Dwight T. Pitcaithley

I recently recorded a 30-second video for the Call on Me Now campaign. In it I join other citizens in urging the president to ask us to do more in rebuilding our country.

I hope the Call on Me Now spots will help spark a national dialogue about how much we’re willing to do as individuals for our country. Everyone seems to think Americans are selfish, and only interested in feathering their own nests. In my experience, that’s not true. We all want to contribute to our country. We can do a lot more than we’ve been asked to do so far.

Personal responsibility goes a long way in building community and country. In some instances progress can only be made collectively; in others individual action will move us where we need to go.

Given the present state of things, I believe we need to be personally more thoughtful and less angry. We need to be less influenced by political provocateurs and more responsible for developing our own political philosophy. We need to acknowledge the fact that personal and corporate greed has had a debilitating effect on this nation. We need to understand that our daily personal choices – in the cars we drive and the food we eat – have ramifications far beyond our homes and towns. We need to have a dispassionate conversation about climate change before thoughtful alternatives are beyond our reach.

We need to demand that our elected officials shed more light and less heat on the critical issues facing this nation. And we need to agree that we will solve those problems not by shouting at each other or drawing lines in the sand, but by objectively analyzing our options and coming to informed and sustainable decisions.

In my video I ask the president to “Call on me. I’ll do my part.” If you have a chance, I hope you look at it, and the other short videos on the Call on Me Now website. If you agree with what we’re saying, perhaps you could forward the videos to your friends.

Dwight T. Pitcaithley was born in Carlsbad and served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1964 to 1967. He holds degrees from Eastern New Mexico University and Texas Tech University. In 1976 he entered the National Park Service, where he served as chief historian from 1995 to 2005. He lives with his wife and family in Las Cruces.

Lt. Gov. John Sanchez (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

Republican John Sanchez raised just over $100,000 for his U.S. Senate campaign in the fourth quarter of 2011. His campaign also repaid him $100,000 for a loan he had previously made.

The disclosure of the fundraising and loan repayment comes in Sanchez’s fourth-quarter finance report, which his campaign filed on Jan. 31 but hasn’t been disclosed publicly until now. Sanchez told NMPolitics.net on Thursday that he didn’t know how much he raised in the fourth quarter.

According to his finance report, Sanchez raised just under $102,000 between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31. He spent just over $141,000. And he repaid about half of a $200,500 loan that he made to his campaign shortly after he joined the race in May.

His campaign ended 2011 with just under $110,000 in the bank.

You can view the summary pages from Sanchez’s fourth-quarter finance report here. The full report isn’t yet available on the FEC’s website.

As NMPolitics.net reported on Thursday, Sanchez has decided to drop out of the race to replace the retiring Jeff Bingaman in the Senate. It’s a report the Sanchez campaign denies, but NMPolitics.net stands by its article. NMPolitics.net doesn’t know when Sanchez will announce his decision.

The campaign never really got off the ground. Even before NMPolitics.net’s report, many suspected that Sanchez’s campaign was coming to an end. There had been little activity on his campaign website, Facebook page or Twitter account during the last three months of 2011 and January, and he missed many GOP events the other candidates attended.

Lt. Gov. John Sanchez

A source with knowledge of the situation confirmed that Sanchez has decided to drop out of the race; the lieutenant governor told NMPolitics.net he is a U.S. Senate candidate ‘as of today’

Republican John Sanchez has decided to drop out of the race to replace the retiring Jeff Bingaman in the U.S. Senate, NMPolitics.net has learned.

And while a spokesman said today that Sanchez has “no interest” in running for the First Congressional District seat being vacated by Democrat Martin Heinrich, who is running instead for Bingaman’s Senate seat, Sanchez was less clear in an interview with NMPolitics.net.

Sanchez didn’t confirm that he’s dropping out of the Senate race during the interview, but a source with knowledge of the situation confirmed that Sanchez has made that decision.

Heather Wilson was the frontrunner in the GOP Senate primary already and remains in that position with Sanchez’s departure. But his exit from the race may create an opening for the other Republican candidate, Greg Sowards, who had been battling with Sanchez for anti-Wilson support and has stepped up his attacks on Wilson lately.

During his interview with NMPolitics.net, Sanchez sounded at times as though he intends to stay in the Senate race. For example, he said his campaign team is “preparing for the conventions and then obviously the final stretch in the spring.”

But instead of directly answering when asked if he would “swear” that he’s “not dropping out of the Senate race,” Sanchez, the state’s lieutenant governor, said this:

“I can tell you as of today I am a candidate for the United States Senate.”

“That sounds evasive,” NMPolitics.net replied. Sanchez went on:

“And I can tell you that I am not a candidate, though, for CD1.”

So, NMPolitics.net asked, even if you drop out of the Senate race, you definitely won’t run for the U.S. House?

“I am not a candidate for CD1,” he said again before ending the interview.

You can listen to portions of the interview here:

If the player doesn’t display, click here to download the audio file.

Campaign never got off the ground

NMPolitics.net does not know when Sanchez plans to announce his decision to leave the Senate race. He has been looking for a way to minimize the embarrassment of his botched campaign, the source said.

But candidates for the Senate seat must officially file on Feb. 14, so Sanchez will likely announce his decision on or before that date.

For Sanchez, the decision to drop out is an admission that the Senate campaign he launched in May never got off the ground. The last poll of the primary race, released in December, found 55 percent of Republican voters pledging support for Wilson, while Sanchez had the support of 20 percent and Sowards had 6 percent.

Some thought national money would pour into Sanchez’s campaign because of anti-Wilson sentiment among many right-wing Republicans, but it hasn’t happened. Sanchez’s last publicly released finance report had him raising $164,000 in the third quarter of 2011 and ending it with $250,000 on hand.

That compared with Wilson raising $530,000 in that quarter and ending it with more than $950,000 on hand, and Sowards raising $231,000 – much of it from himself – and ending it with $496,000 in the bank.

End-of-the-year finance reports, which were due by Jan. 31, might have put Sanchez in an even tougher position. Wilson ended 2011 with about $1.1 million in the bank, and Sowards, who has largely self-financed his campaign, ended with more than $600,000.

Sanchez’s end-of-the-year report isn’t yet available from the Federal Election Commission, and a Sanchez spokesman hasn’t responded to an e-mail request for fundraising numbers. Asked today how much he raised in the fourth quarter of 2011, Sanchez told NMPolitics.net he didn’t know. He said he had been busy with the ongoing legislative session in Santa Fe, but pledged to provide a copy of his report once it becomes public.

Little activity for months

Many have suspected for months that Sanchez’s Senate campaign was coming to an end. One of his last highly visible announcements was an endorsement in late September from U.S. Sen. Rand Paul. Since then, there’s been little activity on Sanchez’s campaign website, Facebook page or Twitter account.

NMPolitics.net has also learned that Sanchez has missed many GOP events that Wilson and Sowards attended in recent months, including one held Jan. 28 in San Miguel County. Sanchez did attend a right-to-life forum on Jan. 12.

Sanchez’s run may have been hampered from the start by his less-than-stellar relationship with Gov. Susana Martinez. When Sanchez joined the race in May, Martinez said she would not give him any responsibilities in her administration beyond those granted by the Constitution. She said that was in an effort to keep the race “from becoming a distraction.”

Two days later, Martinez joined Wilson for her address to an economic forum in Albuquerque. Many interpreted that as an implicit endorsement.

What about CD1?

The Albuquerque Journal was the first to report today on rumors about Sanchez joining the First Congressional District race, quoting a campaign operative as confirming that some were encouraging Sanchez to seek the House seat.

“I have heard that,” the Journal quoted Manuel Gonzales, political director for Sanchez’s Senate campaign, as saying. “When Jon Barela announced he was not going to run in CD1, that started people talking and chattering. We’ve had some informal conversations about it.”

He added that he doesn’t believe Sanchez will join the House race.

Barela was the party’s 2010 nominee for the House seat and recently decided against running again this year. That leaves GOP primary voters to choose between three candidates many aren’t happy with – former State Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones, Albuquerque City Councilor Dan Lewis and Army veteran Gary Smith.

After the Albuquerque Journal published its report, Sanchez spokesman Corbin Casteel was quoted by the National Journal as saying Sanchez “has no interest in running for Congress.”

Later, when asked by NMPolitics.net about the possibility of joining the CD1 race, Sanchez didn’t say he won’t become a CD1 candidate. He simply said he’s not one right now.

“I am not a candidate for CD1,” he said. “I want to make that very clear.”

Sanchez doesn’t have to give up his job as lieutenant governor to run for other offices. The seat isn’t up for election until 2014.

Heath Haussamen

I was on the radio program New Mexico News and Views this afternoon to talk about what’s going on at the Roundhouse, new polling in the U.S. Senate race and more.

Among the Roundhouse-related topics were two controversies surrounding appointees of the governor, reform of the Public Regulation Commission, and a bill that would implement a local tax to help fund the Rail Runner.

I should also note: I had a brain fart and, in response to a question about the state offering public tours of the site of the 1980 prison riot that left at least 33 inmates dead, I mistakenly talked instead about the 1987 escape of seven inmates from the state penitentiary. My bad. Yes I know the difference. I just had a bad moment.

Anyway, you can listen to me talking with Dewey Moede on KKIM radio right here:

If the player doesn’t display, click here to download the audio file.

Heather Wilson, left, and Martin Heinrich

Heinrich led Wilson 45 percent to 44 percent but well within the margin of error; 61 percent of NM voters said they approve of the job Martinez is doing

A new, bipartisan poll finds Martin Heinrich and Heather Wilson essentially tied in a potential U.S. Senate match-up and a high approval rating for Gov. Susana Martinez.

A little more than 45 percent of those surveyed said they would vote for Heinrich, a Democrat, if the election were today, while 44 percent picked Wilson, a Republican.

Some 34 percent said they would “definitely” pick Wilson and 10 percent said they would “probably” pick her, while 34 percent said they would definitely pick Heinrich and 12 percent said they probably would.

Months before either candidate even faces off with others in primary elections, the survey found that only 10 percent of voters are undecided.

Susana Martinez

Wilson and Heinrich are the frontrunners in their respective primaries. Heinrich faces Hector Balderas and little-known Andres Valdez on June 5, while Wilson faces John Sanchez and Greg Sowards. The survey didn’t ask about the other candidates.

The survey also found that 61 percent of those surveyed approve of the job Martinez, a Republican, is doing as governor (34 percent “strongly” approve and 27 percent “somewhat” approve), while 27 percent disapprove (14 percent strongly and 13 percent somewhat).

The survey of 400 registered voters was conducted Jan. 2-5 and 7 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. It was conducted jointly by two companies – The Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, and the Democratic firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz & Associates, for Colorado College’s 2012 State of the Rockies Project.

NM voters support conservation

The survey was primarily about conservation issues and spanned several states. Here’s what it found in New Mexico, from a news release:

“The results from the 2012 Colorado College State of the Rockies Conservation in the West poll find that New Mexico voters across the political spectrum – from Tea Party supporters to those who identify with the Occupy Wall Street movement and voters in-between – support upholding protections for clean air, clean water, natural areas and wildlife.

“Voters view New Mexico’s parks and public lands as essential to their state’s economy, and quality of life.

“The survey, completed by Lori Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies (a Republican firm) and Dave Metz of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (a Democratic firm), found that 80 percent of voters view having a strong economy and protections for New Mexico’s land and water as compatible with each other.”

There’s lots more. You can read the poll memo here.

Update, 1:10 p.m.

As Politico points out, this is a poll of registered voters, not “likely voters,” and some question its usefulness. From Politico:

“Colorado College also polled in Montana – showing Rep. Denny Rehberg with a much smaller lead than a poll taken for the conservative group American Crossroads.

“But some Republicans think it’s flawed because it used ‘registered voters’ over ‘likely voters’ as its sampling pool.”

In other words, registered voters aren’t necessarily likely to vote, so this poll may not be indicative of what would actually happen if the election were today.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Hector Balderas, left, and Martin Heinrich

The internal poll has Heinrich leading by 30 points; among voters who can identify both candidates, he leads Balderas by 23.

Six weeks after an independent poll showed Hector Balderas gaining ground on Martin Heinrich in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, a poll released today by Heinrich’s campaign shows him having a big lead over Balderas.

The poll, conducted for the Heinrich campaign by the firm Gerstein, Bocain, Agne Strategies, has Heinrich leading Balderas by 30 points – 52 percent to 22 percent – with 26 percent undecided. Among voters who can identify both candidates, Heinrich led by 23 points, 51 percent to 28 percent, with 21 percent undecided.

You can read the poll memo here.

In mid-December, a poll from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling had Heinrich leading Balderas by 17 points, 47 percent to 30 percent. That was an improvement for Balderas from the last time PPP polled and Heinrich led 47-24. It was noteworthy at the time that Heinrich didn’t move any closer to 50 percent while Balderas gained.

But that poll sampled 309 people, compared with the new poll’s sample of 600 likely Democratic primary voters in New Mexico, which was conducted between Jan. 8 and 11. The new poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Not surprisingly, the new Heinrich poll has lots of good news for Heinrich and little for Balderas. Here’s more from the poll memo:

• “Democratic primary voters view Heinrich incredibly favorable. 58 percent of voters give Heinrich a favorable rating, while just 12 percent view him unfavorably.  Moreover, 66 percent of voters approve of the job Heinrich is doing as Congressman. Heinrich’s standing is equally good among Hispanics and Anglos. Balderas has good standing (37 – 12 percent favorable-unfavorable, 46 percent job approval), but nowhere near as good as Heinrich’s.
• “Heinrich overpowers Balderas in a vote matchup. With a 52–22 percent lead, Heinrich dominates Balderas among every segment of the electorate. He leads 57–15 percent among Anglos and 46–30 percent among Hispanics. Heinrich also holds a strong lead in each of the state’s three congressional districts.
• “Heinrich’s lead is very robust. Heinrich’s lead is not driven by name identification; he leads 51 – 28 percent among voters who can identify both candidates.”

Heinrich outraises Wilson

The poll follows Heinrich’s announcement last week that he raised more than $483,000 in the fourth quarter of 2011 and ended it with almost $1.4 million in the bank. Balderas hasn’t yet announced his fourth-quarter fundraising, but he ended the third quarter of 2011 with $465,000 in the bank.

Heinrich even bested the fundraising of the frontrunner for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination, Heather Wilson, who announced last week that she raised $375,000 in the fourth quarter and ended it with $1.1 million in the bank.

“Bank of America won’t take my mortgage payment. I have a job now and yet they refuse to re-instate my payments. I feel like a sitting duck,” said Rose Ann, who had fallen behind on her mortgage when she lost her job last year, but has since regained employment and is able to maker her payments once again. The problem: Bank of America will not work with her to reduce the amount in arrears and get her life back on track.

Rose Ann is just one of thousands of New Mexicans facing foreclosure. As her story reveals, so many of these families could lose their homes simply because their lenders refuse to negotiate in good faith with them to find a win-win solution.

Last year, the state Legislature had the chance to help New Mexico homeowners who are struggling to negotiate with their lenders. But the Legislature failed to act, and countless families needlessly lost their homes as a result. They have a chance to get it right this year with the introduction of several bills aimed to help prevent unnecessary foreclosures:

• Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senator Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, strengthens due diligence on the part of banks to ensure that homeowners have had proper notice, and it stops the “dual track” practice of foreclosure proceedings.
• Senate Bill 75, sponsored by Senator Steve Fischmann, D-Las Cruces, requires mediation during the foreclosure proceedings that could provide homeowners the opportunity to have a third party with them in negotiations and leverage someone from banks with authority to modify a loan.
• Senate Bill 38, sponsored by Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, would provide the state with $1 million in funding for financial and foreclosure counseling before people start a foreclosure process.

All of these are critical because together they address the obstacles and phases a homeowner will face if they find themselves unable to pay their mortgage.

An encouraging sign

In an encouraging sign, Governor Susana Martinez kept these on her list of messages she sent to the Senate this week. The governor understands that healing the housing market is essential for rebuilding the state’s economy.

It is important that the state take action on this issue and not rely on federal bank regulators to look out for the best interests of New Mexico borrowers. Federal regulators such as the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) consistently side with the interests of the nation’s big banks, even going so far as to call them their “clients.”  Meanwhile, many community banks that play by the rules get the short end of the stick when their larger competitors are given such preferential treatment.

To put a meaningful dent in the crisis, state legislators must put an end to the so-called “dual track” process that allows banks to move forward with the foreclosure process even while homeowners are applying for a loan modification. They must also address the lack of counseling services for homeowners who need assistance in navigating the confusing world of negotiating with their bank. And they should assure that no homeowner ever has to face a situation like Rose Ann’s by requiring lenders and borrowers to meet for a face-to-face mediation session before any foreclosure is allowed to proceed.

Similar legislation passed in Hawaii has driven down foreclosures by 50 percent.

Federal action also needed

And while we cannot rely on friendly bank regulators at the federal level to solve the crisis, we do need action from Washington. Those of us gathered at the rotunda were heartened to see the president announce during his State of the Union speech that he would be launching a joint investigation into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. We need President Obama to follow through on his pledge and conduct a thorough investigation that provides meaningful relief for homeowners commensurate to the scale of the banks’ misconduct.

The urgency of helping homeowners in New Mexico is growing. Senators from both Central and Southern New Mexico are rallying together, the Conference of Catholic Bishops is working hard to highlight this need, and the House should respond with energy and urgency as well. If we don’t get involved in working our hardest to keep families in their homes, it is unclear to us what we are willing to do to help fellow New Mexicans.

Nolan, executive director of NM Comunidades en Acción y de Fé (CAFé), and Martinez, co-director of Partnership for Community Action, are part of a growing number of New Mexicans pushing to hold the banks and government accountable for fixing the housing crisis. Learn more at OrganizeNM.org. 

Sarah Lenti

Well, to begin — was President Obama’s State of the Union address the longest on record in recent decades? Well, no. No, in fact, it wasn’t. The longest — in presidential history — was that given by President Clinton in 1995.

But this is not a blog on the length of President Obama’s speech. Instead, and in juxtaposition to Heath’s latest blog (which canvassed NM elected officials on the SOTU), this blog serves as a report on what the 20-30 something demographic thought about the substance of the president’s 2012 SOTU. More specifically, it’s a report on what colleagues and friends  – of all professions, parties and persuasions – thought about the policy that was presented, rather than the presenter himself.

Here is what resonated:

Comment:

The need for immigration reform is critical and the issue got huge applause this evening when the President raised it. Has he really put more boots on the ground — on the border — then any other administration to date? If so, I applaud him.

He noted that “women should earn equal pay for equal work” – I am all about that. And, yes, I am a conservative, single Republican woman.

Innovation and research are also important to me. I don’t like cancer — and I don’t like seeing other countries “win the race to the future.” I agree — let’s get on it, America. This is a non-partisan theme.

Comment:

I was rather struck by the President’s statement that the “renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe.” And that “our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever…” He then goes on to praise the new defense strategy that he recently released and says that  “anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” Well, there’s a big problem with the picture that emerges from this section of the speech.

First, the new defense “strategy” was clearly a budget driven exercise that simply rubber stamped the latest round of defense cuts that have taken place under Obama. Contrary to popular belief, defense spending has already undergone major cuts. Since President Obama has been in office, the Administration has cut defense spending by some $850 billion over a 10-year period. The latest cuts, mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, will likely turn the U.S. into a regional power and are a recipe for decline. There is simply no way the U.S. can maintain its leadership role on the world stage and, therefore, its security commitments abroad with the defense cuts.

This is why the strategy makes it clear that the U.S. will shift its security focus away from Europe and the Middle East towards Asia. How cutting defense and receding on the world stage is intended to strengthen our leadership role on the world stage and reassure our allies is anyone’s guess. There is no question, however, how it will be received by America’s adversaries and enemies will certainly be celebrating.

Comment:

The Iraq policy could backfire, what happens if it descends into civil war or chaos? Loss of prestige, respect, blood, and treasure. Do we go back? It’s a policy with implications unknown to this country and our interests…

Comment:

Dodd-Frank was alluded to but not specifically named, it’s killing small banks and hurting smaller businesses…

Comment:

The President’s focus and concern regarding education are commendable. I appreciate that he wants Americans to be educated and prepared for the jobs of the future. I also appreciated his recognition of community colleges and technical schools and the huge role they play in preparing our workforce.

However, I was saddened by the apparent disconnect between growing our economy, job creation and energy independence. When an administration refuses the country the benefit of a project like the Keystone pipeline, levels attacks at American coal producers and decreases drilling capabilities – how can one still say they are for job creation and energy independence?

Comment:

Biggest issue re: last night on energy. “All of the above” should mean research money. That’s it? No subsidies for deployment of current technology? Goverment research did accelerate fracking technology but it wasn’t very much money and lots of the technology came from research whose purpose wasn’t to unlock shale gas/oil.

The administration’s research program itself should be reformed. Private people spent tens of millions developing engine efficiency improvements. Then DOE steps in and gives GM several million in research grants to do the same thing. This is wrong.

Comment:

America is back doesn’t equal America is your steadfast ally… Actions speak louder than words. And the defense conversation, praise the men and women in uniform all you want, but you have to equip them in the future…

So there you have it. Some thoughts from the young-voter peanut gallery. Again, I asked the contributors to focus on ideas, rather than promoting or panning the President. As a closing note, I asked about 50 people to comment, and I posted every word I received back. The responses I received were thoughtful indeed, and I am grateful to those who wrote. That said, I hope the lack of response from the larger group is not an omen of young-voter apathy to come at the polls in November.

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

First the speech. If you missed it, you can read the text by clicking here or watch it right here:

On to the New Mexico responses:

U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Democrat

The U.S. Capitol building (Photo by Heath Haussamen)

“I thought President Obama laid out a very good blueprint for how we can accelerate economic growth in our country – to create jobs now and to lay the foundation for a strong economy for the next several decades.

“I think it’s important for us to focus on rebuilding manufacturing jobs in our country, and to develop a labor force that can do the work that needs to be done. I also agree with the president that we need to focus on our own energy sources to meet our economic needs. All of that, I think, is very positive and would be good for the country.

“I hope the Congress will rise to the challenge and work with President Obama over the next several months.”

U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, Democrat

“Tonight, President Obama struck the right themes in his State of the Union address. We’ve reached a crucial point in our economic recovery where strengthening the middle-class with continued job creation and skills training is paramount. So too is providing the proper incentives to continue generating manufacturing and homegrown, renewable energy jobs where states like New Mexico are already capitalizing.

“The president also emphasized the need to level the playing field for middle-class and low-income taxpayers. Today, millionaires and billionaires usually pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families who are struggling to pay the bills. The only way our nation will continue down the road of economic recovery is by investing in our middle-class families and giving them the opportunity to succeed again.

“It may be an election year, but we still have a responsibility to work through our differences to put our economy on solid ground.”

U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, Republican

“Tonight, President Obama delivered the type of speech we have come to expect from his presidency – full of grandiose rhetoric and lacking in actual solutions. Once again, he discussed jobs and the American economy, just a week after he proposed yet another debt limit increase and killed the Keystone Pipeline project. Granted, President Obama did not create our economic situation, but adding $4.6 trillion to the national debt and three years of failed economic policies have made it worse. Meanwhile, the president fails to take responsibility for any of our economic crisis.

“He is looking at 2012, acting like the last three years did not happen.

“His record, however, speaks for itself. The president has continued to drive our nation’s economy into the ground, and is currently looking to lay blame and divide our nation while his previous promises remain unfulfilled. Instead of working on solutions to get Americans back on their feet, the president’s solution is to raise taxes. If the president’s intent was to pay down the debt with tax increases, this could be an honest discussion. However, he has demonstrated no intent in paying down the debt and will use tax revenues for additional spending.

“With 8.5 percent national unemployment, our country cannot afford to tie the hands of small business owners, any more than we can afford to destroy jobs on the president’s whims. In his rejection of the Keystone Pipeline, he has demonstrated intentions for decreasing the traditional energy industry. He is catering to special interests and taking the side of campaign contributors over the side of American energy and American jobs.

“New Mexico’s economy relies heavily upon the oil and gas industry, but the president has hinted that oil and gas is not needed. Decreases in this industry would devastate New Mexico. Americans deserve more than the political games played by this administration. They deserve solutions. It is time to take the necessary steps to put America back in business and return our nation to a place where people can work hard, play by the rules, and get ahead.”

U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich, Democrat

“Like the president, I believe our country is at a pivotal moment with much at stake, including the future of America’s middle class.

“As the son of an electrician and a factory worker, and now a parent myself, I know what it’s like to hope for a better future for the next generation. But right now the playing field is uneven. Tax rates for the ultra-rich are at record lows and income inequality is at a record high.

“Republicans have seized this pivotal moment to suggest that instead of fighting for our middle class, they want to double down on their failed economic policies and threaten our seniors with cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Millionaires and billionaires, like candidate Mitt Romney, pay lower taxes than middle-class working families – yet Republicans in Congress want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

“The Bush tax cuts have proven ineffective at stimulating job growth, and must be ended.

“My commitment remains stronger than ever to growing New Mexico’s economy, because parents deserve a fair chance at sending their kids to college, paying for quality health care, and saving for retirement. By investing in math and science education, encouraging innovation and manufacturing – both of which New Mexico is positioned to excel in – and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, we will grow our middle class and we will all be better off.”

U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, Democrat

“Tonight, President Obama outlined a plan forward that will help lay the foundation for a stronger tomorrow and an America that is built to last. His agenda recognizes the struggles the people in New Mexico continue to endure and the need for job creation right now, while investing in areas that will create long-term economic growth to ensure that the United States truly remains the land of opportunity.

“As the president made clear, we must invest in our most precious resource – the American people. We need to strengthen our schools, put a college education in reach for more Americans, and ensure that the innovative spirit of America’s entrepreneurs has the opportunity to flourish and drive our economy forward.

“Restoring our manufacturing sector, investing in American energy, and unleashing new innovations are essential to creating good jobs in our communities. The president’s emphasis on incentivizing high-tech manufactures to build it here at home, cracking down on unfair trade practices, and making it easier for a start-up to develop that next big idea will spur economic growth in New Mexico. With our national labs and universities, we are positioned to be a leader in the effort to grow new businesses that will Make It in New Mexico.

“Over the past few years, the people of New Mexico have paid the price for an economy that for too long was not focused on Main Street, working people, and the values of middle-class Americans. Tonight, President Obama reaffirmed our commitment to the enduring American value that hard work and playing by the rules will open the doors of opportunity for all. Working together, I know that we can restore this principle that provides strength for all those seeking their piece of the American Dream.”

Republican Party of New Mexico Chairman Monty Newman

“It is abundantly clear that President Obama has given up on governing and used the State of the Union to stage a campaign stump speech. The president showed no interest in using the State of the Union as a forum to put forth ideas that will get our nation on a path to prosperity. We’ve heard his glittering generalities and hollow rhetoric before. It is clear that Barack Obama’s team in Chicago is worried about the continual rejection of his broken promises and failed economic policies.

“This president has a record of failed policies and broken promises, which is why you listened to another speech with flowery metaphors, recycled rhetoric, and a doubling down on failed economic policies. Currently, 13.1 million Americans are unemployed and a record 46.2 million Americans are on food stamps. Our national debt and deficits have grown at an alarming rate, exceeding that of every president before him. The Obama economy has burdened hard working families and increased healthcare costs, adding to the ranks of the uninsured. The nation’s unemployment rate has stayed above 8 percent for 35 straight months.  No matter how you dice the numbers, President Obama has failed the American people.

“The president’s administration has been completely ineffective and unable to turn our economy around. Fortunately for America, day after day, voters are beginning to realize that Barack Obama is wrong for our nation and they are ready to make him a one term president.”

Heath Haussamen

To earn the public’s trust, Mitt Romney must demonstrate a commitment to openness. Between his efforts to keep records from his time as governor secret and his wishy-washy and flip-floppy statements on releasing tax returns, he hasn’t done it yet.

At the end of his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state money to replace computers in his office so he could keep records on the old computers secret.

Staffers personally bought the old hard drives to get them out of public hands. They also had e-mails and other electronic communications wiped from state servers – something that was unusual in Massachusetts and might be illegal in New Mexico.

I was shocked when I learned about that situation in December. It’s much worse than what former N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson did when he left office – passing his office’s records to the state archives center in a failed attempt to keep them secret.

Now come the GOP presidential nomination frontrunner’s wishy-washy and flip-floppy statements on whether he will release his tax returns. He currently says he will release his 2010 return and a 2011 estimate on Tuesday.

The Chicago Tribune has published a list of Romney’s past statements about whether he would release his returns. It started with “We’ll take a look at the question” on October 25, moved to “I don’t intend to release the tax returns” on December 21 (with a “but never say never” the next day), to “And if I become our nominee, and what’s happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year, and that’s probably what I would do” last week.

Then on Sunday, the day after he lost the South Carolina primary, Romney changed course again in agreeing to release the 2010 and 2011 information, but said he has no plans to release past returns. He played down the fact that he once said he didn’t plan to release his returns at all.

“We just made a mistake in holding off as long as we did,” Romney said on Fox News. “It just was a distraction.”

But his past statements are on the record, and the progression has been stunning: He went from – my words, not his – “I don’t plan to do it,” to “I’ll do it, but not until I have the GOP nomination in the bag.” Then, only after a victory by another GOP primary candidate became conceivable, did he agree to be transparent.

This from a guy who made sure the public could never see his office’s records when he left his job as governor of Massachusetts. What does he not want the public to know?

Romney’s father set precedent of openness

This comment Romney made during Thursday’s debate about releasing returns in April – which came before he lost South Carolina – is most concerning (you’ll see another bit of a flop in it, because he has whittled “multiple years” down to one plus an estimate for another):

“I’ll release multiple years, I don’t know how many years. But I’ll be happy to do that. I know there are some who are anxious to see if they can make it difficult for a campaign to be successful. I know the Democrats want to go after my being successful. I’m not going to apologize for being successful.”

This isn’t about whether Romney is successful. He shouldn’t apologize for that. It’s about the public understanding how he makes his money and what he does with it so people can know about his potential conflicts of interest.

It’s about the public being able to scrutinize Romney’s financial ties before deciding whether to make him the most powerful public official in the world at a time when money has so much influence over Washington.

It’s about demonstrating to the American people that he intends to be open and honest with them and worthy of their trust, as every president has done since Nixon (and FDR did almost a century ago).

It’s something that many nominees and other presidential candidates have done, including Romney’s father when he ran for president. In fact, according to this article, George Romney’s release of 12 years of returns in 1967 was “a move believed to be without precedent in American politics.” He set a new bar for openness that continues today.

You can find all of President Barack Obama’s tax returns since 2000 here. You’ll also find Vice President Joe Biden’s since 1998, and tax returns for McCain, Palin, Bush the younger, Cheney, Clinton, Bush the elder, Reagan, Carter, Nixon and FDR by clicking on that link.

Those presidents and candidates all sent the message that they would be open, honest, and worthy of Americans’ trust. Certainly, some of them didn’t live up to that pledge (with Nixon probably being the worst). But at least they started off by setting the right tone. That’s a positive step.

Romney hasn’t sent that message, and his reluctant release on Tuesday of fewer than the “multiple” years he promised days ago isn’t going to change that. He needs to match Obama’s release of tax returns going back to 2000. And he needs to publicly apologize for the hiding of records from his tenure as governor (of course, to be convincing, he would need to be sincerely sorry he did that, and I’ve seen no evidence of remorse).

Not an endorsement of any of the others

My criticism of Romney shouldn’t be interpreted as a statement of support for any of the other guys. Obama has his own issues, among them that he hasn’t run as transparent an administration as he promised (see here, here and here). There are plenty of reasons to criticize the other GOP hopefuls as well.

But regular readers of this site know about my passion for transparency – an issue I view as nonpartisan, and one that’s at the core of government serving the people. Someone who wants to be president, and has a serious shot at getting the job, needs to demonstrate to the American people that he understands the importance of openness.

If there’s nothing the American people might find concerning – conflicts of interest, questions about how a presidential candidate earned his money, lenders to which he is financially beholden (the last isn’t likely an issue for Romney), then releasing returns will make that clear. If there are things the public might find concerning, being open about them and taking the time to explain them is the best way to earn the public’s trust.

Romney shouldn’t have to apologize for being one of the wealthiest people in America. But if he wants to be the most powerful elected official in the world, he should have to fully disclose the extent of his wealth, how he made it, and where he invests it.

If he doesn’t do that, there’s no reason to trust him.

Haussamen bio │ Commentary page │ Feed