Comments on: We must pull together to solve the budget problem http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem New Mexico news and politics Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: mandi7707 http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-22851 mandi7707 Sun, 04 Oct 2009 06:16:01 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-22851 Public service does not mean that it is okay to become wealthy at the taxpayers' expense. The exempt positions number something like 400+. The "double dippers" who return to work and earn a six-figure salary are just as greedy, if not more so. Sen. Jennings -- if you truly care about government waste and desire a more transparent government, you will look very closely at these salaries. Most of these people are ludicrously overpaid for the duties they perform--all because they know the "right" people. <br>Secondly, most state workers will do their part and accept a furlough. However, the middle class workers and those who earn the minimum will be the hardest hit. Anyone earning less than $15 per hour will have to join the poor, standing in line for food stamps. What purpose would that serve? How do you justify furloughs of lower income, often single parents when the chosen can afford to be furloughed? Furloughing those who live hand-to-mouth and paycheck-to-paycheck will cause more harm to our economy. Why don't you reduce the salaries of the six-figure earners by 10%, those who earn $90k and up by 9%, $80k by 8%, and so on. One of the duties of the state is to reduce the impact of poverty. We are all willing to do our share, but some of the responsibility lies with those who hopped on the gravy train, are still on it, and won't get off. Public service does not mean that it is okay to become wealthy at the taxpayers' expense. The exempt positions number something like 400+. The “double dippers” who return to work and earn a six-figure salary are just as greedy, if not more so. Sen. Jennings — if you truly care about government waste and desire a more transparent government, you will look very closely at these salaries. Most of these people are ludicrously overpaid for the duties they perform–all because they know the “right” people.
Secondly, most state workers will do their part and accept a furlough. However, the middle class workers and those who earn the minimum will be the hardest hit. Anyone earning less than $15 per hour will have to join the poor, standing in line for food stamps. What purpose would that serve? How do you justify furloughs of lower income, often single parents when the chosen can afford to be furloughed? Furloughing those who live hand-to-mouth and paycheck-to-paycheck will cause more harm to our economy. Why don't you reduce the salaries of the six-figure earners by 10%, those who earn $90k and up by 9%, $80k by 8%, and so on. One of the duties of the state is to reduce the impact of poverty. We are all willing to do our share, but some of the responsibility lies with those who hopped on the gravy train, are still on it, and won't get off.

]]> By: mandi7707 http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-18320 mandi7707 Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:16:01 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-18320 Public service does not mean that it is okay to become wealthy at the taxpayers' expense. The exempt positions number something like 400+. The "double dippers" who return to work and earn a six-figure salary are just as greedy, if not more so. Sen. Jennings -- if you truly care about government waste and desire a more transparent government, you will look very closely at these salaries. Most of these people are ludicrously overpaid for the duties they perform--all because they know the "right" people. <br>Secondly, most state workers will do their part and accept a furlough. However, the middle class workers and those who earn the minimum will be the hardest hit. Anyone earning less than $15 per hour will have to join the poor, standing in line for food stamps. What purpose would that serve? How do you justify furloughs of lower income, often single parents when the chosen can afford to be furloughed? Furloughing those who live hand-to-mouth and paycheck-to-paycheck will cause more harm to our economy. Why don't you reduce the salaries of the six-figure earners by 10%, those who earn $90k and up by 9%, $80k by 8%, and so on. One of the duties of the state is to reduce the impact of poverty. We are all willing to do our share, but some of the responsibility lies with those who hopped on the gravy train, are still on it, and won't get off. Public service does not mean that it is okay to become wealthy at the taxpayers' expense. The exempt positions number something like 400+. The “double dippers” who return to work and earn a six-figure salary are just as greedy, if not more so. Sen. Jennings — if you truly care about government waste and desire a more transparent government, you will look very closely at these salaries. Most of these people are ludicrously overpaid for the duties they perform–all because they know the “right” people.
Secondly, most state workers will do their part and accept a furlough. However, the middle class workers and those who earn the minimum will be the hardest hit. Anyone earning less than $15 per hour will have to join the poor, standing in line for food stamps. What purpose would that serve? How do you justify furloughs of lower income, often single parents when the chosen can afford to be furloughed? Furloughing those who live hand-to-mouth and paycheck-to-paycheck will cause more harm to our economy. Why don't you reduce the salaries of the six-figure earners by 10%, those who earn $90k and up by 9%, $80k by 8%, and so on. One of the duties of the state is to reduce the impact of poverty. We are all willing to do our share, but some of the responsibility lies with those who hopped on the gravy train, are still on it, and won't get off.

]]> By: mandi7707 http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-11086 mandi7707 Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:16:01 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-11086 Public service does not mean that it is okay to become wealthy at the taxpayers' expense. The exempt positions number something like 400+. The "double dippers" who return to work and earn a six-figure salary are just as greedy, if not more so. Sen. Jennings -- if you truly care about government waste and desire a more transparent government, you will look very closely at these salaries. Most of these people are ludicrously overpaid for the duties they perform--all because they know the "right" people. <br>Secondly, most state workers will do their part and accept a furlough. However, the middle class workers and those who earn the minimum will be the hardest hit. Anyone earning less than $15 per hour will have to join the poor, standing in line for food stamps. What purpose would that serve? How do you justify furloughs of lower income, often single parents when the chosen can afford to be furloughed? Furloughing those who live hand-to-mouth and paycheck-to-paycheck will cause more harm to our economy. Why don't you reduce the salaries of the six-figure earners by 10%, those who earn $90k and up by 9%, $80k by 8%, and so on. One of the duties of the state is to reduce the impact of poverty. We are all willing to do our share, but some of the responsibility lies with those who hopped on the gravy train, are still on it, and won't get off. Public service does not mean that it is okay to become wealthy at the taxpayers' expense. The exempt positions number something like 400+. The “double dippers” who return to work and earn a six-figure salary are just as greedy, if not more so. Sen. Jennings — if you truly care about government waste and desire a more transparent government, you will look very closely at these salaries. Most of these people are ludicrously overpaid for the duties they perform–all because they know the “right” people.
Secondly, most state workers will do their part and accept a furlough. However, the middle class workers and those who earn the minimum will be the hardest hit. Anyone earning less than $15 per hour will have to join the poor, standing in line for food stamps. What purpose would that serve? How do you justify furloughs of lower income, often single parents when the chosen can afford to be furloughed? Furloughing those who live hand-to-mouth and paycheck-to-paycheck will cause more harm to our economy. Why don't you reduce the salaries of the six-figure earners by 10%, those who earn $90k and up by 9%, $80k by 8%, and so on. One of the duties of the state is to reduce the impact of poverty. We are all willing to do our share, but some of the responsibility lies with those who hopped on the gravy train, are still on it, and won't get off.

]]> By: new_mexican http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-11006 new_mexican Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:04:00 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-11006 "The recent revelation that the executive still does not have a clear understanding of what New Mexico’s prior fiscal year tax collections are leads me to believe that the legislature is not receiving accurate information from the executive."<br><br>Don't beat around the bush! Spell it out. “The recent revelation that the executive still does not have a clear understanding of what New Mexico’s prior fiscal year tax collections are leads me to believe that the legislature is not receiving accurate information from the executive.”

Don't beat around the bush! Spell it out.

]]> By: Immanentize http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-10954 Immanentize Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:25:44 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-10954 One possible solution would be to expand the legislature’s oversight powers of the executive branch by establishing an independent accounting office ...<br><br>A bureaucratic expansion to monitor bureaucratic expansion? One possible solution would be to expand the legislature’s oversight powers of the executive branch by establishing an independent accounting office …

A bureaucratic expansion to monitor bureaucratic expansion?

]]> By: ji8221272 http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-10896 ji8221272 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:23:13 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-10896 Sen. Jennings helped pass a law in 2003 which gives the wealthiest New Mexicans a tax cut of more than $13,000 a year. Sen. Jennings doesn't mention in his commentary that he and other lawmakers could, if they wanted, roll back these tax cuts as a way of balancing the deficit he helped create. Why? <br><br>Does Sen. Jennings benefit from these tax cuts? What is his annual income? Sen. Jennings wants to force everyone else to prepare for tough times except the richest New Mexicans and big, out-of-state corporations.<br><br>No more cuts, Sen. Jennings. No more student value cuts, no more public services cuts. You want to cut something, cut the tax breaks you gave the wealthiest New Mexicans in 2003. <br><br>You want to cut something, close the big, out-of-state corporate tax loopholes, and make Wal Mart, Target, Starbucks pay their fair share of taxes on the profits they earn in New Mexico. <br><br>Sen. Jennings, your days of protecting the richest New Mexicans and out-of-state corporations are done. Look at why it's over, look at his plan to force school children to prepare for tough times:<br><br>1. Class sizes will increase. Teachers and education assistants will be laid-off.<br><br>2. Kindergarten and special education class sizes will increase. Special education teachers and education assistants will be laid-off.<br><br>3. Funding for small districts will be cut. This from Sen. Jennings: “The state should not be providing additional funding for small schools located near other schools or in larger communities.” He wants to remove the small school size adjustment factor in the State Equalization Guarantee (SEG) formula. This will cause many small school districts to close down. Students will be bused to larger school district.<br><br>4. Emergency funding will be cut. School districts needing emergency funds will not receive those funds unless they prove no other federal, grant, capital, or other state funds are available. Districts with outstanding audits will lose access to emergency funding.<br><br>5. Maintenance personnel and pay will be cut.<br> <br>6. Supplemental Educational Services (SES) contracts will be cut. Special education services will be provided by regional educational cooperatives, local teachers and education assistants.<br><br>7. More maintenance cuts and textbook funding cuts.<br><br>8. Non-instructional funds will be cut. Excess numbers of educational assistants, maintenance employees, custodial employees, and central office secretaries and clerks which are not “directly related to classroom instruction” will be laid-off.<br><br>9. Monday - Friday athletic event funding will be cut. Funding to pay for supervision, buses, and facilities for athletic and extra-curricular events held during the week will be cut. Athletic events and extra-curricular activities will be restricted to Saturdays and Sundays.<br><br>The proposed education cuts above were developed by Sen. Jennings and the Gang of 12. These lawmakers met behind closed doors and took no public input. Points 1-9 come directly from the Gang of 12’s official document: 'Fiscal Year 2010 – School District Options for Implementation.' Download it at nm.aft.org/aeaa . Lawmakers will try to pass these cuts during a special session in October. Gov. Richardson has threatened to veto preK-12 education cuts, but lawmakers have enough votes to override his veto. Sen. Jennings helped pass a law in 2003 which gives the wealthiest New Mexicans a tax cut of more than $13,000 a year. Sen. Jennings doesn't mention in his commentary that he and other lawmakers could, if they wanted, roll back these tax cuts as a way of balancing the deficit he helped create. Why?

Does Sen. Jennings benefit from these tax cuts? What is his annual income? Sen. Jennings wants to force everyone else to prepare for tough times except the richest New Mexicans and big, out-of-state corporations.

No more cuts, Sen. Jennings. No more student value cuts, no more public services cuts. You want to cut something, cut the tax breaks you gave the wealthiest New Mexicans in 2003.

You want to cut something, close the big, out-of-state corporate tax loopholes, and make Wal Mart, Target, Starbucks pay their fair share of taxes on the profits they earn in New Mexico.

Sen. Jennings, your days of protecting the richest New Mexicans and out-of-state corporations are done. Look at why it's over, look at his plan to force school children to prepare for tough times:

1. Class sizes will increase. Teachers and education assistants will be laid-off.

2. Kindergarten and special education class sizes will increase. Special education teachers and education assistants will be laid-off.

3. Funding for small districts will be cut. This from Sen. Jennings: “The state should not be providing additional funding for small schools located near other schools or in larger communities.” He wants to remove the small school size adjustment factor in the State Equalization Guarantee (SEG) formula. This will cause many small school districts to close down. Students will be bused to larger school district.

4. Emergency funding will be cut. School districts needing emergency funds will not receive those funds unless they prove no other federal, grant, capital, or other state funds are available. Districts with outstanding audits will lose access to emergency funding.

5. Maintenance personnel and pay will be cut.

6. Supplemental Educational Services (SES) contracts will be cut. Special education services will be provided by regional educational cooperatives, local teachers and education assistants.

7. More maintenance cuts and textbook funding cuts.

8. Non-instructional funds will be cut. Excess numbers of educational assistants, maintenance employees, custodial employees, and central office secretaries and clerks which are not “directly related to classroom instruction” will be laid-off.

9. Monday – Friday athletic event funding will be cut. Funding to pay for supervision, buses, and facilities for athletic and extra-curricular events held during the week will be cut. Athletic events and extra-curricular activities will be restricted to Saturdays and Sundays.

The proposed education cuts above were developed by Sen. Jennings and the Gang of 12. These lawmakers met behind closed doors and took no public input. Points 1-9 come directly from the Gang of 12’s official document: 'Fiscal Year 2010 – School District Options for Implementation.' Download it at nm.aft.org/aeaa . Lawmakers will try to pass these cuts during a special session in October. Gov. Richardson has threatened to veto preK-12 education cuts, but lawmakers have enough votes to override his veto.

]]> By: ElmerChavez http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-10894 ElmerChavez Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:15:35 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-10894 The Senator merely points out our reality (and this case the incompetence and affinity for denial in the executive branch). He's had a bad habit of donig that. Hey, we're New Mexicans! So we woke up with a hangover, on our fornt lawn, wondering what happened last night at the casino and where all of our money is... and why we have nothing to show for it. <br><br>Guess what, we can't afford what we have. Thank God we can't make our future generations pay for tour excesses the way our Republican and Democrat "leaders" have done to our grandbabies at the federal level. In any event, that means, like households, we have to earn more or consume less. In the case of government, earning more means taking more money out of our own people's pockets. There are 30,000 fewer employeed people now than a year ago in NM, meaning there are even fewer people's pockets left to pick, and when you do and as a result there will be even fewer employed to cover the recurring tab. So, we'll probably have to raise taxes to, but before we do we need to stop the waste. I'm happy to pay my fair share and you can tax me first, but I won't want to contribute a nickel until the hundreds of newly created Richardson "exempts" are gone, and the other graft, corruptions, waste, and inefficiency is addressed. New Mexico's tax structure isn't that regressive and our spending policies are exceptionally progressive, so I'm not that worried that we have problem in that regards. <br><br>For those that call for raising taxes first without first eliiminating inefficiencies, ineffective programs (and yes, the continuing patronage, graft and corruption) should feel welcome to send their checks to Santa Fe... they'll cash them and you can feel good about funding all that crap at the expense of real needs and real taxpayers. The Senator merely points out our reality (and this case the incompetence and affinity for denial in the executive branch). He's had a bad habit of donig that. Hey, we're New Mexicans! So we woke up with a hangover, on our fornt lawn, wondering what happened last night at the casino and where all of our money is… and why we have nothing to show for it.

Guess what, we can't afford what we have. Thank God we can't make our future generations pay for tour excesses the way our Republican and Democrat “leaders” have done to our grandbabies at the federal level. In any event, that means, like households, we have to earn more or consume less. In the case of government, earning more means taking more money out of our own people's pockets. There are 30,000 fewer employeed people now than a year ago in NM, meaning there are even fewer people's pockets left to pick, and when you do and as a result there will be even fewer employed to cover the recurring tab. So, we'll probably have to raise taxes to, but before we do we need to stop the waste. I'm happy to pay my fair share and you can tax me first, but I won't want to contribute a nickel until the hundreds of newly created Richardson “exempts” are gone, and the other graft, corruptions, waste, and inefficiency is addressed. New Mexico's tax structure isn't that regressive and our spending policies are exceptionally progressive, so I'm not that worried that we have problem in that regards.

For those that call for raising taxes first without first eliiminating inefficiencies, ineffective programs (and yes, the continuing patronage, graft and corruption) should feel welcome to send their checks to Santa Fe… they'll cash them and you can feel good about funding all that crap at the expense of real needs and real taxpayers.

]]> By: amanjarr http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-10886 amanjarr Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:55:50 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-10886 I think a simple solution to "recurring problem with non-recurring dollars" would probably be to start fixing our regressive tax structure and start raising some recurring dollars. Seems like you forgot to consider that. I think a simple solution to “recurring problem with non-recurring dollars” would probably be to start fixing our regressive tax structure and start raising some recurring dollars. Seems like you forgot to consider that.

]]> By: ched_macquigg http://newmexicoindependent.com/38069/we-must-pull-together-to-solve-the-budget-problem#comment-10863 ched_macquigg Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:52:39 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=38069#comment-10863 Senator, you write; "The recent revelation that the executive still does not have a clear understanding of what New Mexico’s prior fiscal year tax collections are leads me to believe that the legislature is not receiving accurate information from the executive."<br><br>If the legislature is not being told the truth, clearly the public is not being told the truth either.<br><br>That the public is not being told the (ethically redacted) truth is categorically unacceptable. <br><br>Please fix that by standing up in support of honestly transparent government; honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence; at your earliest opportunity. Senator, you write; “The recent revelation that the executive still does not have a clear understanding of what New Mexico’s prior fiscal year tax collections are leads me to believe that the legislature is not receiving accurate information from the executive.”

If the legislature is not being told the truth, clearly the public is not being told the truth either.

That the public is not being told the (ethically redacted) truth is categorically unacceptable.

Please fix that by standing up in support of honestly transparent government; honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence; at your earliest opportunity.

]]>