Heath Haussamen

I’ve not found a suitable buyer for NMPolitics.net, so I’m shutting down the site. Before I go, I want to leave you with some parting thoughts about the importance of finding common ground.

When I started looking for someone to purchase NMPolitics.net, I wasn’t sure what I was seeking. I knew I wanted my successor to continue the site’s journalistic integrity and its nonpartisan focus. Other than that, I was open to ideas.

Some journalists considered it but passed for various reasons. Two newspapers thought about it but decided the site’s identity was too closely tied to mine. In other words, they think NMPolitics.net and me are inseparable.

While I think otherwise, the decision was theirs to make.

In short, I’ve not found a suitable buyer for this site. Regrettably, that leaves me with one option: to shut down NMPolitics.net. I’ll leave the site up for archive purposes. Nearly seven years of work by me and others exists here. I believe it’s important to continue to provide access to those archives.

So consider this my farewell column. I want to thank you, NMPolitics.net’s readers, donors, advertisers, and others who helped make this site a success for 6.5 years. I could not and would not have done it without you.

I want to leave you with some parting thoughts:

This country works when people come together

We’re in the heat of yet another divisive election season. Countless dollars are being spent on messages that point out how different we are instead of reminding us of what we have in common. Politicians are working to divide us. Other groups are doing it. Many in the media are doing it.

In the power struggle that is the game of politics, they exaggerate our differences and ignore one key fact: What we have in common is greater than our differences.

I’m not downplaying our disputes, which are many. But at the end of the day, even our Republican governor and the GOP U.S. Senate candidate, like most on the right, believe in a government safety net, even if they think it should be smaller than it currently is. And most on the left agree that we need thriving companies, and that winning their business sometimes involves giving concessions, even if they think our government currently gives too much.

Who doesn’t want to live in a society in which we can make enough money to take care of ourselves and our families, get a good education and medical care, and have freedoms including the right to influence how our society operates? And who among us doesn’t want the same for others?

The details are where our differences lie. But when it comes down to it, we inhabit the same planet. We’re all human beings, though we may sometimes think otherwise about those with whom we disagree.

I’ve written on this topic frequently for NMPolitics.net. In my mind, one of the most notable posts came when I covered former Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd’s speech at the 2008 Domenici Public Policy Conference in Las Cruces.

Dodd traveled all the way from Washington to honor his retiring friend – the legendary Republican from New Mexico – and to talk about the civility and respect that once existed in Washington that today is sorely lacking.

“It’s important to know that this country works when people of different ideas can come together to make a difference,” Dodd said.

I firmly believe that. I believe 100 senators honestly debating a policy and looking for compromise can come to a better solution to our problems than me or any other individual can alone.

We can be better than this

But we spend too much of our time instead playing the game and ramping up the rhetoric as we jockey for power. As a result, we live in one of the most divided and dysfunctional times in our nation’s history.

I say to all of you – Democrats, Republicans and others – that we can do better than this. We can be better than this. I challenge you to be better than this.

If we spent our time focusing on common ground instead of fighting, our society would have fewer problems. I really believe it’s that simple.

I’m heading off to focus on New Mexico In Depth – a project I hope will help cut through the rhetoric and focus on what’s most important, and, in doing so, help us understand each other on a deeper level.

Understanding is the key to respect and civility, and to addressing our problems and creating a better society.

If we value our society and our future, developing a deeper understanding of each other is not optional. I hope NMPolitics.net helped some of you develop a deeper understanding of each other. It certainly did that for me.

Onward.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

William P. Soules

I want the citizens of this county to know that I admit my mistake – a violation of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act – and I apologize.

As a candidate for the New Mexico Senate from District 37, I feel it is important to address an issue that occurred during my time in elected office as a member of the Las Cruces Board of Education.

Approximately 10 years ago, I was charged with and convicted of violating the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. While I never intended to circumvent the Open Meetings law, I did participate in a closed personnel session about the superintendent. The court determined that the closed meeting was not properly advertised to the public. Therefore, I was found guilty of a misdemeanor and I paid my fine.

I want the citizens of this county to know that I admit my mistake and I apologize. I believe that sunshine laws are a critical component of the public input process and that these laws help to create a strong democracy. The public has a right to see and hear how their elected officials are performing.

Over the last 10 years, I have watched as the legislative process has become more open with webcasts and publishing of committee votes. If the residents of Senate District 37 elect me as their senator, I will be a leader in strengthening sunshine laws and will actively support efforts that require the Legislature to follow those laws.

The entire process, including conference committee meetings and votes, should be open and transparent. The public deserves its government leaders to open the books and provide accessibility to all citizens.

I have spent my adult life in public service and I will continue to do so. When voters make their choice for the New Mexico Senate District 37, I ask they consider my entire record and not just one incident to which I have admitted to and from which I have grown. I am asking for your vote to serve the good people of Doña Ana County.

Soules, a Democrat, is a candidate for the Las Cruces-area District 37 seat in the N.M. Senate.

Heath Haussamen

It’s time for me to focus on New Mexico In Depth, but I want this site to continue and hopefully to grow. At this point, it has a better chance of doing that if someone else takes it over.

After 6.5 years, I’ve decided to put NMPolitics.net up for sale.

I know I promised a couple of months ago, when we announced the creation of New Mexico In Depth, that NMPolitics.net wasn’t going anywhere. I hope it’s not going anywhere. But recent circumstances have made clear that it’s time for me to move on.

NMPolitics.net has been on hiatus for the last month while I dealt with some serious family issues. Being pulled out of my routine, frankly, helped me realize I had too much on my plate. Something had to give.

I’ve run this site for almost seven years as a labor of love. Building and maintaining an influential political news website has been my full-time work, and the site has grown and turned a profit every year, but, like all small businesses, it has required a lot of blood, sweat and tears.

It’s time for me to focus on New Mexico In Depth and its goal of fostering, promoting and publishing journalism in the public interest. And it’s time to pass the NMPolitics.net torch.

I believe firmly in NMPolitics.net’s two-fold, nonpartisan mission: to hold government and political leaders accountable through hard-hitting but fair reporting while also encouraging policy and political debate that promotes the common good. I want this site to continue and hopefully to grow. At this point, it has a better chance of doing that if someone else takes it over.

So I’m looking for a buyer. I’ve already reached out and started discussions with some but wanted to publicly announce my intentions in case someone I’m not thinking of is interested. Also, I didn’t want to leave you, NMPolitics.net’s loyal readers, hanging any longer. You deserve to know what’s happening.

If you’re interested in learning more about the site and possibly purchasing it, e-mail me at heath@haussamen.com or call me at 575.644.5129.

As I think back to NMPolitics.net’s first post, on March 20, 2006, and all the news articles and columns I’ve written and published since, I have fond memories. This site has been an amazing learning experience for me, and I believe it has made a difference for New Mexico.

I still have a handful of articles and columns to publish in the next week or two, so check back regularly. I hope to find a suitable buyer who will continue the site’s nonpartisan mission. I’m excited about what the future might still hold for NMPolitics.net. I will keep you updated.

Know that I won’t sell the site to anyone who isn’t committed to maintaining its journalistic integrity.

Thanks for supporting this site – and me – for the last several years. I remain grateful and humbled.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Steve Pearce

Recently, the House of Representatives acted to fully repeal Obamacare. I call on the Senate to follow the House’s lead.

In 2010, Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Since day one, this law (commonly known as Obamacare) has been touted by Democrats as a long-term solution to health care in the United States. However, after last month’s Supreme Court ruling, we now know that this is just a new tax on hard-working New Mexican families.

On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled the most controversial provision of Obamacare, the individual mandate that requires virtually every American to carry health insurance, is only constitutional because it is a tax – which the judges declared Congress has the power to implement. Being a tax directly contradicts public statements by the president and Democratic leaders who have always claimed this mandate was not a tax.

The vast majority of these 21 new or higher taxes will fall on those making less than $120,000 annually. Even more surprising, many paying this tax will be those living below the federal poverty line (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office).

All told, the average American family will pay roughly $4,700 a year in new taxes. To state this in the president’s own terms, the 99 percent will almost exclusively be targeted by this tax. Clearly, this law is a far cry from the president’s promise to not increase taxes on middle class families.

Above the law

Since the Supreme Court’s decision, I have had the opportunity to visit with business owners from New Mexico. During my visits, I have heard about the effects of Obamacare on their businesses and your jobs. The overwhelming consensus is that this law is causing layoffs, suppressing job creation, forcing employers to consider dropping coverage for employees and doing economic damage to communities and job creators across New Mexico.

The president claims to be looking out for the 99 percent. Yet, immediately following the passage of this law, large corporations started lobbying the president to be granted special exemption from this damaging law. In all, over 1,000 big businesses (i.e. the 1 percent) have been granted special favor from the president.

Allowing elite large businesses to be above the law sends a clear message that the president cares more about the 1 percent special interest than protecting middle class jobs.

When companies can buy influence to be above the law, these companies create a competitive advantage over everyone. Over the next few years, local New Mexico companies will be increasingly burdened by the expenses this law requires of them. The majority of businesses cannot afford to pay a lobbyist millions of dollars to grant them special favor with the president. This means wage reduction, layoffs and eventually even closure for New Mexico companies. The economic health of our communities and state should not hinge on special interest and presidential favors or waivers.

Take action

Now is the time for Congress to act to prevent the economic damage this law will create. While I disagree with the Court’s interpretation of this law, I respect its authority to make this decision. However, the courts validation does not mean the American people support the law anymore today than when it was jammed through Congress in 2010.

Congress has the responsibility to listen to the facts and the American people, and take action against this damaging law.

Recently, the House of Representatives acted to fully repeal Obamacare. I call on the Senate to follow the House’s lead. This law must be repealed and replaced with patient-centered approaches before more economic damage is done.

Pearce, a Republican, represents New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District in the U.S. House.

Carter Bundy

The Rio Grande Foundation can try to cobble together all the complex statistical formulae in the world, but the reality is their vision of a workforce with no rights and no power almost always leads to lower wages and higher unemployment.

The Rio Grande Foundation’s “study” about the impact of so-called “right-to-work” laws is purely speculative and not based on real economics or real world experience. We can all try to manipulate numbers to prove what is or isn’t likely to happen with legislative changes, but one of the many beautiful things about the United States is that we have 50 real-world laboratories to prove what actually does happen when laws like right-to-work (RTW) are implemented.

The truth is that workers in RTW states make far less than workers in workplace fairness states. As of 2010, RTW state workers make an average of $5,538 a year less than workplace fairness states’ workers. Well, maybe it’s a fluke, right? Or maybe workplace fairness states had an historical advantage that is trending in favor of RTW states?

Nope. In 2001, the workplace fairness states’ workers made $5,333 more than RTW states’ workers. In other words, the gap in wages has actually increased in favor of workplace fairness states in the last decade.

As far as employment, according to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 8 of the 12 highest unemployment states are RTW states. The Rio Grande Foundation can try to cobble together all the complex statistical formulae in the world, but the reality is their vision of a workforce with no rights and no power almost always leads to lower wages and higher unemployment. You have to really twist data around and look for obscure statistical anomalies to try to pretend giving all the power in a workplace to CEOs makes economic sense for workers and their families.

A poorer, sicker population

Workplace safety suffers even more under RTW laws. The rate of workplace deaths is 52.9 percent higher in RTW states. When it comes to health care, only 50.3 percent of employers in RTW states offer health insurance, compared to 56.7 percent in those with union rights. People in RTW states are 23.7 percent more likely to be uninsured, and their kids are 38.7 percent less likely to be insured.

And these aren’t just union workers we’re talking about. Non-unionized workers in workplace fairness states benefit enormously from a labor market that generally tends to pay more and offer benefits. Non-union employers in workplace fairness states end up treating workers better in terms of money, benefits and safety in workplace fairness states because they know they’ll lose good workers to other employers (including unionized employers) if they don’t.

There are all kinds of secondary issues that arise from having a poorer, sicker, less secure population in RTW states. Largely because they have poorer workforces, RTW states spend far less per pupil — $2,671 — than states with basic workplace fairness. It’s probably also not a surprise that poorer, sicker, less-educated RTW states have much higher infant mortality rates (16 percent higher) while suffering from higher poverty rates from adults and kids alike.

Nice if you’re in that 1 or 2 percent

Does RTW offer any advantages? Well, 28.3 percent of jobs in RTW states are classified as “low-wage occupations,” while only 19.5 percent are classified as low-wage in workplace fairness states. It’s easier to create third-world level pay and benefits, which some multi-national employers absolutely love. But it’s a disaster for workers, their kids, and for America’s middle class.

Here are two links to Economic Policy Institute papers dismantling RTW “data” used in Indiana and New Hampshire. While EPI hasn’t yet examined this Rio Grande Foundation paper, even the most basic statistical analysis above shows the folly of claiming RTW laws reduce wages and employment.

• Indiana
• New Hampshire

As a final note, federal labor law has protected the rights of individuals to not join a union or have money go towards efforts that are in conflict with their political or religious beliefs. The right to work movement has absolutely nothing to do with making the lives of American workers better, or protecting them in any way. To the contrary, all the real-world evidence for decades has shown that right to work is simply a way to transfer money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans and into the bank accounts of multi-millionaire and billionaire owners, which is precisely why a study like this comes from an organization funded by the very richest corporate interests in the country.

RTW is a law that reflects a vision of a society where the very rich continue to get richer and the middle class disappears into poverty and near-poverty. Nice if you’re in that 1 or 2 percent, but terrible for the rest of America.

Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.

Heath Haussamen

In the wake of the Aurora massacre we can, and perhaps should, debate the role of guns in our society. But as long as we focus on that at the expense of working to solve our core problems, we’re seeking a Band Aid instead of true societal healing.

Hours after the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. on Thursday, a friend told me he was essentially hoping the tragedy would spark a conversation that would lead to greater gun-control measures.

I had the opposite reaction: I told him I thought it was too bad no one in the theater was carrying a concealed handgun.

But as the media facilitated a debate about gun control – and whether it was even appropriate to debate gun control in the wake of such a tragedy – I came to believe we were failing to focus on what matters most.

We could ban assault weapons such as the semi-automatic rifle used in the theater shooting and we wouldn’t stop every massacre. Some would still find a way to get their hands on such weapons; others would simply use shotguns, or hunting rifles, or handguns. And if we banned those too, they’d find other ways to spread death and chaos.

Similarly, we could allow people to legally carry concealed weapons in every state, and there would still be places where horrific crimes would occur without well-meaning, gun-toting citizens near enough to help. And there’s always the possibility that such a citizen could make a mistake and exacerbate the situation, though there are plenty of examples in America of them stopping crimes.

Though either potential solution might help combat crime, neither addresses the deeper societal question fewer have been discussing since the Aurora massacre: What drives people to commit such atrocities?

The answer is complex. Some suffer from mental illness. Some are dealing with struggles such as divorce or loss of a job. Some are hardened by what life has done to them. And those superficial stabs at providing partial answers don’t even scratch the surface.

We can be better than this

But there is a lot we can do to create a society in which fewer people are driven to commit such crimes, and the solution goes far beyond government alone. It includes our nonprofits, our churches and other religious institutions, our businesses, and each of us.

We need to work toward goals that include lower unemployment and poverty rates, more effective schools, more affordable health care, better access to services, improved infrastructure including roads and Internet lines, stronger families and community support systems, and better care for the mentally ill.

Many work toward these goals every day. But are we as a society doing enough? How many of us are involved in figuring out how government can help address these issues? How many of us donate time and money to organizations that work to fix these problems? How many of us could afford to give a little more but opt to spend it on ourselves instead?

On an individual level, how many of us are willing to truly sacrifice to help out a friend or family member in need? How many of us know someone who is depressed or on edge but aren’t offering help? How many of us have concerns about the way a neighbor or classmate is acting but fail to share those concerns with someone who can get them help they may need – and potentially stop a massacre?

Some of you are giving everything you have, and I commend you. Some are working toward solutions to society’s woes but could do more. I find myself in that category. And some are doing little or nothing at all.

We need to do more. As a society, we’re capable of doing more. We can be better than this.

We can, and perhaps should, debate the role of guns in our society. But as long as we focus on that at the expense of working to solve our core problems, we’re seeking a Band Aid instead of true societal healing.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Michael Swickard

Our duty to the generations of Americans who follow us is to help them understand what it means to be an American.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” – John Kennedy, September 12, 1962

President John Kennedy spoke those words 50 years ago. A hundred years from now those words will still be ringing, even as most of everything else is forgotten from this time in American history. For a brief moment our country was truly exceptional. We were exceptional in ways that no other country before or after has shown.

Sadly, just 10 years and three months after Kenney’s speech our Moon project was done. But what a splendid 10 years it was in our country. Young people today have very little understanding of that time. Yes, they know we landed on the moon, but little else. Some know more about Apollo 13 than Apollo 11 because the trials and tribulations of Apollo 13 were shown in the movie of the same name.

Our duty to the generations of Americans who follow us is to help them understand what it means to be an American. Therefore, it is important to talk about American exceptionalism in action. The founding of our country was truly exceptional. We were one of many countries who had slaves, but we gave that up. We are now a country truly without racial bias. That is exceptional.

Our leadership in World War II was exceptional and arguably the very best moments so far in this country were in our Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. We need to make American exceptionalism a core aspect of our public school curriculum. For one thing, around 400,000 people worked on the space program, so there are plenty of people who still remember when America was leading the world.

It was a hot summer night in Las Cruces 43 years ago on July 20, 1969, when my friends and I sat spellbound watching man’s first steps on the Moon. I was a sophomore at college and even though I was not in engineering, I was quite aware of the enabling of this great feat by the American system of education. Yes, some of the initial work was laid by the Germans in World War II, but it was an exceptional moment as Americans constructed the methods of going to the moon and returning safely.

It was not without cost. Before our first steps on the moon, our Astronaut core lost eight members, none in space itself, but eight men lost their lives while part of this grand adventure. We spent $ 24 billion going to the moon, but it was spent in America. It was spent by Americans on Americans for America. It was the best $24 billion we have ever spent.

Yes, we Americans continued to go into space above the Earth, but the last trip to the moon was 40 years ago. There are fewer people each year learning to fly airplanes. Fewer of them are thinking about being astronauts than 40 years ago. We have lost our identity as explorers.

Every school child should have the opportunity via a flight simulator to learn how to pilot an airplane. Some say we do not have time for them to do something as splendiferous as that, students must sit quietly at their desks getting ready for the accountability tests so that the teachers can be judged. No sir! Let students do things that challenge them and their curiosity.

The success or failure of public schools is not during the year that students are in school, it is how they live the rest of their lives. Teach American exceptionalism, make the public students of today part of that quest and point the students toward worthy challenges, “not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills,” as Kennedy said.

Make America truly exceptional.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Ellen Bernstein

If we value certain important outcomes for our students, such as the ability to understand essential concepts, work in groups, think critically and solve problems, then we should measure those abilities – both in student learning and in teaching.

Educators from across the state are protesting the way in which Governor Martinez is trying to unilaterally force her plan for teacher evaluation on us. Why? Because we know an education system that focuses on competition and standardized testing, rather than cooperation and learning, is bad.

Bad for students, bad for educators, and bad for New Mexico.

Under “No Child Left Behind,” the emphasis on high-stakes testing led to a narrow curriculum and school schedules that cut out recess and limited students’ opportunities to engage in fine arts and electives. The idea of a well-rounded education has already gone by the wayside! Attaching individual evaluations to high-stakes tests will only serve to exacerbate this.

Linda Darling-Hammond, an expert educational researcher, in her recent paper entitled, Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching, clearly states:

“At best, teachers’ value-added ratings in one year predict only 25% of the variance in ratings in the next year, leaving 75% or more to be explained by factors such as who is assigned to a teacher’s class and what conditions he or she teaches under.”

Basing 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation on something that’s at best 25 percent reliable does not make for a fair and accurate evaluation. To make matters worse, the PED’s method of dealing with grade levels and subjects not currently included in standardized testing is to base those educators’ evaluations on their colleagues’ test score — or to do even more testing of all grades and subjects. Our students do not need to spend time taking more high-stakes tests; they need to spend time engaged in relevant learning experiences!

Both parents and educators know that a one-size-fits-few tool like a standardized test cannot truly measure the knowledge and growth of every student, nor the net impact an individual educator actually has on student growth.

Non-educators driving education reforms

The education secretary-designate and the governor claim they have the right to make these wrong-headed changes to teacher and principal evaluations through rule. Not true. If they had such a right, then why did they introduce legislation in the last session?

They know and we know that creating high-stakes education policy through rule, circumventing the legislative process, is wrong. Ask a legislator!

Non-educators are driving these education “reforms” in New Mexico — many of them recycled from other states. Their goal is to sabotage public education and convert it into a private enterprise. To this end, they continue to demonize the educators that, through their unions, are fighting for real and positive reforms. Don’t be fooled; our unions are not the problem.

Last week, Walt Gardner from Education Week wrote, “If teachers unions are the villain they have been made out to be, then states where teachers are heavily unionized would be expected to post the lowest scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. But this is not the case. Students in Massachusetts and Minnesota, for example, earn the highest scores on National Assessment of Educational Progress, even though teacher union membership is also extremely high. In sharp contrast, students in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas have the lowest scores on NAEP, even though few, if any, teachers belong to unions.”

A better way

In fact, our union has a better way to reform teacher evaluation. Our reform policies are based on a research-driven approach to evaluation that will create a fair, reliable system and will change public education for the better.

Our ideas are focused on measuring what we value, not the other way around. All too often in education, we value what is easy to measure, but overlook elements that are necessary for effective practice. If we value certain important outcomes for our students, such as the ability to understand essential concepts, work in groups, think critically, and solve problems, then we should measure those abilities.

If we value those attributes in student learning, then we are obligated to value the same qualities in teaching. Sadly, the Public Education Department’s proposed rule (6.69.8 NMAC) includes an over-reliance on standardized measures that undervalues — to the point of ignoring — the exact outcomes we need for our students and that we must value in our teachers.

Bernstein is president of the Albuquerque Teachers Federation.

Heath Haussamen

As investigators scramble to figure out what’s going on at the New Mexico Finance Authority, and NMFA officials claim they were duped by a rogue employee who created a fake audit but say little else, there are questions the agency can – and needs to – answer now.

There was a lot of debate this week about whether the New Mexico Finance Authority should proceed with the hiring of an independent investigator from outside the state to get to the bottom of its fraudulent audit in an attempt to calm Wall Street’s fears.

Ultimately, State Auditor Hector Balderas and Gov. Susana Martinez are pleased that the NMFA Board cancelled the $1.275 million contract with the Washington law firm Steptoe and Johnson and subcontractors. Both essentially argued that Balderas’ special audit and law enforcement probes should come first – and NMFA had been putting its independent probe before those.

Balderas also told the NMFA Board during a special meeting on Wednesday that it could recommend to his office an outside firm to help, and it appears that will happen. The same firm may be rehired – just under new terms agreed to by Balderas.

The shift came after Balderas told the NMFA – basically the bank for government agencies in New Mexico – that it hadn’t complied with state regulations that required it to notify the auditor in writing of the facts surrounding the fraudulent audit, to recommend an outside auditor to complete the still-lingering 2011 audit, to immediately provide a list of NMFA bank account numbers and authorization to access the accounts, and to provide the auditor with the scope of Steptoe and Johnson’s planned investigation.

Balderas told NMPolitics.net he’s “pleased with the leadership of the board,” which “is now heading in the right direction in getting the agency in compliance with state law.”

Martinez spokesman Scott Darnell said the governor, who appoints the majority of members to the NMFA board, “thinks that process should be very open, and believes NMFA should cooperate fully with law enforcement and the state auditor at every turn.” He said the board’s move to cancel the contract and work with Balderas “should send a strong message about how serious the matter is being taken.”

Sen. Mary Kay Papen, who heads the NMFA Oversight Committee, wasn’t impressed. Long a fan of Balderas, she said she’s not concerned with the competence of his office. But she said Wall Street experts have advised that the state needs to bring in outside help, and New Mexico needs to take that advice. She had previously called for the NMFA Board to uphold the $1.275 million contract.

“We want to make sure that our money is safe and what we’re doing is safe,” Papen said, adding that she hopes Steptoe and Johnson is rehired.

I honestly don’t know who’s right, but I know the stakes are high. Wall Street has put the state on notice that its credit rating could be downgraded. If it is, New Mexico will have to pay higher interest rates to borrow money for public works projects including roads and schools. That means taxpayers will have to pay more for each project, which ultimately means fewer projects will be built.

Lots of questions to answer

What I do know is that NMFA has a lot of questions to answer – to the taxpayers, to Wall Street, to investigators, to everyone. Some of them it should be able to answer immediately, but to date it has not.

Among the questions:

• The fraudulent audit (which you can read here) says an exit conference was held with the firm conducting the audit on Dec. 10, 2011. Board member Paul Gutierrez has already said publicly such a conference never took place. And minutes of the board’s December 2011 meeting state that the audit committee never met that month. What of those officials who should have attended such an exit conference? If none happened, why didn’t they notice it needed to take place and had not?
• The fraudulent audit was posted on NMFA’s website and circulated on Wall Street for months, but in May, the auditor’s office flagged the agency as being late on its audit because none had been submitted to it as required by law. Why did no one at NMFA notice that it was providing an audit to Wall Street while failing to submit it to the state auditor? Why did the fake audit remain on NMFA’s website until last week, when the agency had been flagged two months earlier for not turning in an audit?
• As others have written (here and here), the audit contains obvious red flags that, in retrospect, make pretty clear that it’s not real. Why did no one at NMFA notice?
• There are monetary differences between the valid 2010 audit and the fraudulent 2011 audit. Again, how did this go unnoticed?

At best, shocking negligence

You’ll notice I’m giving NMFA the benefit of the doubt in saying this all went unnoticed. It’s certainly possible that something more nefarious happened – that, despite NMFA’s attempts to put all the blame on a rogue controller, there was a larger conspiracy. I’m not alleging that, I’m just mentioning it as a possibility.

That possibility is why NMFA needs to do a better job of communicating with Balderas and other investigators, and with the public and Wall Street. Immediately. How are we to know this agency wasn’t involved in massive, fraudulent activity and a widespread cover-up? As Balderas pointed out, we currently know nothing about NMFA’s financial health – or lack thereof.

The fraudulent audit itself may be a crime, and the head of the state Securities Division, which is investigating, says, “we have already determined that fraudulent activity was not limited to the audit report alone.”

Right now NMFA’s only answer seems to be that it doesn’t know what happened or how and that it was deceived by a rogue employee. If that’s the case, it appears others at NMFA are guilty of, at best, shocking negligence.

Let’s hope taxpayers don’t end up paying the price for that. Martinez, Balderas, Papen and others all want to calm Wall Street’s fears before the state’s credit rating takes a hit. Let’s hope they can work together to move forward despite their current disagreement on how to do it.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed

Marie Aragon

Perhaps two of the state’s stronger backers of oil and gas recently called for an end to energy-industry tax breaks. But do they understand that by calling for an end to energy-industry tax breaks, they are also talking about their sacred cow: oil and gas?

In this hyper-political environment, it’s often hard to find common ground. That’s why, to great surprise, I recently came across a little-noticed 2011 open letter to Congress signed by New Mexico’s energy advocates Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation and Marita Noon of Energy Makes America Great.

In the letter, “It’s Time to Put an End to Energy Subsidies,” they join others in decrying the folly of energy-industry tax breaks. The letter, which was co-authored by several limited-government advocates, states: “Instead of promoting a reliable and affordable energy industry, the subsidy-first energy policy that has prevailed the past three decades has created whole industries dependent on government and focused as much on ensuring their share of taxpayer largesse as they are on developing energy.”

There you have it: Perhaps two of the state’s stronger backers of oil and gas, calling for an end to energy-industry tax breaks.

But do they understand that by calling for an end to energy-industry tax breaks, they are also talking about their sacred cow: oil and gas?

The oil and gas industry is slated to receive $47.1 billion in tax breaks over the next five years, with $24.3 billion of that amount only available to their industries, according to the Checks and Balances Project, an investigative project that focuses on policy decisions that affect taxpayers and consumers. Other New Mexican businesses need not apply for these tax breaks.

Surely, when Gessing and Noon take on energy tax breaks, they must also be speaking of oil and gas, right?

Sadly, no one has really put them on spot and asked their opinion on the subject.

Giving billions to big oil

Why is all this important and why single out oil and gas? The answer is fairly simple.

The oil and gas industry has enjoyed hefty tax breaks for decades. This means that for most of our lifetimes, the industry has received taxpayer dollars to help them explore and extract their product. No one would argue with the importance of locally sourced oil and gas and the economic contributions these producers make to our state.

The problem is that the oil and gas industry gets tax breaks even as it is wildly profitable.

According to the 2011 “Subsidy Gusher” report by the nonpartisan watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, the top five oil companies alone reported more than $850 billion in total profits over the last 10 years.

Here’s a memo for the armchair economists: Typically, industry tax breaks are used to help fledgling industries until they can get on their feet. Once they are economically viable and start producing tax income, such subsidies should be scaled back so that taxpayers no longer have to foot the bill.

But here we are – all of us – giving billions of dollars to big oil, which is taking us to the cleaners twice: on Tax Day and at the gas pump.

Do Gessing and Noon believe this should continue? Do our candidates for Congress? Or do they agree that it is time to end the special treatment for Big Oil and make this industry make do with the $850 billion in profits we have all paid it over the past decade?

Marie Aragon is a lifelong New Mexican and a member of Organizers in the Land of Enchantment (OLÉ New Mexico). OLÉ is a grassroots community organization of working families focused on strengthening our communities through social advocacy and economic reform, using issue-based campaigns to ensure that working families are playing a critical role in shaping New Mexico’s future.