Hello again: Failure of ethics reform lies at the feet of Legislators

marjorie says...

There he goes again, blaming public interest advocates for the failure of state legislators to pass ethics reform given that an "...overwhelming majority of the public supports ethics reform."

One thing very clear to me is that public advocates make convenient, and easy, targets. For politicians, and for Monahan apparently (carrying some water, Joe?).

But, last time I checked, advocates aren’t responsible for passing legislation. Legislators are.

Think about what Monahan is saying here:

“…lobbyists are hired by clients to get results and if you are not getting them, the client is entitled to ask why. We linked to Common Cause and suggested they and other leading ethics advocates might want to review their lobbying tactics.”

It’s pretty twisted really, considering that the topic is ethics reform. Frankly, I don’t like the fact that the Roundhouse is beset by swarms of lobbyists “…hired by clients to get results.” There’s a reason that the public overwhelmingly supports ethics reform, and it isn’t the fault of a non-profit public advocacy organization that the state legislature refuses to pass these bills. Here's a thought: maybe it’s the influence of those private lobbyists we should be pointing at instead.

Joe goes on to suggest that legislators might be more amenable to ethics reform if just one reform was introduced each session, because “The public and press has a hard time concentrating on the myriad of ethics proposals floating around the Roundhouse.”

Forgive my incredulity at that statement.

Let me see a show of hands from those who don’t understand these concepts:

• Campaign Contribution Limits

• Public Financing of Elections

• Ethics Commission

Anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past decade in the United States understands perfectly well what this reform package meant. Granted, I have just a touch of the political animal in me, but I did not need to be educated by Common Cause or any other group to know what these mean…they’ve been consistent themes in every national election for many years now, with broad public debate. Combine that with the rampant corruption that is glaringly hard to miss in this state, and I don’t think you have to do a lot of public education on these topics. Perhaps this is why there is “overwhelming” support among the public, and why the press has not seemed to have any difficulty with the topic either.

The fact is that there have been many incremental steps toward pushing forward ethics in government. If you want to refresh your memory, simply click on Common Cause’s website. And the latest ethics reform package, which was very clear and pretty darn simple actually, was one more step in the right direction.

As much as I’m disturbed by attempts to shift blame onto a very strong and admirable public interest group, I have to say that part of me is actually pleased that there is such a need to make excuses when it comes to the failure of ethics reform this year. As if there might be consequences.

Joe says that we can’t blame this group of legislators because “…not many passed in the 80's and 90's when other leaders ran the Roundhouse. This is more difficult than just voting out a couple of legislators.”

But we’re not in the 80s or 90s. We’re now in an era of “overwhelming public support” for ethics reform. We can say the same for health care reform, as the most obvious example. If meeting the expressed needs of the majority of this state’s population is the job of the state legislature, then this legislature as a whole failed miserably.

There are plenty of legislators on board with ethics reform, along with the Governor, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the State Treasure. We should all thank them for sticking with the public on these issues.

If blame is our dish, then let’s serve it up where it’s deserved--to those state legislators who don't want to get it, along with those who grease their wheels. And then let's hold them accountable to those who hire them...at the ballot box.

Dystopian Red-Light Cameras at Bay

marjorie says...

I'm glad to see that the legislature re-directed the money collected from the red-light cameras away from operating the program. Many of my friends and colleagues have bemoaned the hoopla over the cameras, making the point that there are many more important things for the population to be up in arms over...such as: health care, child-poverty, corrupt politicians, etc. Not to mention, our privacy was shot all to hell a long time ago and is getting even more compromised by the minute. I can see their point. At the same time, I'm glad to see what appears to be an overwhelming distaste among our population for what feels like an invasion of our privacy.

The division on whether or not these cameras are good points to a classic ideological divide: those who think government is an embodiment of good and inherently trustworthy. These are the rule of law folks who think anyone who ends up in jail must belong there. And then there are those who think government and laws, like any system, is flawed and easily corruptible. As such, individuals easily and almost randomly can get the short end of the stick. The first group has less of an issue with privacy I think. Those in the latter think privacy is paramount, and are glad to see the cameras near gone. We don't like big brother watching us, and even though we know cameras are literally everywhere these days an official government program doing it really disturbs us. If we are indeed on an inexorable march toward a dystopian future, let's slow it down as much as possible.

Memo to Alligators: Shine your light on Gravy Train Ethics

marjorie says...

In his piece this morning, Joe Monahan suggests that the failure of ethics legislation should be laid at the feet of Common Cause and other folks promoting ethics in state government. But that’s completely backward. Let’s be clear: failure of ethics legislation lies at the feet of state legislators who refuse to give up their gravy train. The public overwhelmingly favors ethics legislation. Albuquerque Journal polls in 2007 indicated a whopping 88% of Democrats, in fact, favored the three priorities included in the bills this session.

When it comes to ethics...these aren’t new issues, they’re old issues. We all know this.

What *is* new is unwillingness on the part of the public to condone a corrupt political system any longer. Monahan should rethink what is essentially a pot-shot at Common Cause, a non-profit organization that has worked steadfastly to move forward the long overdue and greatly needed ethics reforms initiatives. In fact, Monahan might want to expand his pool of “alligators” to include a greater cross-section of New Mexico’s political class. There are plenty who understand what we have here is a conflict between the ethics of the public and the ethics of the gravy train.

**Update** Check out what the rest of the blogosphere has to say about Joe Monahan:

Barb @ DFNM: "Too cowardly to speak their piece in public, too many of the most status quo/reactionary legislators, hangers on and lobbyists for elite special interests are content to leak unsourced material by taking on the personae of the much cited Alligators over at Joe Monahan's place. It's a convenient ploy that can be used to try and gain political advantage -- whether or not such Alligators really exist in terms of a specific issue. Who's to say where the gossip and spin are really coming from and why?"

Parnelli Gonzalez @ Clearly New Mexico: "This wouldn't be the first time that Blogger Joe has carried water for the status quo crowd. Notice the Monahan m.o. at work. His "alligator" accuses citizen advocates of "asking for too much all at once", and then immediately pluralizes the complaint into "critics say." Opinion polls show overwhelming public support for substantive ethics reform now - not at some murky future time when certain self-appointed potentates of the legislative process deign to pass some pale palliatives and then call it reform."

Then Coco in her DukeCityFix post asks "Who is Monahan's Alligator?"

(I think I can give you an answer...it would be "The Man.")


Then, tonight, LP @ New Mexico FBIHOP weighed in tonight about Monahan and his imaginary minions, touching on Monahan's biased commentary: "But this is just one of many issues where Monahan (and his alligators) have done nothing but toe the line of the status quo. They are so used to the way things run and have run in New Mexico for so many years that any potential changes is seen as bad. They don't want any change from the way things have "always run" in the state -- or else their analysis will have to change."

Lobbying Swarms, plus the Obama/Clinton Class Divide

marjorie says...

Looks like Maggie and Trevor had some fun in Vegas. Let's hear all about it...please! In the meantime, let me point you all to some tidbits.

First, there's my bit here about the lobbying swarm we witness every time we go to the Roundhouse. The best Lobbying Swarm Anecdote to date (for me anyway), and I quote myself (ha!):

"The TIDD Greenfield Reform bill, known as HB 451, was heard last Wednesday in the Taxation and Revenue Committee. During the comments section of the hearing, a lobbyist named Daniel Weaks lobbied against the TIDD Reform Bill on behalf of Bernalillo County. Then Representative Elias Barela, who co-sponsored HB 451, called Weaks back and asked him to disclose that he is also a registered lobbyist for SunCal Corporation. SunCal, of course, is the massive California corporation lobbying hard for the creation of tax-payer funded TIDDs to subsidize their development on Albuquerque’s west side. And on the same afternoon he was lobbying against TIDD reform on behalf of Bernalillo County, Weaks was lobbying heavily for approval of SunCal’s TIDD appropriations request, which promises SunCal over $1 Billion in tax revenue over the coming decades."

I link to it in my lobbying piece (which I know you're going to read), but you all must also read this bit that came out in the Sunday Journal about the incestuous relationships at the Roundhouse. And you know what? It isn't just Kiki Saavedra who has a son lobbying him up there. I'll let you figure this one out. Ok, here's a hint.

And the final bit on Lobbyists, I just have to quote Barb, on the sad news that the Domestic Partnership Bill failed (for now) and the very few Democratic defectors who crushed it:

"Funny how the concepts of "sanctity" and "Catholic morality" are only in play when crushing measures that seek to correct civil liberty travesties, but not when you're greedily grabbing taxpayer money to fund the follies of your cronies."


Moving along to the Obama/Clinton Class Divide...

Here's an interesting bit pointing out that one obvious line that Super Tuesday voters fractured on was Class. As the author puts it, Latte Liberals voted for Obama whereas Dunkin Donuts Democrats went for Hillary. But before you get your "I'm where I'm at through merit alone" panties in a wad, check out how m-pyre dreamboat David Sirota explains this thing Obama-ites don't want to hear.

And what do I say about the class divide? Well, I think Sirota's analysis that Obama isn't really able to go ultra-populist (thereby becoming more appealing to working people) because it would alienate him among white voters as running a race-based campaign...is quite compelling. In fact, I'm quite sure that is the case. But...

At the same time, latte drinkers like David Sirota can explain the numbers away all they want...but the numbers remain what they are. And I don't feel like Hillary Clinton has been on a populist bandwagon more than Obama. Neither is on par with John Edwards in that regard. We often hear in organizer/activist circles that the working classes vote against their own best interests. I agree with that largely, but at the same time, its also just a touch patronizing...and we shouldn't be so hasty to roll that argument out. It's just a touch convenient.

Happy Monday folks!

Health Security Act is Moving!

marjorie says...

It's good to see the Health Security Act get some traction at the Roundhouse. And I can't help but fantasize about what would happen if Bill Richardson (being the firebrand that he is) threw all that righteous anger he has on behalf of New Mexico's uninsured squarely behind the HSA. It would be a truly dynamic and, frankly, revolutionary moment. New Mexico would then truly be at the forefront of the national effort to solve our health care crisis. In many ways we already are, in so far as the Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign has blazed a path toward being a real contender in the big question of how to provide health care to everyone. The Bill itself has been carefully crafted, drawing on input from a wide cross-section of the public. Year in and year out the organizers have painstakingly educated the public, other organizations as well as many businesses, and elected officials to build an impressive, broad-based coalition of supporters. The HSA would provide health care for all New Mexicans by creating one insurance pool that handles the money, while retaining our private delivery system, i.e. hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc.

But Bill Richardson says the HSA "won't work" and instead, he says, we have to simply make better our private insurance based system. He doesn't explain exactly why the HSA "won't work" and adds that after our private insurance based system is made friendlier, poor people will then be required to purchase it. And then, our system will be "universal." Predictably, this sounds a lot like the approach the other major Democratic contenders for the Presidential nomination have taken. And one reason the legislature isn't embracing Richardson's plan is that its not quite clear exactly how health care becomes "universal" under his plan. Oh, wait...back up. It becomes "universal" because poor people will then be required to purchase it. And of course we all know that every single person *will* buy it (that's sarcasm if you couldn't tell). Universal indeed.

Action at the Roundhouse: Ethics & TIDD Reform!

marjorie says...

Good news from the Roundhouse:

The TIDD Reform Bill, HB 451, was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee 7-3. Now it goes to the House Taxation and Revenue Committee, which is chaired by Ed Sandoval. Please give his office at the Capitol a call to voice your support and urge him to schedule the bill asap: (505) 986-4420.

The Public Financing Bill, HB 564, was voted out of the Voters and Elections Committee 7-5, and now goes to the Appropriations committee. The chair of that committee is Kiki Saavedra, who you can call with support at (505) 986-4316.

The Ethics Commission Bill, HB 309, is going to be heard in the Judiciary Committee tomorrow at 1:30pm.

The State Contributions Limits Bill, SB 387, is going to be heard in Rules tomorrow at 8am.

If you can, make calls to the Committee members and voice your support of these important ethics bills. We need to keep them moving, and have only two weeks left in the session!

You can find who sits on what committee as well as contact information on www.protectnm.org, a website put together by Conservation Voters New Mexico. It requires a free registration but is a great resource. Thank you CVNM!

Reforming the TIDD Gravy Train...Make that call!

marjorie says...

While we're debating presidential elections and hashing the movies, the State Legislative Session is in full swing and many New Mexicans are only thinking about the many issues currently being debated at the Roundhouse. One of them is particularly dear to my heart (see maggie, I have those sorts of things also. Tax policy gets me every time!).

Today House Bill 451 is being heard in the House Judiciary Committee at 1:30pm. HB 451 is a bill that would reform the state TIDD legislation, which is the original opening of what can only be considered a Pandora’s box of massive tax subsidies to large corporations.

Please call members of the Judiciary committee this morning and ask them to support the bill, the details of which you can find on SWOPblogger.

HB 451 doesn’t do away with TIDDs, but it does lower the allowable percentage considerably, and it attaches accountability measures to TIDDs given in Greenfields. In this sense, it represents compromise. A lot has been written about TIDDs in the past year, both here and elsewhere. Those who are critical of these massive tax give-aways are often portrayed by TIDD proponents as unreasonable. But in fact, I can attest to a complete unwillingness to compromise on the part of the development community during negotiations with Councilor Cadigan to amend the City legislation last year. Their recalcitrance aside, there needs to be more oversight and accountability built into the legislation, at the very least.

And thats one thing HB 451 does at the state level. The truth is that as currently constructed, the state legislation allows a tremendous drain on the general fund, which is a major source of funding for social services and education throughout the state. We can't afford to leave it the way it is, allowing up to 70% of GRT diversion with few controls in place on the back end.

Luckily, there are already a lot of Representatives who agree. I was surprised by how many signatures were scrawled on the Bill…at least 20 had signed right off the bat. I hope you all will call the committee members today, and in the coming week as needed, and encourage the rest of our legislators to take a serious look and support this bill.

The members of the House Judiciary Committee are:

Rep. Al Park (D) Chair
Rep. Joseph Cervantes (D) Vice Chair
Rep. Elias Barela- SPONSOR (D) Member
Rep. Gail Chasey - Co-signer (D) Member
Rep. Daniel R. Foley (R) Member
Rep. Antonio "Moe" Maestas (D) Member
Rep. W. Ken Martinez (D) Member
Rep. William "Bill" R. Rehm (R) Member
Rep. Mimi Stewart (D) Member
Rep. Thomas E. Swisstack (D) Member
Rep. Gloria C. Vaughn (R) Member
Rep. Eric A. Youngberg (R) Member
Rep. Teresa A. Zanetti (R) Member

You can find their contact information here: http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/legislatorsearch.asp.


ps You might think the title of this post only refers to TIDDs, but in fact, TIDDs are just one part of the massive New Mexico gravy train. A local expert told me the other day that almost 50% of our tax code is frittered away through tax credits, and he also said that once passed, a tax credit might as well be considered permanent because they are never revisited. Want some dough? Get yourself a tax credit!