723,338), Crossroads GPS ($506,647) and Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee ($200,077). Brown is the only candidate 60 Plus has targeted. …….. click on link above to read more.
Harry Reid is a leftist? This Harry Reid? The one who is for the death penalty, often votes with anti-choicers, and votes with the NRA? I’m not sure if leftist is the right word for that kind of record.
Now I’ll agree, <a href=”http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Nancy_Pelosi.htm”>Rep. Pelosi</a> is a liberal, and when she was the Speaker I was glad that our country had an actual lib partially in charge of the country. But Harry is left-of-center, at best.
Here is a bit of allegory! With a little imagination you can picture Mr. Newman giving us the cure-all solution to the New Mexico economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcENY2-ZT5U
The result in the video is pretty much what will happen if the Republican snake oil salesmen gain power in Santa Fe!
Governor Martinez has been in office for over 500 days promising job creation. Where is the job creation of this Republican governor. It is all talk – no action. However she has the audacity to say the economy is booming.
The rate of over-the-year job growth, comparing May 2012 with May 2011, was negative 0.2 percent, representing a loss of 1,500 jobs. Read the New Mexico Department of Labor report for June 2012.
http://www.dws.state.nm.us/LMI/dws-Mnews.html
Mr. Newman and the Republicans have been like snake-oil salesmen perpetuating the myth of job creation! The Martinez administration has been a big failure in this respect.
So why would Mr. Newman (newwwmmannn hhiiisss) in his strong advocacy of Republicans taking control of the legislature actually sign off on supporting incumbent Democrats in their primary bid before they face off with GOP candidates in November??????
I trust you are correct of EW-aif’s awkward phrasing IP. That would mean that the moderate/conservative Democrats have not become endangered species and purged from the party as the left wing party bosses have tried to accomplish over the years. This gives me hope that more like myself exist and that change can happen to bring the party back from the left wing cliff people like Eric Griego, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have tried to drive it over the last 12 years.
Mr. Foley:
You are, as ever, about a subtle as a howitzer, which seems to have severely hampered your ability to understand the very positions you’re trying to object to simply because they aren’t as simplistic as you would like them to be. No serious person is considering “the rich” the enemy. What we are objecting to is a bizarre obsession with providing ludicrous amounts of aid to a segment of our society who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, particularly at the expense of a much larger portion of our society that can’t necessarily do the same.
Dr. J:
I think Ms. Wedum was actually saying the exact opposite, that true liberals are typically very rarely elected to office.
Mr. Newman is deliberately insulting to members of the Democratic Party and to his readers by his petty and deliberate use of Democrat when the correct usage is Democratic. Here are three simple style examples from Merriam-Webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic
The Democratic candidate for governor won the debate.
Most of these policies appeal to Democratic voters.
an interview with a leader of the Democratic Party
Any reader of Mr. Newman’s commentary can readily see that he made deliberate efforts to avoid using Democratic and instead he used the incorrect and insulting Democrat.
As Chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, Mr. Newman knows that he is not the Chairman of the Republic Party of New Mexico. Enough with the insults. “Can’t we all just get along?”
Proud Democrat and Member of the Democratic Party,
Michael J. Flynn
EW-aif, surely you are not saying that Kucinich, Feingold, and Brown are not liberals. You would have to be politically left of Marx to think they are moderate/conservatives.
I love reading all the comments from people who for some reason beleive the rich are the enemy? Or the comment that says government jobs are good because of the money they spend? Well they spend less then they get paid therefore it is a looser for the state of NM. I also laugh at the comment about balancing the budget on the backs of the poor? Come on now the poor pay little to no taxes and get government assistance so are you trying to get us all to beleive they are contributing more then they are consuming?
In the end the simple minded sound bite folks love to go after the succesful folks and claim to be doing it for the poor folks, yet most of the ones doing all the talking make a decent living and do nothing to help the poor, they expect the government to do it!
Newman’s distorted comments got me thinking about: the Republican-ness” of the 2007-2009 recession and the weak subsequent recovery.
The Republican politicians are to blame for the recession. The Great recession began during President George W. Bush’s administration. It resulted from the lax financial regulation that Republicans adhered to then and now. They have pushed vehemently for deregulation.
Mr. Newman will be glad to know that in 2010 93 percent of the economic recovery went to people in the top 1 percent of income distribution according to the calculations of Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez.
So if Republicans win in New Mexico in November, New Mexicans should know they will be further helping that 1 percent group like Marvin Adelman, billionaire casino mogul, who is giving millions to the Republican campaign to save the rich.
“Save the Rich!” That’s a hilarious video!
DJ, not all those Democrats are liberals. In fact, two of the most well known, Feingold and Kuccinich, have been shot down, and Sherrod Brown is now targeted.
Here is the new Republican campaign song – “Save the Rich”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRRDig_9nE
I can see Mr. Newman and his fellow Republicans singing this song!!!!!!!!!! Are New Mexicans going to save the rich?
This is something to ponder. If the Democrats have been in strong control and power in NM for 60 years, why do we still have poverty, discrimination against minority groups from Hispanics to gays, a dwindling middle class, and even global warming? Did the Republicans do all this? Something they are doing is not working according to their rhetoric, I also wonder about how little was accomplished toward all these liberals ideals n DC when the liberals controlled the House, Senate, and White House during 2009-10.
Reading this commentary it appears Mr. Newman wants to return to the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration. I love the constant use of the cliche of “job creating.” Again the Republican economic future is the past. New Mexicans should use their common sense and vote against the Republicans and their wrongheaded policies.
“The solutions to grow our economy and create jobs are within reach.” Governor Martinez has been cutting jobs in the state government, and that means fewer consumers to help stimulate the economy. The formula for job creation is that one job created for someone that actually spends their money in the community where they work causes that money to recirculate seven times.
It also means, eventually, reduced service FROM the state bureaucrats.
And how come all those tax cuts for the wealthy over the last 30 years haven’t created any jobs? We can see where the wealthy are spending their extra money– casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson just wrote a check for TEN MILLION DOLLARS to Romney’s “Restore Our Future” PAC. That’s the reality of the “tax cuts create jobs” mantra. Limitless Republican dollars drowning the voices of us “middle class scum” as they call us behind closed doors.
The Republican solution for everything is tax cuts for the rich. This is the biggest whopper they sell. If tax cuts for the rich were the answer, George Bush’s regime would have been awash in jobs. It wasn’t.
Remember Dwight Eisenhower? He was a Republican president who approved of a 90% top tax rate for the wealthy while we retired the war debt and retooled our schools toward excellence plus supporting unions and building our infrastructure through a great super highway system. He also launched our space program and supported science research of all types.The Republicans have long lost their way on supply side economics. They run up the vast majority of the national debt spending like a drunken sailors while at the same time growing the size of the Federal government. Then they cry how broke we are when the Democrats come to power. This is the narrative of both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
We worship the rich in this country. Their money is sacrosanct while we balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working class. Unfortunately, worship of the golden calf requires human sacrifice. That means while they give tax breaks to the rich, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid must be sacrificed. The rich broke this economy; they need to fix it. The tax holiday is over. Tax the rich. They have all the money.