Michael Swickard

Shuckins! At my gas station this week was the dreaded note on the pump: “This gasoline now contains ethanol.” I have changed stations several times this last year to keep from buying E10, gasoline laced with 10 percent ethanol. This move to ethanol laced gasoline is political in nature. I have three major objections to being forced to use E10.

First, the BTU (energy) content of E10 is not as high as regular gasoline, so I surrender gas mileage. I already drive carefully and under the speed limit to boost gas mileage so this will not “break the bank” in my life. However, I do not want to spend money foolishly fuelish.

Further, my 1998 Mercury Grand Marquis reacts to E10 with a warning to “Check Engine” which means the oxygen sensors in my car puke with E10. It has always done so and the advice of my mechanic has been to not put ethanol in my gas tank. When I put regular gas back in the warning light goes off. So, why should I pay money to have a problem with my car and lose gas mileage to boot?

Second, the use of the food crop corn to make fuel raises the price of corn-based food since the production of corn competes with the federally subsidized ethanol production. Farmers weigh the value of producing corn for food or for fuel where they get a federal ethanol subsidy. The reduction of corn in our food chain increases the cost of food both for humans and for animal feed. Increasing the cost of feeding animals results in higher animal-based food costs to consumers.

Taxpayers subsidize the production of ethanol, which in turn raises the cost of our food. While food cost is not a problem for me, I do not want to spend the extra money needlessly. Importantly, the escalating food costs are very problematic for the more fragile families in New Mexico.

More so, this artificial increase in food prices have causes riots in Mexico and in other countries with large populations who are mired in poverty, since the increase in food prices is very real to those people and quite catastrophic. There is no reason their corn-based food should increase in price.

Finally, closer to home, New Mexico uses its oil industry to fund education. The use of E10 fuels subtracts money from our schools because the 10 percent of ethanol used in gasoline is mainly produced in the “corn belt.” There is no reason to use less New Mexico produced petroleum to satisfy political whims.

From voluntary to mandatory

Understand, I have no objection whatsoever to E10 being sold. Anyone who wants to drive with E10, or E85 for that matter, is free to do so. My objection is that E10 is being forced upon me because it is getting harder and harder to find gasoline without ethanol. While we can talk about ethanol being cleaner burning I am not convinced it is critical when compared to the harm done to food production and New Mexico schools.

Likewise, there is a move to mandate paying for recycling when some citizens do not wish to recycle. In Las Cruces the city council is considering mandating the payment of recycling for every citizen even if some citizens do not wish to recycle. Either directly or indirectly every citizen pays for recycling because recycling does not pay for itself. If recycling made dollars and sense it would not have to be subsidized.

It is important to note that often with government what starts as “voluntary” moves quickly to mandatory, as friends of mine in other cities have found. I have a friend who must separate into six barrels paper, glass, metal, garbage, and two other things which I do not remember. I just remember when I visit he is perpetually upset by all of the care he must take in separating everything he uses. His garage is taken up by the mandatory recycling which he remembers WAS voluntary when it started.

Is it certain that if the Las Cruces City Council starts a recycling program with mandatory payment it will end up as obtrusive as my friend’s? No, but that is the way to bet.

Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.

Swickard bio │ Archives │ Feed

Denish, left, and Martinez share a brief handshake. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

The gubernatorial candidates covered little new ground in separate speeches at the Domenici Public Policy Conference in Las Cruces today, and their only interaction was a brief handshake.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez spoke first, highlighting familiar themes like making the state more business friendly and ending corruption. Democrat Diane Denish, who didn’t attend Martinez’s speech, also sounded familiar themes such as restructuring government and creating green jobs.

Martinez did stick around for Denish’s speech, and afterward she approached Denish. The two briefly shook hands while Martinez said something I didn’t catch and Denish smiled. And just like that, their interaction was over.

Susana Martinez speaking at today's conference. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Martinez’s speech

Martinez was characteristically critical of the “Richardson/Denish” administration, saying the state is “at a crossroads, and we have a very important decision to make in the next two months.”

She made familiar claims, such as her assertion that government has grown more than 50 percent during Bill Richardson’s tenure (as I’ve already reported, the overall growth during the Richardson years is less than that). She talked about cutting government spending and taxes and getting rid of regulations that discourage businesses from locating in New Mexico.

Martinez also talked about her plan to shift 4 percent of dollars spent on K-12 education from other expenses to the classroom and to offer tax credits for donations to nonprofits that offer private school scholarships to poor children.

“It is morally reprehensible to trap a child in a failing school simply because they cannot afford to go elsewhere,” Martinez said.

And, speaking about higher education, Martinez said she favors freezing tuition rates – so that the rates students pay during their freshman year is the rate they’ll pay for four years. Martinez said that would allow students to plan for college. And she pledged to keep politics out of the university regents selection process, saying she would pick highly qualified candidates.

On corruption, Martinez talked about increasing penalties for corruption-related crimes and promoted several transparency measures, but she said there’s a more important factor.

“Battling corruption starts at the top, and as governor, I would set a tone that is very different,” Martinez said.

Diane Denish speaking at today's conference. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Denish’s speech

Denish was a little on the defensive during her speech, and took a couple of shots at Martinez, but for the most part remained positive. She said the intent of the policy conference was to talk about ideas for the future. And Denish had a bit of a lighthearted tone in her defensiveness.

“Despite what some people would like you to believe, I’m not responsible for the global economic downturn,” Denish said.

She talked in depth about her plans to reform government, create jobs, and improve education and also spoke about taking advantage of the federal health care law and ending predatory lending.

On the economy, she said she would have a “robust center for rural development,” talked about investing in broadband Internet, giving tax credits to small businesses that create jobs, expanding microlending and giving New Mexico businesses more of an advantage in bidding on state contracts.

Speaking in Southern New Mexico, Denish was quick to mention Spaceport America.

“This is an investment in the future that was supported by Southern New Mexico,” Denish said, adding that she believes the spaceport will improve education and encourage innovation and tourism, in addition to building the commercial space industry.

Denish talked about starting a number of new programs and initiatives she said would move New Mexico forward. Then, in a perhaps not-so-subtle shot at Martinez, Denish seized on the Republican’s constant statement that New Mexico needs “bold change.”

“What is bold?” Denish asked. “… Is it just saying you’re going to get rid of a few things? Or is it saying you’re going to start things?”

What’s next?

The brief interaction between Martinez and Denish came immediately following Denish’s speech. Then they went their separate ways, each stopping to talk to people attending the Domenici conference and a handful of news reporters before they left.

The candidates have appeared at only one debate – in Albuquerque on the topic of education – and have yet to schedule any others. And though neither campaign is saying it on the record, the chances of an actual debate in Las Cruces, Martinez’s hometown, appear to be unlikely.

You can watch both candidates’ speeches from the Domenici conference by clicking here.

Update, 10:20 p.m.

Denish Campaign Manager Oren Shur had this to say:

“The Denish campaign accepted an invitation by the League of Women Voters to debate in Las Cruces – and included it in the schedule of eight debates we proposed last month. The Martinez campaign has not shown an interest in having a debate in Las Cruces. When a candidate is unwilling to debate in front of the voters who know her best, it always makes you wonder. Maybe she knows the sound bites, empty promises and platitudes don’t cut it in Cruces.

“See that debate release here: http://www.dianedenish.com/news/press_releases?id=0052.”

Denish with former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Martinez with former U.S. Rep. and Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Reducing the federal government’s massive debt is the most important issue of the day and should be approached like fighting a war, former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici said Wednesday.

“We could lose the war, and losing the war would mean this great democracy would cease to be a powerful force in the world,” Domenici said during an afternoon session at the Domenici Public Policy Conference at New Mexico State University.

“Our children, who we promised a great life, would probably have a second-rate standard of living,” he said. “And if you don’t feel it yet, you should. We’re kind of getting poorer.”

Domenici is part of a think tank in Washington that’s working on tackling the debt issue, the Bipartisan Policy Center. The group’s Debt Reduction Task Force, which Domenici co-chairs, will soon be releasing its findings. Domenici said cuts to existing spending – including entitlement programs – and tax increases or other revenue raisers will both have to be on the table if the United States is going to win this war.

While many in Domenici’s Republican Party advocate for tax cuts and the resulting stimulation of economic growth to fix the economy, Domenici said that alone won’t do it.

“When I tell you that growth alone won’t do this, I’m not talking about theory,” Domenici said. “I’m talking about numbers.”

New Mexico’s longest-serving senator, who’s now 78, also acknowledged that cuts to entitlement programs won’t be popular.

“We’re not going to ask everybody to love us,” Domenici said. “We’re hoping and praying that the public won’t hate us.”

But the stakes are too high to not be honest, Domenici said. When the task force of 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans got together to look for real, bipartisan solutions, he said they agreed that “everything has to be on the table.”

The task force’s report will be a “big barn burner,” Domenici said, but it has to be done for the good of the nation.

ABC newsman Sam Donaldson (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Iraq war has ‘been a terrible expense’

Domenici’s remarks came during a conversation with ABC newsman Sam Donaldson, who asked Domenici about the extreme partisanship that has taken over Washington, the debt and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Domenici talked about the other issues, he often came back to the debt.

For example, asked about the formal end of combat missions in Iraq earlier this week and what the United States accomplished during the war, Domenici talked about the financial cost of the war.

“I wish we never got in it,” he said. “It’s been a terrible expense.”

Domenici, a one-time supporter of the Iraq war who has gradually changed his mind, said Iraq has the potential to become one of the nations in the Middle East working for good.

“Iraq might not be worth it, but it’s done, and it might be worth it,” he said. “We’ve got to hope that.”

Even before his afternoon talk, Domenici took the podium at the end of a separate talk on nuclear weapons and turned his focus toward the debt, saying the problem is so severe “that we’re probably going to have to go on a literal diet… if we’re going to save the country.”

Fixing the problem will require bipartisanship, and when Donaldson pushed Domenici to talk about the divisive climate in Washington, the former senator said it’s currently worse than at any time during his 36 years in the Senate. He had harsh words for the leadership in Washington.

“I also believe that the leaders don’t understand what’s needed to help the members be bipartisan,” he said.

Martinez, Denish, Rove on today’s schedule

The candidates for governor – Republican Susana Martinez and Democrat Diane Denish – will be speaking at the Domenici conference at NMSU today, as will GOP strategist Karl Rove and others. Check the full schedule here. To watch webcasts of the talks, click here.

Domenici and Donaldson share a laugh. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Matthew Chandler

In 2003, Governor Bill Richardson signed legislation to allow those who are in this country unlawfully to obtain a New Mexico driver’s license.

Seven years later, however, it is clear this experiment has failed, and yet the state’s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Gary King, is still defending the policy – even as recently as this week.

New Mexico is now one of only three states in the country that doesn’t require proof of citizenship or legal residency to obtain a state-issued license, and we’ve learned the hard way that being part of this exclusive club has left us vulnerable to fraud, crime and abuse. How? Because in the 47 other states that issue driver’s licenses, along with other privileges, this form of identification signifies that the bearer is someone who is in our country legally. So, you can see why a New Mexico driver’s license becomes so attractive to illegal immigrants.

With that in mind, it is understandable that a recent analysis found that following the passage of Arizona’s immigration law, there was a 60 percent increase in the number of licenses issued to immigrants in the three states which have the most relaxed licensing laws – including New Mexico.

Just recently, an Illinois man was caught running advertisements in a Polish-language newspaper guaranteeing New Mexico licenses in exchange for $1,000. The man admitted to making at least five trips to the state to help his illegal clients get a license from the Land of Enchantment.

Last year, it was determined that two of the three suspects who were involved in a robbery and shooting at a local Albuquerque restaurant were in the United States illegally – both had New Mexico drivers’ licenses.

And when federal agents were investigating a case involving Brazilians being transported in to the state from New Jersey for licenses, the feds noted that “New Mexico is one of a handful of states in which driver’s licenses are easily obtainable by illegal aliens using false documents.”

Defending a law that puts New Mexicans at risk

Although the obvious flaws in New Mexico’s driver’s license policy are glaring, it’s still on the books, which is a shame, because Gary King knows full well that implementation of this policy has led to increased criminal activity. And yet, except for defending the policy, the attorney general has remained silent. On a radio show in June, Gary King trotted out the tired argument that without the policy, “we are just forcing people to drive without us ever seeing if they can drive or not and that might cause fatal accidents on the road.”

Last Wednesday during a debate, while I unequivocally stated my opposition to the law, Mr. King was quick to say he disagreed with me and went on to defend the virtues of the law.

Scaring people into believing that without this law more motorists on our roads would be in danger misses the point entirely and is ludicrous and irresponsible. Instead, as the state’s chief law officer, King should have used his influence to draw attention to the dangers New Mexicans face because of the law, especially since the policy has generated criminal activity. He had four years to petition the governor and the Legislature to fix the law, but he did not.

Unfortunately, it would appear that Gary King would rather defend a law that puts New Mexicans at risk than disagree with members of his party who are responsible for crafting it. Putting politics above the safety of New Mexicans is inexcusable.

Four years ago, Gary King promised “to be the kind of state attorney general who will continually root out corruption before it saps state government operations or integrity – and before it’s blatant enough to catch the federal prosecutors’ attention.” Today, we are still waiting for this to happen.

Chandler is the Republican candidate for attorney general.

After busting threw the front door and snapping on the flat screen, I sat entranced.

A few comments.

First – President Obama’s nod to President Bush was nothing short of lovely. It was something I felt I needed to immediately blog about, but then someone beat me to it.  (See the fourth point below).

Second – Linking the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom to a newfound focus on the American economy just seemed ludicrous and laughable. Is this not the classic case of “a little too late?” The Obama administration has been in office for nearly 20 months now. And the economy has been tanking for over 20 months now. It would have made tremendous sense for the president to start with the real problem (the economy) at the forefront, rather than the secondary problem (health care). Brilliance would have been to start the domestic agenda with the economy and then link health care to the end of the Iraq war. Just a thought.

Third – Sitting through the Oval Office speech brought back memories. I could not help but dwell on the strength that President Bush evidenced to the country and his staff during the 9-11 disaster. Ground Zero was ultimately what got us to the Green Zone.

Fourth – There was so much in Obama’s address last night that I wanted to comment on… until I read Mark McKinnon’s phenomenal piece in the Daily Beast. Quite frankly, Mark understands – and succinctly captures – President Bush and the workings of the Bush Administration in a way that few can. I really can’t comment other than to tell you that if you want the best juxtaposition to President Obama’s Oval Office – then you really must read this outstanding piece. It’s an important piece that gives deference where deference is due.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.

Jamie P. Estrada

What’s wrong with this picture? With nothing to show for it, Governor Bill Richardson has just returned from another so-called “trade mission” to Cuba to meet with the communist regime’s dictators. Meanwhile, New Mexico lags behind other states in exports. Clearly, our state needs to get serious about trade, and that requires setting the right priorities in order to create jobs and get our economy growing again.

New Mexicans are wondering what has resulted from four annual trips to Havana, the first led in 2007 by then Congressman and now U.S. Senator Tom Udall. According to international trade data produced by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exports from New Mexico to Cuba since 2007 amount to zero. That’s right, zero. Despite four consecutive “missions,” New Mexico has not sold a single pecan, green chile pepper or grain of wheat to Cuba.

A trade mission should eventually result in sales. The delegation should consist mostly of business people, with only enough government officials on hand to increase the chances for success. And mission destinations shouldn’t be based on where we want to go, but rather where market data tells us we need to go – like countries that are actually capable of buying our goods and services.

So if selling New Mexico’s products is really the goal, then it makes no sense for officials like Richardson and Udall to be going to Cuba. Far more lucrative markets exist, such as those opened up through free trade agreements.

New Mexico exports lag behind neighboring states

In this same press release touting the Cuba trip, Richardson claims “the state has seen tremendous growth (in international trade) since 2003.” However, official trade data reveal the truth about the Richardson/Denish years: New Mexico’s export performance lags behind our neighboring states. In 2008 – the latest year for which state GDP numbers are available – New Mexico’s exports as a percentage of state GDP were at 3.8 percent. Meanwhile, the southern border states of California, Arizona and Texas performed much better at 7.8 percent, 7.9 percent and 15.7 percent, respectively.

New Mexico could also strive to be more like Utah. The state’s former governor, Jon Huntsman Jr., put his vast international credentials to work for Utah’s citizens. In his 4.5 years as governor, Huntsman, a former senior trade official in both Bush administrations and now the U.S. ambassador to China, led trade missions to Canada, Mexico, Israel and China. The result? 2008 exports as a percentage of Utah’s GDP were 9.4 percent – or 2.5 times higher than New Mexico’s percentage. And during Huntsman’s tenure, Utah’s exports grew at a compounded annual growth rate of 20 percent.

Disappointingly, under Richardson/Denish, New Mexico’s exports from 2003 to 2008 grew by a meager 4 percent, proving that you reap what you sow.

When you consider 2009 export numbers – a year in which U.S. exports fell for most states due to the global recession – Utah’s exports bucked the trend and actually grew by $31 million from 2008. However, New Mexico’s exports dropped by $1.5 billion – a startling 54 percent fall from the prior year.

Perhaps realizing that eight years of the Richardson/Denish Administration have failed to produce results for international trade and foreign direct investment, Richardson recently formed a “task force” to deliver recommendations to him by Nov. 15. Yet another example of being “eight too late.”

If we don’t make it here, we can’t sell it there

It should come as no surprise that the states that rank highest for their positive business climate are also outperforming counterparts when it comes to exports. While New Mexico languishes at the bottom third of most rankings, states like Virginia, Utah and Texas are consistently at the top. These states all experienced double digit gains in exports during the last decade and their unemployment rates are lower than the national average.

As a border state, New Mexico is in a great position to become an export powerhouse and thus create good paying private sector jobs. However, our state government must first adopt pro-business policies in order to attract investment from globally oriented industries. This means reining in government spending, rooting out corruption, improving education, keeping corporate and personal taxes low and standing up against job killing regulations – such as those proposed by the Richardson/Denish Environmental Improvement Board – that serve only to increase our energy costs and suppress our state’s potential to attract high-paying manufacturing jobs.

Trips to Cuba might allow Governor Richardson to feel he is playing a constructive role in international politics, but these trips are not helpful to hard working New Mexicans whose lives could be improved if our leaders supported a serious international trade and pro-business agenda.

Estrada is the president of Global Growth Strategies, Inc., an international trade consultancy, and served as U.S. deputy assistant secretary of commerce for manufacturing in the George W. Bush administration.

The criticism from Garcia came last week in a letter she sent to media outlets across the state. It was in response to this campaign ad from Martinez:

“Baby Brianna was five months old when she died. She had many broken bones, over 30 bite marks, and she was beat to death,” Martinez says in the ad. “We had to fight for those kids that were killed this way, so we went to the Legislature and fought for three years to make it a life sentence, and we succeeded.”

Heath Haussamen

Garcia’s most egregious claim – in a letter she sent to media outlets across the state last week – is this statement:

“Martinez claims she had worked for three years on the legislation; however, it was only in 2005 (the year the bill was passed) that I remember her in Santa Fe, merely observing in a house committee and senate committee as SB 166 was debated.”

She implies that Martinez’s only role was “observing” a couple of legislative committees. The reality is well documented and directly contradicts Garcia’s claim.

But first the context: Baby Brianna was one of seven children killed by family members in Doña Ana County in a span of 3.5 years. The circumstances surrounding Brianna’s 2002 death made it the most shocking to the community, which rallied around efforts by Garcia and Martinez to toughen the penalties for child abuse resulting in death.

Brianna’s death became well known beyond New Mexico. I was the crime and courts reporter at the Las Cruces Sun-News at the time and was contacted by people from around the country who work to combat child abuse. Many told me it was one of the worst cases they’d ever seen.

Garcia sponsors legislation

In that context, Garcia sponsored Senate Bill 326, which would have toughened the penalties for child abuse resulting in death, in 2003. Martinez was among those who traveled to Santa Fe for a committee hearing on the bill. The bill didn’t make it out of the Senate that year.

State Sen. Mary Jane Garcia (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

What Garcia and Martinez both seem to have forgotten is that the bill wasn’t introduced in 2004 because it was a 30-day session and the bill wasn’t on the call.

Then came 2005. There was a much more intentional effort to pass Senate Bill 166. To bring attention to the issue, I did a series of articles for the Sun-News on the child abuse deaths. Martinez’s office took portions of a graphic that accompanied one of my articles – images of each child who had died and info about their cases – and enlarged them to make posters to take to Santa Fe for committee hearings.

Lawmakers didn’t allow the posters into hearings. Some of the photos were autopsy photos that offended some legislators.

A private donor funded a Martinez-coordinated effort to bus dozens of people from Las Cruces to Santa Fe to attend the hearings. Martinez and other employees of the district attorney’s office took the lead in inviting people and driving them to and from Santa Fe.

On Feb. 17, 2005, an article I wrote documented one of those trips, in which Deputy District Attorney Amy Orlando bussed 60 Las Crucens north. Here’s what Garcia said at the time about those people who came from Las Cruces:

“I appreciate very much what they’re doing. I want to thank them all.”

Martinez made about half a dozen trips to Santa Fe for hearings on the bill. She spoke at more than one. The Sun-News’ Walt Rubel, writing last weekend about Garcia’s new attack on Martinez, pointed out that in a 2005 article he wrote, he quoted Martinez as telling the Senate Public Affairs Committee, “Almost everyone in this room comes from Las Cruces. We came by bus, we were escorted by law enforcement. Medical personnel, La Pi on Battered Women’s Shelter … everyone that we could load in a bus we brought today. And we are here in very strong support of this bill.”

Martinez also helped organize and spoke at a news conference about the bill in the Roundhouse on that day.

Michael Sanchez’s untruths

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

The bill made it all the way to the Senate floor before Majority Leader Michael Sanchez butchered it with statements that weren’t true. A Feb. 19, 2005 article from Rubel documented what happened. Essentially, Sanchez “pushed through a floor amendment” that changed the bill so that it still strengthened the penalties for child abuse resulting in death, but also weakened the penalties for intentional and negligent child abuse resulting in permanent injury.

Even though he proposed weakened penalties for both negligent and intentional child abuse resulting in permanent injury, Sanchez said his goal was to distinguish between intentional and negligent acts. He argued that parents could be prosecuted under the negligence law if a child died in an accident or was abused without their knowledge.

“There but for the grace of God go I,” Sen. Dede Feldman was quoted by Rubel as saying in announcing she would support the bill with the weakened penalties.

Martinez was livid. In an interview with me, she was highly critical of senators who amended the bill, saying the weakened penalties would allow parents who permanently injure their children to return home in time to abuse children again before they become adults.

Where was Garcia when all this was happening? She agreed to support Sanchez’s floor amendment.

“The intent is to put the perpetrator in jail. I don’t want to put an innocent bystander in jail,” Garcia was quoted by Rubel as saying.

Martinez challenges Sanchez’s claim

Martinez started working behind the scenes to combat Sanchez’s amendment. She called me and told me she wanted me to quote her as saying Sanchez’s claim was false, and told me she’d spoken with the AG’s office, and if I called them they’d tell me the same thing.

I did, and on March 13, 2005, the Sun-News published my article quoting Martinez and AG spokesman Paul Nixon as saying Sanchez’s claim that parents who accidentally kill their children could be prosecuted under the bill was false. Specific wording in the bill, Nixon told me, prevented that.

Sanchez, I noted at the time, is a criminal defense attorney. Martinez accused him and Sen. Cisco McSorley – another lawyer and legislator who argued for the weakened penalties – of manipulating colleagues who weren’t lawyers and didn’t know any better. She questioned whether the two were working for their constituents or clients.

Many believed the bill was dead, because support evaporated when it was amended to weaken penalties for some types of child abuse. Gov. Bill Richardson said he wouldn’t sign it in its amended form.

But Martinez hadn’t given up. Copies of my article quoting Martinez and Nixon were left on lawmakers desks as the weakened bill headed to the House.

State Rep. Joseph Cervantes (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Cervantes breathes new life into legislation

Enter state Rep. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, who worked behind the scenes to fix the bill. He spoke with the governor and worked with his colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to restore the bill to its original version and clear the way for it to pass the House and Senate. And it did.

And there was Garcia, being quoted by Rubel as saying she was pleased with the changes that restored the bill.

“My intent has always been to put the perpetrator away for life,” she said at the time.

Martinez was at the House Judiciary hearing. It was the first hearing, according to Rubel’s article, that wasn’t attended by dozens of Las Crucens bussed by Martinez’s office. That was due to bad weather and the late scheduling of the bill.

With Sanchez having been called out by Martinez and the AG’s office, the bill in its original, toughened form easily made it through the House and, on the second try, through the Senate. Martinez publicly thanked Cervantes and House Majority Leader Ken Martinez for making it happen.

Bill enacted; lots of people share credit

Gov. Bill Richardson (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

The governor said he’d sign the bill. And he did just that at a ceremony in Las Cruces. A March 31, 2005 article by Sun-News reporter Diana Alba states that, at the ceremony, the governor “credited legislators, the community of Las Cruces and 3rd Judicial District Attorney Susana Martinez, who pushed for the passage of the legislation. ‘They did it by persisting,’ he said.”

I want to be clear on something: Garcia was the heart behind this bill. She sponsored it and pushed it. But she alone didn’t pass it. Cervantes, Ken Martinez and others in the House, along with the governor, brought the bill back to life and carried it to passage.

And you can’t discount the effect Susana Martinez had, through speaking at committee meetings and a news conference, bussing people from Las Cruces, and working behind the scenes with the AG to combat Sanchez’s shenanigans.

No one person gets credit for this. Garcia, Cervantes, Richardson, Susana Martinez and Ken Martinez all played huge roles, as did Edgar Lopez, the Las Crucen who paid for the busses to take people to Santa Fe.

The people who gave their time to travel to Santa Fe from Las Cruces to stand and speak in support of the bill were also critical.

Garcia and others have called it the ‘Baby Brianna bill’

One more point: Garcia wrote in her letter to the media last week that the bill was titled “Life Sentences for Deadly Child Abuse.”

“The name of Briana Lopez or baby Briana Act does not exist in the statute,” Garcia wrote. “It was never my intention to put the name of any child on the bill because it was done for all children in New Mexico.”

Brianna’s name does not exist in the statute. But lots of people called it the “Baby Brianna Bill” – including Garcia.

In fact, Garcia did it as recently as July of this year, when she authored a guest column on this site and elsewhere about a new child abuse death in Anthony. Here’s what she wrote:

“I remember back to 2002 when something unimaginable occurred in my very own community of Las Cruces. In 2002 baby Briana Lopez, a six-month old infant, was found horrifically beaten and raped countless times by her family members, bitten by her own mother, bruised throughout her entire body, and thrown hitting the ceiling and dropping to the floor. Briana Lopez died July 19, 2002 from the brutal abuse.

“In 2005 I passed SB166 – a bill known as the ‘Baby Briana Bill’ that created life sentences for child abuse resulting in death. Baby Briana’s death was the impetus for this piece of legislation…”

It’s a shame that Garcia is distorting the facts

It’s no secret that Garcia and Susana Martinez don’t like each other. Martinez once prosecuted Garcia’s brother-in-law and nephew, Miguel O. “Mike” Gonzales and his son, Michael Gonzales Jr. Garcia has told me in the past that she doesn’t like Martinez for that reason.

I’m glad they were able to come together in spite of that in 2005 to get this bill passed. It’s a shame that Garcia is now distorting the facts about what happened.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary archives │ Feed

Bill McCamley

District 5 Public Regulation candidate Bill McCamley says he’s disappointed that his opponent is refusing to debate him several times before the Nov. 2 election.

“It’s a shame that Mr. (Ben) Hall is refusing to interact with me. A series of debates would have educated the public both about the PRC and where we stand on its issues,” McCamley said in a news release. “If he won’t engage with me during the campaign, what does that say about his ability to be effective in Santa Fe, where there is a constant need to communicate and converse in order to protect the public?”

“I stand ready to discuss creating accountability and trust at the PRC with him should he change his mind,” McCamley said.

Last week Hall, the Republican in the race, rejected the challenge from McCamley, the Democrat, to jointly appear at 10 forums across the district this month and next month.

Ben Hall

Hall didn’t give a reason in his letter for rejecting McCamley’s challenge. But he did say he can “interact with the public and inform them of my background, knowledge of issues and my experience thru my web site, e-mail and the many forms of media that are available.”

In his news release, McCamley pointed to a blog posting in which the editor of the Alamogordo Daily News wrote, “McCamley has visited with me personally – in my office – three times and talked with my reporters several more times at various events. Hall has not contacted me or any of my editorial staff
at the Daily News – not even through the many forms of aforementioned media he cites to McCamley.”

As I’ve disclosed in the past, I’m friends with McCamley. Click here to read more about that.

Arturo Sandoval

When most people think about haze they think about cities. Unfortunately, air pollution travels to many of our national parks and wilderness areas as well. In fact, one in three national parks across the country now suffer from air pollution levels that exceed health standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In the Southwest, haze hangs over New Mexico’s Pecos Wilderness and many other parks and wilderness areas. The haze not only spoils pristine views, but also makes the air unhealthy for visitors, plants and wildlife. Fortunately, we have an immediate opportunity to rectify this situation by ensuring that the biggest park polluters, coal-fired power plants, are finally made to clean up.

Locally, the majority of this preventable pollution spews from the burning of coal at Four Corners Power Plant in Fruitland, N.M., San Juan Generating Station in Waterflow, N.M. and the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in Page, Ariz.

In fact, the Four Corners Power Plant is the largest single source of air pollution in New Mexico. Every year this plant alone burns enough coal to fill over ten Empire State Buildings. The thousands of tons of hazardous pollutants pouring out of the plant produce an unnatural haze that impairs park visitors’ ability to see long distances and stunning scenic views.

Keeping tourism flourishing and preserving jobs

Haze pollution containing ozone formed from coal plants is also harmful to our health, causing respiratory illness, heart disease and strokes. In addition, sulfur dioxide and toxic mercury released into the air from Four Corners, San Juan and NGS harms wildlife, native trees and lakes across New Mexico.

A combination of poor visibility, unhealthy air, contaminated waters, impaired wildlife and fish that are unsafe for human consumption are the last things visitors are looking for when coming to our national parks. All these negative impacts also hit us in our hogans, our pueblos, our villages and our towns and cities across New Mexico.

If we want to keep our vital tourism industry flourishing and preserve jobs and the strength of New Mexico’s economy, we must clean up outdated power plants and invest in energy efficiency and clean energy sources instead of putting public health and our national parks at risk.

EPA is taking over plan for reducing haze pollution

There are numerous cost-effective technologies that can help outdated coal plants like Four Corners, San Juan and NGS reduce their impact on our national parks and lungs. For example, in July 2010, the state of New Mexico determined that San Juan must install the best available retrofit technology that would specifically reduce nitrogen oxides (one of the three major haze causing pollutants) by 90 percent or more.
This and other tools are readily at our disposal. The only question is whether the political will exists to get the job done.

In mid-August, after submitting a state plan worth supporting, New Mexico handed over its responsibility for a plan to reduce haze pollution at the San Juan Plant to the EPA. This means that in less than three months, the EPA must propose a federal implementation plan for San Juan (with a final plan due by May 2011), and have a final plan in place for Four Corners and the Navajo Plant within six months, since they are located on Navajo land.

Public outcry needed to push EPA

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has authority to impose reasonably strong federal plans for states, and to implement strong federal plans on tribal lands, don’t expect Uncle Sam to ride to the rescue. EPA is already decades behind achieving clean air goals set by Congress in 1977, and is unlikely – without significant public outcry – to create a timely and more effective haze cleanup plan for New Mexico, or to impose robust plans on plants under its own jurisdiction.

Right now we have a choice: We can let Four Corners, San Juan, Navajo Generating Station and other coal-fired power plants destroy our health, our communities and our wilderness areas, or we can demand that EPA comply with the law so that we can all breathe easier. By supporting New Mexico’s original decision to clean up nitrogen oxides and demanding that other pollutants and other dirty coal plants be cleaned up, we would be assured that our trips to the mountains are good for our health and that we could see spectacular wilderness and our treasured landscapes from miles away.

If we ensure that San Juan modernize and reduce pollution, and require the same of the Navajo Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant today, our children and grandchildren will have the opportunity we owe them to enjoy a future that includes healthy lungs, fresh air, sacred landscapes and magnificent views in the Four Corners region.

Albuquerque-based Arturo Sandoval, president and founder of VOCES, Inc., grew up in Española and was instilled with a deep reverence for New Mexico’s enchanted landscapes. He has 40 years experience in media, public relations, fund development and organizational development, and has worked as an award-winning print journalist, television news anchor and news photographer. Mr. Sandoval can be reached at vocesinc@aol.com.

Gary King

Attorney General Gary King has big leads over challenger Matt Chandler in two newly released polls of the race.

I already mentioned the first poll in an article published Monday – an internal poll released by the King campaign that had King, the Democrat, leading the Republican Chandler by 19 percentage points. Today, the Albuquerque Journal released an independent poll that had King leading by 15 percentage points.

The poll released by King’s campaign had him leading with the support of 47 percent of likely voters to Chandler’s 28, with 25 percent of those surveyed undecided. The survey of 600 likely voters was conducted Aug. 2-4 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The Journal poll had King leading 48 percent to 33 percent with 19 percent undecided. The survey of 942 likely voters, conducted by Research and Polling Inc. from Aug. 23-27, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Matt Chandler

Some highlights from King’s poll, which was released to NMPolitics.net:

“King’s support is not only intense, it is broad-based. King posts an overwhelming 30-point lead among independent voters, the critical subgroup that will determine the outcome of this election. King wins independent voters, 47% to 17%.

“Where King translates his advantage in name identification into votes, Chandler faces an uphill battle in just getting recognized. Roughly two-thirds of voters (65%) are familiar with Gary King.

“Just 17% of voters statewide can say the same for Chandler. This means that before Chandler can make his case against King, he will first have to spend precious resources defining himself.”

And highlights from the Journal poll:

“The poll showed King with the support of 71 percent of the Democrats polled and Chandler with the support of 71 percent of the Republicans polled.

“King also racked up support from 16 percent of the Republicans, while Chandler had 10 percent of Democrats.

“…Among independent voters polled, King had 40 percent and Chandler 27 percent — with 31 percent undecided.

“The candidates were neck-and-neck among Anglo voters: each had 41 percent.

“But there was a big gap between the candidates in the category of Hispanic voters: King had 62 percent of Hispanics polled, and Chandler 22 percent.”

The Journal poll also had King leading in the north-central region of the state and Chandler leading on the east side of the state.

The bottom line, from Journal pollster Brian Sanderoff:

“The challenger hasn’t spent much yet. He’s not well-known around the state. There’s little reason to expect him to perform well among Democrats at this time. Gary’s been around the block, he’s from a prominent political family.”

Updated, 11:45 a.m.

Chandler had this to say about the Journal poll:

“As a career politician with a well-known family name, King has been campaigning for the last three decades. But this election isn’t about family names; it is about fresh direction and the future of our state. And today’s findings reveal that with all of King’s advantages, he still fails to secure the support of the majority of New Mexicans.

“This is largely in part because for far too long, my opponent has turned a blind eye to who-you-know politics and has failed to make good on the promise he made four years ago to aggressively root out corruption. New Mexicans realize that for all of his years in office, this has yet to happen – and isn’t likely to happen during the last two months of King’s administration.

“As I travel across the state, sharing my vision of change and my unwavering commitment to ridding this state of corruption, our message continues to resonate with New Mexicans of all walks of life. With their support, I am confident that on Nov. 2 our state will elect a new attorney general.”