We also invite readers to participate — so please share your thoughts on this question in the comments section. If you have suggestions for how we can improve this feature or have have an idea for a future question, send us an e-mail.

Over the weekend, the state Attorney General’s Office and Insurance Division struck a deal with Blue Cross Blue Shield that will allow the company to raise its rates by an average of 21 percent. BCBS is the state’s largest private insurer in rural areas.

But 50 people gathered at a Public Regulation Commission meeting Monday had expected a public hearing on the company’s request to hike its rates. Commissioner Jason Marks took objection to the deal, saying it should have been negotiated in public. And State Senator Dede Feldman said the State Legislature may look at how the State Insurance Office sets rates.

So this week’s question is: Should the process of setting insurance rates be more transparent to the public? Should it be more difficult for companies to raise rates?

SARAH WELSH, executive director of the NM Foundation for Open Government:

Yes, the process should be more transparent. Chavez’s promise to post proposed rate hikes online is a start.

This story is a good example of the political and public-relations consequences of cutting the public out of the discussion – regardless of what the government’s intentions are. Maybe this is a good settlement. Maybe everyone was acting in the best interest of consumers, as they say. But if that’s true, then why not argue the case in public? Why scramble to ink a deal over the weekend, pre-empting the public hearing? Why upset a roomful of your most impassioned constituents? For those of us who are a bit cynical, that behavior raises a lot of questions and makes it harder to swallow any assurances to ‘just trust us, it’s for your own good.’ And we shouldn’t have to offer our blind trust – that’s the point of open government in a democracy.

(Full disclosure: I have a BCBS individual policy, and so far I have not been affected by the rate increase.)

BILL TURNER, hydrologist and former director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District:

The process must be transparent.  It wasn’t regardless of whether the PRC had to grant the increase.   That was wrong.  More back room deals outside of public scrutiny.  Companies and their accountants and actuaries raise rates after careful study.  My beef is that the cost of medical care includes egregious waste.  Look around your doctor’s office.  Most of the personnel there simply push paper for a few doctors.  Paper pushers outnumber the doctors.  Also, why must I visit a new doctor twice, once to say hi and the other for the service.  My son is a doctor and the reason they do it is so they can get paid to pontificate over your medical history.  Why not a central history register accessible with a password from the insured?  I travel 30 miles to Belen to see a doctor who only inconvenienced me once and he was terrific.

Second, in surgeries, in my experience, much of the “kit” they use gets thrown away yet it is charged for.  Waste.  I am sure your readership can name other examples of waste like going to the doctor without using any common sense.  Everyone gets colds.  Who needs a doctor for that.  We have become a society of pill pushers.  During residency my son was told by a doctor to pick a few favorite pills and prescribe them for everything.  They will do in 90 percent of cases.  Fortunately, that is not his style.  Plenty of bed rest, aspirin, cool baths, applesauce, toast, and chicken soup. Everyone gets normal respiratory and gastrointestinal problems.  It is unpleasant but it is good for the maintenance of the immune system.  I get to catch up on my sleep.   A hot gallon bottle over a boil will pop it cleaner than a doctor every could. And, its free.  Never blow your nose.  That can cause bad sinus trouble.  Use a neti pot. I learned many little remedies from my father who was a doctor. No doubt curanderas have many ancient remedies.  Actupuncture and ancient Chinese medicine may be less expensive than the emergency ward where they treat you with any darn thing they want without your approval and you say, my insurance will cover it.

My employees are covered by Blue Cross and I am seriously considering either terminating the coverage or asking them to pick up the difference.  There seems to be too little oversight of physician and hospital practices, so we pay for the egregious waste.  We desperately need tort reform. I am just getting started but I’ll leave it there.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

As a current Blue Cross customer, owning a Health Savings Account in the individual market (the one that is facing increases), I have a keen interest in this topic. That said, I think the problem here is not one of transparency, it is one of rising health care costs and Blue Cross (a mutual insurance company, owned by its customers; profits must be reinvested in the business or given to customers) facing the need to cover costs in this individual marketplace.

While not having access to their books, it is impossible for me to confirm the “need” (or lack thereof) for Blue Cross’s rate hike. Ultimately, however, these public hearings are not an efficient way to determine this. Instead, we need to reduce regulations and implement policies to make New Mexico a competitive health insurance market with multiple insurers doing business here. A competitive market will obviate the need for a “transparent” hearing process because consumers will purchase the best, most-cost effective option.

Ultimately, this debate at its core is about how to reduce health care costs. President Obama and Congress have just given the insurance companies exactly what they have been clamoring for — a legal mandate to purchase their product, financed by taxpayers. Unfortunately, this does nothing to attack the cost issue which is that a vast majority of Americans do not directly pay the costs of much of their health care. Until we abolish the third-party-payer system and encourage people to shop around and use only the care that they need and are willing to pay for, we’ll be stuck with health care costs spiraling out of control. With regard to passing along the costs of health care, Blue Cross is just the middleman (and messenger). We can’t shoot the messenger when the problems come from Washington and Santa Fe.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

There should be more transparency in all parts of New Mexico policy-making, and this is no exception. As to raising rates, this is going to remain a problem as long as there is a for-profit middleman and we don’t take other serious measures to curb rising health care costs in the public and private sectors alike. One of the things left out in this round of reform is more predictability for provider liability. Yes, I’m advocating for some kind of tort reform, but not caps. If big damages are needed for bad actors, they should stay as part of the mix. But we do need real predictability if we’re going to reduce the amount of defensive medicine being practiced, which is unquestionably a big driver of costs.

We also need to fundamentally re-evaluate our pay-for-volume system that gives financial incentives to providers to buy all the most expensive machines and then use them too frequently. Some of the overuse is due to defensive medicine, but no matter how well-intentioned providers are, there’s no getting around the fact that there are massive financial carrots and sticks that both push providers to overuse the system (quick aside: there’s NO evidence that patients are the ones pushing overuse. Most patients are in such a poor position from an information standpoint that they couldn’t possibly be the primary force behind overuse, which is exactly why the normally sound idea of adding to consumer costs for use simply doesn’t apply in this area–consumers will do whatever their provider tells them is the best course due to the information asymmetry and the importance of health).

Two other issues on insurance costs with current reform: One of the real flaws in health care reform is that the insurance companies are going to charge what the market will bear, as does any good for-profit organization (and even the “non-profits” in this field effectively act as “for-profits”–they try to maximize revenue while minimizing costs, even if it means not treating people who are sick). The flaw is that by having subsidies (a necessary part of any individual mandate, which is itself a necessity if we’re going to say that companies have to cover sick people), the system will now allow insurers to keep raising their rates knowing that the cost will be picked up by someone who is legally mandated to pick up those costs and has deep pockets–the government.

I know I’m admitting to a flaw in the system, and anti-reformers will crow that even the AFSCME guy sees a problem with it. But it’s a valid criticism of the plan, and something that has to be addressed going forward no matter which party controls Congress or the White House. And fixing this flaw won’t be easy.

The other big flaw relating to the individual mandate and insurance prices is that the “penalties” for not having coverage are peanuts. Smart people, especially if they’re young and healthy, may decide that they’d rather pay the small penalties and then sign up for coverage as soon as they get sick. That will in turn make insurance company risk pools worse, meaning insurance companies will have to charge higher premiums (even leaving aside their desire for bigger profits, it’s simply costlier to insure sicker people. This is going to be a legitimate reason for raising rates). Fortunately, the substantive answer to this flaw is far easier–raise the penalty so that people are incented to participate instead of being incented to step out of the system if they’re healthy. But a sound, simple substantive solution is sometimes a politically tough one, and that’s certainly the case here.

JIM BACA, blogger, former director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque mayor, state land commissioner and recently retired natural resources trustee:

Of course, there should be transparency on setting of insurance rates in New Mexico.  There should be public hearings on these rate setting processes.  However, I wouldn’t hold your breath for tremendous turnouts of the public at such hearings.  They just normally are not motivated enough to attend these monotonous and jargon-filled testimonies.  Those who will show up at these meetings are nonprofit watchdog agencies and insurance industry attorneys,  lobbyists and representatives.  (It is strange the Attorney General’s Office participated in sinking the hearing process recently.) That is just the way it works.  But, having the opportunity to attend such hearings is a good thing and should be afforded the public.

We also invite readers to participate — so please share your thoughts on this question in the comments section. If you have suggestions for how we can improve this feature or have have an idea for a future question, send us an e-mail.

As NMI reported, the federal government has launched a major transparency initiative and will be putting heaps of information online for citizens and journalists to rake through.

And in New Mexico, the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government has given out a series of transparency awards. Earlier this year, the governor signed into law a bill that creates a Sunshine Portal for state information. And so…

QUESTION: “What more can New Mexico state and local governments, businesses and others do to be more transparent?”

BILL TURNER, hydrologist and former director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District:

Posting all of that data is interesting but could be a waste of time when it comes to transparency.  The lack of transparency is caused by politicians and bureaucrats with hidden agendas who deliberately hide information and claim it doesn’t exist.  For example, some time ago, I requested specific information under an IPRA request to John D’Antonio, our state engineer.  Now, I knew it existed because John’s Secretary had shown it to me directly from the files in his office.  Further, I had put it there in a letter to him.  Under the IPRA request, I found it didn’t exist.  Even after a law suit, I never got it.  Recently, the State Engineer refused to accept a declaration of water rights by a Doña Ana County farmer because, they said in writing, it was not their policy to accept declarations where a permit exists.  I sent an IPRA request to the State Engineer for the permit and got nothing but a wild goose chase.  Two weeks ago, I filed another IPRA suit for the permit.  They know and I know the permit does not exist. Hence no transparency.  Our state legislators don’t even want webcasts of legislative sessions and committee sessions.  How about a webcast from the Bull Ring?

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

1. Eliminate the “or as otherwise provided by law” exception to the Inspection of Public Records Act. This is being abused. For instance, state agencies cite federal FOIA law exemptions to create exemptions to the New Mexico obligation to produce records. They are two distinct governments. The exemptions and coverage of FOIA are separate from IPRA. The same reasoning would allow a state agency to cite tribal law, or the municipal law of Tupelo, Mississippi, or the internal code of Zimbabwe as they search for some law, somewhere–anywhere–that might give them an out.

2. Require NM state and local government entities, including school districts, to provide information electronically whenever requested, in response to information requests. It is the 21st century after all. Government entities hurt the environment and increase costs when they insist on providing information on paper.

3. Reduce the amount that entities are allowed to charge for information provided on paper. It does not cost $1 to make a copy.

4. Require government officials and bureaucrats to strive toward giving information as freely and easily as they possibly can.

5. Require government entities to give preference to the citizen and the taxpayer over government and bureaucrats.

6. Legally set uniform, across-the-board criteria for state and local government entities for providing information, in favor of the citizen, including fees.

7. Require the state and local school districts to post online the percentage and total amount of money appropriated that goes to administrators and bureaucrats vs. teachers and the classroom.

8. Bureaucrats who deal with the public should be required to wear name tags. There should be signs posted at each of their windows/counters notifying the public of the right to file a complaint if they feel the bureaucrat has violated their rights, or abused power. Provide forms periodically for the public customers to rate them. Private companies do this willingly. Government should be required to, to post the results publicly. There should be a way for these complaints to be resolved by an entity that is not solely government members.

9. Require local governments to launch transparency cites like the one Mayor Berry is about to launch for Albuquerque.

10. Require calls and emails to be returned to customers within two business days.

11. This is a big one — Require judicial records to be posted online. There should be a layman’s summary of each case and the result. What are the DUI conviction rates? What kinds of sentences do they hand down for what crimes?

STEVEN ROBERT ALLEN, executive director of Common Cause:

The Sunshine Portal is a huge step forward. As the Lieutenant Governor has mentioned, though, it’s just one step. The concept needs to be expanded to make other areas of state government more accessible to New Mexicans. The expansion of webcasting in the state House of Representatives during this last legislative session is also an impressive development. Let’s hope similar efforts in the state Senate are more successful during the 2011 session. We also desperately need a stable, functional online campaign reporting system in the state. For whatever reason, this last project has been years in the making. A new system is in the works at the Secretary of State’s office, and it looks promising. This needs to get done in the near term.

I’d like to point out that there’s a much greater justification for transparency in government than there is for transparency in the private sector. This is because we (that is, taxpayers) fund everything that goes on in government, so we have a fundamental right to monitor how government operates, to ensure that we’re being represented fairly and effectively. I’m proud of our state in this regard. We still need to do better, but we’ve come a long way in just the last couple years.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

One of the biggest obstacles to transparency and accountability is privatization.  There’s a big misconception about privatization–this isn’t about whether the private sector is good or bad.  It’s about whether we use taxpayer dollars to enrich private companies while preventing the public from knowing what’s going on, and about whether we hold private companies getting rich off of taxpayers to the same standards that we hold government agencies.

It should be a requirement of any private contract paid for with taxpayer dollars that the private company comply with the same transparency and FOIA requirements that a public agency is subject to.  For example, New Mexico is one of many states which uses a private company to supply voting machines and the computer programs to count the votes.  It is an outrage that we roll over and say that no one has a right to see the code to make sure that votes are counted correctly.  If it were a public system, it would be open to the public.

So first, we should avoid outsourcing as much as possible.  Second, where absolutely necessary to use a private vendor to do the taxpayers’ work, we should have transparency.  While there are understandable proprietary systems concerns by the companies, it is insane that our state government doesn’t have the courage to stand up for the rights of citizens and our democratic process by requiring that, at the very least, state officials and representatives from each party be allowed to examine the computer codes.  Even if they had to sign a confidentiality agreement (which happens all the time in dealings between two private businesses), at least we’d know that someone had scrutinized the systems.

Instead, the very people who say “government should be run like a business” turn around and say “government shouldn’t question its contractors”–even if that’s exactly what any other business would do.  If you want a contract paid for by taxpayers, you should be willing to comply with transparency and accountability rules to make sure that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.  If you can’t or won’t comply, then go back to the private free market and make your money there.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

The most important, critical work New Mexico must do with respect to transparency and ethics is to get legislation – with teeth- passed and then signed by the governor. It is very difficult to pass legislation in Santa Fe that is sensible when dealing with transparency and ethics. Legislation gets drafted but often in ways that really doesn’t make a big difference. If we could get two strong bills passed, one that creates a strong and accountable ethics commission and the other that prohibits campaign contributions, a cultural shift in New Mexico would take place. We could then take off and become a leader in the nation in open government, ethics and transparency. Until that cultural shift occurs, it’s painful-slow-going.

BILL JORDAN, policy director, New Mexico Voices for Children:

Every year, lawmakers pass a general fund budget by looking at every item in every agency of state government and making a decision about how much to spend for the next year. This spending is limited by how much money the state expects to collect in tax and other revenue.

On the other hand, if a tax credit, deduction or exemption is passed into law, the amount of tax paid out (or not collected) is never tallied and not limited.  It certainly isn’t budgeted every year like direct spending is.  A dollar spent as a ‘tax expenditure’ costs taxpayers the same as a dollar of general fund spending, but spending on the tax side of the equation has no transparency and little accountability.

In New Mexico, we spend almost as much every year on tax credits, deductions and exemptions as we spend on education, health care, public safety, and everything else in our general fund budget.  During a revenue crisis like the one the state is experiencing, every general fund dollar is scrutinized.  Spending on the tax side of the equation can’t be seriously considered because the state lacks a tax expenditure budget (TEB).  If we had a TEB, lawmakers could choose to roll back some antiquated tax incentives that are no longer worth their value instead of raising some other tax. Without a TEB, they don’t even know what taxes they’re not collecting.

All but a handful of states prepare a tax expenditure budget along with their general fund budget.  Lawmakers unanimously passed a law requiring a tax expenditure budget a couple of years ago and Gov. Richardson vetoed it. The House passed it unanimously again this year, but the Senate Corporations Committee soundly defeated it.  Accountability and transparency in the budget process aren’t possible without a tax expenditure budget.

We also invite readers to participate — so please share your thoughts on this question in the comments section. If you have suggestions for how we can improve this feature or have have an idea for a future question, send us an e-mail.

With all the excitement about the Lobos and the Aggies in the NCAA, let’s talk about how much of an impact athletics really have on economic development. So this week’s question is:

QUESTION: “Should New Mexico be investing as much money as it does in college athletics?”

JIM BACA, blogger, former director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque mayor, state land commissioner and recently retired natural resources trustee:

I am currently on the internet in Montevideo, Uruguay and I can pretty much assure New Mexicans that people here aren’t thinking about Lobo Basketball but about soccer.  I think about half of South America’s GNP goes into hype about soccer.  As for investing money in college athletics I don’t see a problem with it as long as it is a reasonable amount.  I have never quite understood why the athletic coaches are the highest paid people at a University.  Shouldn’t that be reserved for the biggest academic achiever on the teaching staff?  Oh well, off to tour this beautiful town now.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

Let me first state that I am a big sports fan and a fan of the Lobos basketball team. College football is another story and I have real problems with the way college football sucks up so many resources and so much attention at universities around the nation.

Ultimately, I don’t think that taxpayers should be footing the bill for major college sports. At the very least, athletics should be completely self-sustaining (and this includes those fees that students are forced to pay to subsidize the athletic programs).

The more important question is whether athletics should be such a central focus of the college experience and that athletic programs should be the public face of universities. I don’t have any good ideas as to how we should re-focus our universities on academics, but at the very least we should ensure that the burden of paying for sports programs does not distract our higher education institutions from their core educational focus.

BILL TURNER, hydrologist and former director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District:

Sports may satisfy the common lust of man for a power drink just as it did
in the Roman Colloseum.  But, our institutions of higher learning should be
just that. I have thought that since I was a student member of the UNM
Sports Committee in the late ’60s.  On the other hand if sports pays its
way, as it must, then who cares.  Sports like the RailRunner only serves a
small part of our citizens and they all must pay their way.  Sports like
gambling and Wall Street is a spectator activity where the house controls
the odds.  Better the spectators roll up their sleeves and get to work and
contribute to the economy. Just some nascent mixed thoughts.

RICHARD ANKLAM, president and executive director of the New Mexico Tax Research Institute, former director of tax policy for the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department:

This question very much resembles the debate on some incentives or capital investments in things like the Spaceport.  Here, the arguments are the investment translates into better facilities, coaches, and players which, in theory, results in more winning and high profile teams, which creates greater national attention, resulting in more name recognition.  More name recognition, in theory, results in more tourism and tourism related dollars and jobs.  It might also make a community more attractive to business investment, or at least get us “on the radar” through that branding, increasing the chance of investment.

College athletics and their pursuit has always had a place in supporting the academic mission of universities, so we’re really talking about “additional” investment (like we see in basketball relative to wrestling or baseball). The problem is none of these benefits can be easily be quantified or proven, so it’s difficult to know what the return on investment really is. Direct cost and revenue however, is something we can quantify.  So, for the universities, I think if the spending is transparent and doesn’t take away from the students (i.e. the direct benefits of increased ticket sales, box leases, media and licensing covers the cost of the additional investment) then why not… and the rest, whatever it is, is gravy. If not, then perhaps not… or prove those other numbers.

Go Lobos!  Woof Woof Woof!

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

The answer largely depends on the specifics of how much any institution is getting from their revenue sports, but it seems the investment is usually worthwhile.  Any analysis has to include things like merchandise sales, alumni/ae giving, community impact, and, of course, the “Flutie effect.”

Back in 1984, quarterback Doug Flutie led Boston College to an incredible year and won the Heisman.  Applications to the school jumped, and BC has had higher quality students ever since.  Alumni/ae giving also jumped, and of course BC jerseys, hats, shirts, pennants, etc. were ubiquitous in the northeast.

Another benefit is that sports are a great educational tool, not only for the revenue sports, but for the non-revenue sports largely funded by the revenue sports.  Yet another is that at least some scholarship athletes wouldn’t have another route to college, or would have a much harder one, and all of society benefits from having more well-educated citizens.

Also, how do you measure the entertainment and pride factors associated with collegiate sports?  We have D-League basketball and minor league hockey and baseball, which are nice, but for many New Mexicans the Lobos or Aggies are their favorite sports entertainment, if not their favorite source of entertainment period.

Look at our Lobo run–there’s UNM merchandise all over the place.  6,000 people (including myself) showed up for an announcement at the PIT.  We’re getting some great, much-needed national exposure.

If I had to make a few changes, I might say that the NCAA should lower the number of football scholarships per school, thereby reducing tuition, room, board, equipment, and travel costs.  You don’t need to have two-way players the way we used to, but being three or four deep at every position and having an mostly separate special teams squad is overkill.  I’d also revisit some of the crazy cross-country scheduling and travel costs in all sports, including how large of an entourage is paid for by tuition and tax dollars.

I know I love this time of year, and I’m really glad the Lobos and Aggies are a part of it.  And I hope they’ll continue to be for years to come!  Go Lobos and Aggies!

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

Yes, absolutely! I remember- in the early 1980s- what the NCAA Final Four tournament did for Albuquerque then!  It literally put us on the map. We kicked off a wonderful image campaign for Albuquerque, created by Rick Johnson, (who we sadly just lost to cancer this week) about the same time as the NCAA Final four tournament. The campaign…”Albuquerque…a little east of Washington…a little west of LA”, was effective but nothing like what the tournament did for us to boost tourism and business relocation inquiries. There is no doubt in my mind that the big collegiate athletic events bring big bucks to a city. Just look at what it’s done for Indianapolis. We should mirror that effort in Albuquerque.

BILL JORDAN, policy director, New Mexico Voices for Children:

I love the Lobos and follow them religiously, but before weighing in on this week’s question, I checked in with some students and faculty at UNM to also get their assessment. What I heard confirmed by own sense of things: (1) There’s little correlation between a school’s spending on its athletic department and the success of its teams (academics love to research such things).  (2) Most of the university’s team members are from out-of-state, which raises questions about using state tax dollars to “educate” other state’s kids.  (3) The portion of student fees that go toward UNM athletics has doubled in the last five years.  That’s a steep increase and one that many students don’t support. (4) Even in a good year like this one, top-ranked teams like the Lobos do not bring in ‘profits’ to the athletic department.  Athletics is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and students, even when the teams are successful. (5) New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the nation, so it’s a little hard to justify UNM having the 16^th largest increase in taxpayer subsidies for athletics.

And finally, some will no doubt say that successful athletics are good economic development, and while there might be some boost to business (especially sports bars!), funds invested in research and academics would bring in federal and private grants dollars, defray the costs of faculty salaries/benefits, and result in cutting edge innovations that are the key to New Mexico’s economic viability. UNM is after all, supposed to be an institution of higher learning, not a minor league pipeline for the NFL or NBA.

These are tough economic times.  Lawmakers just cut the budget for education and eligibility for early education programs was just cut in half. Higher education got one of the biggest budget cuts, yet spending for athletics continues to increase. As one graduate student leader told me, it’s hard to justify that “money has been taken from academic purposes to fund athletics.” In tough economic times we need to refocus our priorities. UNM’s primary function is to educate the next generation of New Mexicans. Our best economic development is an educated work force that brings quality jobs to NM. Investing in students will improve our ability to compete in an even more competitive global economy.

GO LOBOS!

Perhaps one of the more interesting points of the panel discussion came when Espinoza talked about how she would be open to supporting an expanded form of domestic partnership, if it included recognized other forms of loving relationships–and had another name.
Espinoza began:

We’re talking here about our loved ones, you know. That’s the issue, about our loved ones. Taking care of our loved ones.  Well what about a mother–there’s a situation right now that I know of, it’s a mother and a daughter. Well, the daughter never married. The mother has gotten, you know, older. She has spent her life taking care of her mother. …Why not let them be able to [have a domestic partnership]?

Sen. Griego, an ardent supporter of domestic partnership, responded:

I would support that. I mean, I think . . . as human beings, we rely on each other, and whether that’s in a committed same-sex relationship or heterosexual relationship or a sibling relationship . . . I have the same example of folks, of a sister and a brother who have chosen to sort of mingle their finances and kind of take care of each other, and if we’re discriminating against them, I think that’s just as bad, and I would completely support us rewriting the tax code, the legal code, the health [code], whatever we need to do to be sure that two people who care about each other's well-being, regardless of what the nature of their relationship is, should be able to take care of each other and make decisions about the most basic issues for them--their health, whether or not or where they're buried, you know, and estate planning.

At that point, Espinoza interrupted:

We're pretty much saying the same thing, without removing that basic foundation of marriage. It's just giving the right to take care of their loved ones.  Presently, it is very, very clear in this state, you have that right. The only place, of course, you don't have that right is in taxes, and [other] issues of that level . . . If our concern is that we want rights for our loved ones--not who we choose to have intimacy [with]--but I'm talking about our loved ones. ...If we're saying, I'm taking care of my father, I live with my father, our finances, just like Senator said, are comingled, you know, and we have the right to file [taxes] jointly and be able to get some tax breaks and things like that, then why not?

Asked if she would support domestic partnership legislation if it were open to related family members, Espinoza responded:

Espinoza said, "Ok I think I would...under another title. Because I think what we're saying is, we're wanting rights for everyone, not rights to undermine [the definition of marriage.] When we're talking about domestic partnership and marriage, it's almost like correlating... .

Asked what name she would prefer, if not "domestic partnership," Espinoza said she hadn't thought of another name yet.

The event attracted a wide variety of political animals, including Lucky Varela, Chairman of the Legislative Finance Committee; Rod Adair, R-Roswell; Carter Bundy, political action representative of AFSCME and contributor to the online Independent Forum. You can watch archived video here.

The New Mexico Independent will be hosting three more Independent Forum events during the legislative session on Jan. 27, Feb. 3 and Feb. 10 from 5-8 PM at Rio Chama. The events are free and open to the public. Join us!

We also invite readers to participate — so please share your thoughts on this question in the comments section. If you have suggestions for how we can improve this feature or have have an idea for a future question, send us an e-mail.

As you may have heard, Sen. Bill Sharer, R-Farmington, has sponsored a joint resolution that would attempt to prevent the legalization of gay marriage by amending the constitution. So this week’s question is:

QUESTION: “Should we amend the New Mexico state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman?”

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

I don’t think that intervening in the private affairs of two individuals is the proper role of government. I’d actually like to see marriage return to a private contractual matter between individuals, perhaps their churches, and anyone else THEY want to involve. Particularly with the massive deficits and structural problems facing New Mexico, there are bigger issues to deal with during the coming 30 day session.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

I like Bill Sharer a lot. He’s passionate and works hard for his constituents. I know what he does comes from his heart and I respect that about him. But, I wish we could get all that passion, energy and smarts he has working on some other issues that this state faces. Until we can get a stronger private sector in this state that affords more New Mexicans high wage jobs,  and a world class education for all our students regardless of socio-economic status and really solve the state’s hunger problems, I wonder why he spends so much time on this issue. The chamber has not taken a position on this, so my comments are my own here. But, I know too many highly successful business people who are in committed,  same sex relationships who we serve at the chamber and who serve our community extraordinarily well.  It is difficult for me to justify so much capital on an issue like this one. I say, let’s knock out some solutions to some really basic problems in New Mexico that need fixing instead.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

What I can’t understand are people who talk about Christianity being so eager to judge and discriminate against others just because of who they love. I can’t imagine Jesus being nearly so cruel as to deny things as simple and common as inheritance rights, the right to visit each other in the hospital, and the right to support each other through their working years and retirement.

Nobody’s saying that conservative Christians (or Islamic extremists, who share right-wing Christians’ loathing for gays and cruelty towards these fellow human beings) have to like gays. Just be decent enough to stop treating them like second-class citizens, at least from our government’s point of view. If your church wants to discriminate, that’s absolutely your right. But don’t discriminate with my tax dollars.

Some conservative Christian friends of mine have started to take the approach that maybe government should get out of the “marriage” business altogether, and all government entities, including the feds, should just recognize “civil unions.” Personally, I’d be fine with that. I don’t really care what any church, mosque or synagogue calls a relationship, as long as my tax dollars aren’t being used to discriminate against people just because of who they love.

JIM BACA, blogger, former director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque mayor, state land commissioner and recently retired natural resources trustee:

What is wrong with this picture?  A state constitutional amendment to deny the pursuit of liberty and happiness by a segment  of our citizenry.  All because the people behind this plan think that God, a guy who lives in the clouds with long flowing hair and robes, thinks it should be that way?  If we let this happen then what is next?  Denying women the vote?

This kind of constitutional amendment should promptly be killed in its first committee hearing and relegated to the trash heap of bigotry.

ARTHUR ALPERT, veteran newsman, columnist and blogger:

So modest, the demands of those “small government” conservatives. All they ask is that government tell us who we can (and cannot) marry and what we can (and cannot) do in  the bedroom and…well, you get the idea.

BILL JORDAN, policy director, New Mexico Voices for Children and former theology instructor at a Catholic college:

How timely it is to ponder this question during the week we celebrate the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Dr. King fought for equal rights for African-Americans at a time when it was not popular to do so—even among his fellow clergy. Discrimination and hatred were rampant, segregation was the law. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states.

Today the fight for equality centers on another group that experiences legalized discrimination. Once again the states are split, some providing full equality for gays and lesbians and some feverishly protecting their right to legally discriminate. New Mexico does not allow gays and lesbians to marry, but neither is it expressly prohibited by our state constitution. Some want to change that and write discrimination into our state’s guiding document.

Just as it happened in the early days of the civil rights movement, churches are found on both sides of this issue. Many who opposed racial equality and interracial marriage did so with religious fervor and the encouragement of their Christian hierarchy. Today’s proponents of legalized discrimination against gay couples are the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops and a number of conservative ‘Christian’ churches.  Supporters of gay marriage include a number of other churches.

Many of us had hoped that the Catholic Church would no longer oppose a domestic partnership bill (not legal marriage) if it was written in a way that did not reference ‘marriage.’  Their demands were met with the writing of a new 900-page bill. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the church announced on MLK Day that they were reneging and will continue to oppose any domestic partner legislation.

In time, I have no doubt that we will win the fight for equality for ALL. Equality will find daylight. In the meantime, many gay couples will suffer the effects of not being able to protect their partners and children from the discrimination caused by not having the rights of a legally binding and protected partnership. But, as Dr. King so rightly noted, when discrimination against anyone is tolerated, discrimination against everyone is possible.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

This week we’re talking about a bill that has been pre-filed at the state legislature that would change the way New Mexico deals with guns and alcohol.

We’ll add responses as they come in, so keep checking back to see how the conversation progresses.

We also invite readers to participate — so please share your thoughts on this question in the comments section. If you have suggestions for how we can improve this feature or have have an idea for a future question, send us an e-mail.

QUESTION: “Should New Mexico change the law to allow patrons to carry concealed handguns into restaurants that serve beer and wine?”

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

Simply put, yes, law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns into restaurants that serve beer and wine, but restaurants and bars should be allowed to set rules on their premises that prohibit guns or other weapons. In other words, they should not be “forced” to allow those who carry weapons to be on their premises, but they should not be prohibited from allowing them to carry on their premises either.

JIM BACA, blogger, former director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque mayor, state land commissioner and recently retired natural resources trustee:

Who is behind this bill? Really! Someone who wants to kill a wine steward for serving corked wine? Someone who wants to protect a wine steward who serves corked wine? All of this is obscene!

I find it amusing to watch the local TV stations making a big deal out of the fact that someone took a loaded pistol into a movie theater. The recent incident at Century Theaters is nothing new. People with a little training, under a useless law, can carry concealed weapons into just about any place of business or public place. Except for the State Legislature that is. Apparently our gun loving legislators think their safety is more important than your children’s in a movie theater or mall. It really does not matter if a law makes it legal to do so. It is stupid. I would also invite folks to ask whether or not the thousands of weapon carriers we have are keeping up their certifications? I think not. Maybe a call to the the state police would answer that question.

So the next thing we need to do is distribute signs to all private businesses saying concealed weapons are not allowed on their premises. Or visible ones too. Could that be part of the new law? Do business owners have a right to keep concealed weapons out of their stores and cafes? I am betting a lot of them don’t want them in their places.

No, I am not against gun ownership. Just lunacy.

TERRI COLE, president and CEO, Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

I’m speaking for myself here, not for the Chamber, and my answer is, “Yikes! No.” We are all still a bit numb from the recent theatre shooting.  Why we would want to add a gun to alcohol is beyond me. I suspect it’s probably already being done, but let’s not legalize it. Don’t get me wrong–I’m all for preserving our freedoms and I love living in the west, but few of us want to return to the old days of the wild, wild west!

BILL TURNER, hydrologist and former director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District

No.

I haven’t packed a gun in 50 years, but as a gun-totin’ field geologist working in Wyoming in 1960, the only place gun-totin’ people had to check their guns were places that sold booze. Anywhere else, including banks, was OK.

BILL JORDAN, policy director, New Mexico Voices for Children:

I admit I’m biased. I don’t own guns and I don’t drink. But I’m familiar with guns from my military training, and I’ve seen what alcohol can do. From where I sit, loaded guns and alcohol don’t mix.

As a child advocate and parent, I’m biased. I’m concerned about the message we send to our kids every time the state affirms that guns are an acceptable way to resolve conflict in a ‘civilized’ society.

As a citizen concerned with high crime rates and personal safety, I’m biased. I just don’t believe that more people carrying loaded guns builds a safer community.  The data supports my view.

For several years, my job at New Mexico Voices for Children was to interview the families of children who committed suicide, which I did for the Child Fatality Review Board of the Office of the Medical Investigator. New Mexico has one of the highest rates of youth suicide in the nation. During the years I conducted the interviews, two-thirds of the suicides were completed with a gun and more than two-thirds of those were with a family gun that was easily accessible to the child—loaded and not locked up. These parents were devastated that the gun they bought to keep their family ‘safe’ became the instrument of their child’s certain death. I use the word ‘certain’ because suicide attempts with a gun are completed 99 percent of the time while attempts by other means have less than half the completion rate. If children don’t have easy access to a gun, they are less likely to complete their attempted suicide—meaning they’ll have another chance at life.

Several years spent reviewing hundreds of child gun deaths added to my bias.

New Mexico is in the midst of many major crises. Our children are not doing well in school; a greater percentage of them lack health insurance than in 48 other states; we have one of the highest rates of youth suicide in the nation; we’re slashing vital services for our disabled and elderly citizens; our small businesses are struggling like never before; unemployment is near record levels; and state employees and teachers face layoffs and furloughs, adding to the economic pain we all feel.

With so many crises to deal with, has the lack of loaded guns in restaurants that serve alcohol reached such crisis proportions that the Legislature needs to give it their attention in this session?  Let’s hope lawmakers focus their attention on the many serious issues facing New Mexico’s families. From my bias, allowing loaded guns in restaurants that serve alcohol is neither a good idea nor a priority.

CAROL WIGHT, executive director, New Mexico Restaurant Association:

At one time in New Mexico’s history it was legal to bring a gun into a liquor establishment. For very obvious reasons our lawmakers decided it was dangerous to have guns and liquor in the same vicinity and so they passed laws to prohibit the behavior.

Last year when this legislation was proposed, the New Mexico Restaurant Association was the only entity opposing this legislation and I’m certain we will be the lonesome cowboy again.

Don’t get me wrong I’m very much for Second Amendment rights and some of my members support this legislation. What they don’t know is that last year when we tried to get an amendment to limit the liability of the establishment if something were to go wrong, the Legislature stripped the amendments that would protect our members from the additional liability.

Restaurants already have their hands full with the responsibility to know when and how much each patron has had to drink, what their intoxication level is and if their driver’s license is authentic, valid, and states their actual birth date. To be responsible for customers’ gun carrying habits puts restaurants and servers again in the difficult position of enforcing New Mexico’s laws.

Concealed carry licensees will tell you that you will never know if they have their gun because it’s “concealed.” But…

What if a customer comes into a restaurant with a bulge at their waistline… How do we know it’s not a gun? How do we know they have a license? Do we ask? If they don’t have a license doesn’t that put the server in a VERY awkward position? If they do have a license, are we required to check it? We have been told that the concealed carry permit does not allow a person to drink on premise.  How do we enforce that law? Do we need yet more server training to enforce the gun laws in New Mexico?

It’s not as simple as it looks. I’m not that worried about the guy with the license becoming a scary drunk. On second thought, what assurances do we have that the concealed carry licensees are better equipped to handle alcohol than the general public? None?

I’m more worried about the guy without the license carrying a weapon into a restaurant and putting a server in the position of having to ask for a license to carry a concealed weapon. “LICENSE, I DON’T NEED NO STINKING LICENSE!” In this case I do not believe that having a person on premise with a concealed weapon would make anyone feel safer.

Once again, this law, if enacted, would increase restaurants’ liability and put servers in charge of law enforcement.  I believe if the Legislature does pass this law it will be one of those that a few years later they say “What were we thinking?”

I do understand that those who advocate for gun rights have a different point of view. I hope they understand where I am coming from and how this affects our businesses. They are looking out for their rights; we are focused on not being in the cross hairs.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

Well, it’s nice to be on the same side as my friend Terri Cole and the head of the Restaurant Association, who I also respect! The response to this almost writes itself. Let’s see…lots of guys drinking alcohol, competing for the affections of women, then drinking more alcohol…I know, let’s add guns to the mix!

Seriously, you can love the Second Amendment and appreciate the importance of guns for hunting, self-defense, and out of the principle that the government shouldn’t be the only armed entity in the country. There are strong practical and principled reasons to support gun ownership. But we don’t allow guns at the Roundhouse because there’s simply a much better chance of them being used for bad reasons than good. How can anyone really think that guns in bars is a good idea? Talk about putting ideology over common sense.

Glad to find common ground with most business people here–a harbinger of good things at the session? :)

Photo by Damon D'Amato.

New Mexico would eliminate more than 900 jobs and reduce state workers’ salaries by 2 percent to balance the state’s out-of-whack budget, if it followed a proposal released Monday by the Legislature’s budget committee.

New Mexico is staring at a large budgetary shortfall for the fiscal year that starts July 1, and the proposal released Monday by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) is just an opening salvo in what is expected to be a tense, budget fight that commences Jan. 19, the first day of the 2010 legislative session.

Gov. Bill Richardson is expected to release his budget proposal Tuesday.

But the elimination of jobs seems to constitute a new level of budget cutting and provoked a strong reaction from representatives of state workers.

“Classified state employment is as lean as it has been in 20 years and this is a time when citizens are expecting services to continue,” said Carter Bundy, political director for Council 18 of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents thousands of state workers. “The idea that we can continue to provide those services by cutting jobs, that just won’t work. We need to have a balanced proposal, closing corporate loopholes.”

Richardson has already ordered 17,000 state workers to take five unpaid days off work and said he would eliminate up to 1,000 vacant jobs.

It was unclear how many state workers would actually lose their jobs under the LFC proposal, or how many vacant jobs would be eliminated. The plan called for letting go “non-essential personnel” as well as eliminating long-vacant jobs.

But the LFC chairman, Rep. Luciano “Lucky” Varela, D-Santa Fe, said Monday that most of the positions eliminated are vacant.

“We have 4,000 vacant jobs across state government,” Varela said.

But public information officers who serve at the governor’s pleasure and work across state government at several state agencies should beware. They are on the lawmakers’ radar as some of the “non-essential” workers who could lose their jobs.

“We feel those jobs are non-essential,” Varela said.

In addition to trimming the state workforce, the proposal also called for nearly $200 million made up through a mix of additional federal Medicaid money that may or may not materialize, possible revenue enhancements, a term that encompasses both tax and fee increases, and possible additional cuts.

How much, and where, to raise taxes has provoked a wide-ranging debate. While advocates and some state lawmakers both have pointed out that the Legislature can’t solve the state’s budgetary crisis merely by cutting expenses, no clear agreement has emerged on what taxes to raise.

“We’re sort of at a standstill,” said Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, and vice chairman of the Legislative Finance Committee. “We have not agreed on whether it is reviving an old tax or eliminating some of the exemptions and loopholes” in the tax code.

Some state lawmakers have publicly advocated a return to taxing the sale of food, something the state stopped doing a few years back.  Others have vigorously argued for raising the state income tax on the highest earners and reducing or eliminating tax credits or exemptions extended to businesses.

Still, other lawmakers oppose any tax increases, period.

“The legislature needs to seriously consider the ramifications of raising taxes on working families that are already struggling to make ends meet,” said Sen. Sue Wilson Beffort, R-Sandia Park. “They are already losing their jobs, they are fighting to keep their homes, they are struggling to put food on the table. How can the state ask them to give more in taxes when they do not have it?”

The LFC’s $5.3 billion proposal assumes $5.1 billion in revenues, and $200 million in revenue enhancements.

File photo

Gov. Bill Richardson on Thursday pledged to axe 1,000 vacant state jobs, ordered nearly 20,000 state workers to take five furlough days and cut state agencies.

Those actions, along with the promise to eliminate at least 84 state jobs held by political appointees, represented the governor’s answer to New Mexico’s worsening financial situation.

“I won’t pretend that these actions will solve all our budget problems, but it’s a start,” Richardson said at a midday news conference at the state Capitol.

As painful as the decisions were, state lawmakers said Thursday that they would have been less painful had the governor not delayed them for months while hoping for an economic rebound powered by federal stimulus dollars.

“They were forewarned in July,” state Sen. John Arthur Smith, a Democrat from Deming, said in reference to the Richardson administration. “There was a group of us that envisioned where we were headed and it was going to be painful. The governor would have done well to start looking at the expenditure side in July rather than waiting until November.”

Richardson, who has repeatedly said his administration has saved millions of dollars through a hiring freeze this year, reiterated that point Thursday.

A hiring freeze he ordered earlier in the year has resulted in 2,900 vacancies across state government, Richardson said defiantly.

The governor and state lawmakers’ sharp words are coming as they attempt to plug most of a $650 million budgetary shortfall this year even as more ominous financial clouds darken the horizon: A projected $1 billion shortfall already predicted for next year’s budget.

Richardson acted Thursday on a budgetary fix the Legislature approved during an October special legislative session. But the governor used his line-item veto authority to sidestep much of the Legislature’s bill, striking out a major provision that had ordered him to make 7.6 percent cuts at agencies under his control.

To make up for the cost savings he vetoed in the Legislature’s bill, Richardson issued an executive order requiring state agencies to cut spending. The cuts varied in severity, department to department, depending on a mix of factors, including how they might affect public safety, education or health care.

“For whatever reason the Legislature made a hasty decision during the special session, particularly when it forced a blanket cut of 7.6 percent on top of previous cuts on most state agencies,” Richardson said. “They did not take into account the impact these cuts would have on critical services.”

In a series of news releases leading up the decision, the Richardson administration said the Legislature’s budget bill would force the state to slash Medicaid (the government’s low-income health insurance program), shutter two prisons, release hundreds of non-violent offenders and close state parks.

Richardson made sure to drill home to the media Thursday that his actions averted the closure of state parks and prisons. And Medicaid, estimated to lose $150 million under the Legislature’s budget fix according to the Richardson administration, would lose only $28 million.

Furloughs and elimination of jobs

Meanwhile, Richardson said, he chose the furloughs — in which state workers take days off without pay — and the elimination of vacant jobs instead of laying off state workers. The state is projected to save nearly $11 million with the furloughs, which will work out to the rough equivalent of a 2 percent salary cut for state workers. It is unclear when furloughs will begin, Katherine Miller, Richardson’s budget chief, said.

It also was unclear how much the state could save by doing away with 1,000 state jobs.

“I don’t want layoffs. I don’t want people to lose their jobs. We are not at that stage,” Richardson said.

Richardson’s explanation didn’t inoculate the governor against criticism from state employee unions.

“It is very unfortunate that they’re balancing the budget on the backs of 20,000 hard-working middle class people,” Carter Bundy of American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees, Council 18, said Thursday. ASFSCME represents about 6,500 classified state workers in New Mexico.

A balanced approach

Bundy and some state lawmakers said on Thursday that the governor could have avoided furloughs had the Legislature been able to consider tax increases during the special legislative session. With a narrowly worded proclamation, Richardson effectively prohibited state lawmakers from considering any tax increases.

“It is unfortunate that the Legislature and governor could not take a more balanced approach to solving this fiscal crisis, by raising some revenues to minimize the amount of cuts to critical public services,” said Democratic Sen. Eric Griego of Albuquerque.

Richardson has since said the Legislature must raise taxes during the January legislative session. The state’s projected $1 billion shortfall for next year is too large to close through cuts alones.

In everyday terms, that $1 billion shortfall represents nearly $1 out of every $5 the state spends on services, meaning state lawmakers have a big challenge ahead. Many lawmakers acknowledge that closing that shortfall will require a mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

State lawmakers challenged Richardson not only on his overall approach to fixing this year’s budget, but on individual actions as well.

Anger over Medicaid cuts

One sore point with some lawmakers was Richardson’s decision to cut Medicaid. In recent weeks several lawmakers have said their budget protected Medicaid and never intended to cut the program despite the Richardson administration’s pronouncements to the contrary.

“They were already being underfunded as it is,” state Rep. Jose Campos, D-Santa Rosa, said of Medicaid. “Taking out another 1 percent is just going to be creating more harm than good.”

Richardson cut $5 million in state funding from the program, but because of the quirks of Medicaid funding, that resulted in an additional loss of $23 million in federal matching dollars. The state and federal governments jointly fund Medicaid, but the federal government is the senior partner, providing a 4 to 1 match for every New Mexico dollar that is spent on Medicaid (counting federal stimulus dollars).

Political appointees

Richardson said he was prepared to sacrifice like all New Mexicans, and pointed to his decision to eliminate 84 jobs usually held by his political appointees.

“A lot of individuals will lose their jobs,” Richardson said of his political appointees.

But Rep. Nate Cote, D-Las Cruces, didn’t buy that answer. He noted that more than 60 of those jobs are already vacant, a statement Richardson disputed Thursday afternoon.

“So really, he’s getting rid of very few,” said Cote, who was one of the first to propose cuts to the governor’s political appointees during the special session. “Personally, I don’t think it’s enough. … He probably has 20 people that are occupying those positions that are leaving anyway.”

“I don’t think he’s sacrificing much by doing this,” Cote said. “Meanwhile, I think he’s sacrificing some of the hard-working state employees with furloughs.”

This week, the National Rifle Association sent mail to Albuquerque households endorsing incumbent mayor Martin Chavez. Other member organizations are free to do the same on behalf of the other candidates. If the mail goes only to organization members on behalf of one candidate, the others won’t receive matching funds. Unlike mail that’s sent to the general public (which would trigger matching funds), member-to-member speech is protected under the First Amendment, and therefore exempt.

“It’s settled case law. If its mail to just members, it can’t be regulated,” City Attorney Bob White told NMI.

Under the public financing system, organizations that want to spend money on an election must form a measure finance committee. But if their activities — such as sending member-to-member mail — can’t be regulated, they can’t be required to register as measure finance committees.

This was a question the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) encountered in 2007 when it sent mail to members during the municipal elections.

“It’s like talking to your family, essentially,” AFSCME’s Carter Bundy said in an interview. “Anything that would disincentivize our speech to our members isn’t allowed.”

It would be a disincentive for groups like AFSCME and the NRA to speak to their members through the mail, Bundy said, if they had to register with the government to do so.

“There are legal restraints on what we can accomplish with the system,” said Steven Robert Allen of Common Cause, a government watchdog group that supports public financing.

“Other countries, for example, can place any restriction they want on campaign literature, but we have a powerful First Amendment … and our Supreme Court has decided there’s a free speech right connected to [this],” Allen said.

The city’s first experience with public financing appears to be going well, Allen said, but he’ll be paying particular attention to these next few days.

“The problem always comes down to the last few days. … Matching kicks in when more money is spent by some outside group, but the problem is that, in the last few days, it’s hard to get the matching funds out to other candidates in time for them to use it,” Allen said.

White said that if an organization sends member-to-member mail to anyone who is not a member of the organization, then that would have to be reported. But the city can’t investigate unless a complaint is filed showing evidence of the infraction.

Follow NMI on Twitter and become a fan of NMI on Facebook. Got a news tip? Want to pitch a story idea? Send us an e-mail.

Baca writes, “The Forest Service has made sport out of hassling these folks by bringing in law enforcement personnel from all over the country,” while Cocoposts states, “Rest assured that young men with guns in overpowered SUVs are protecting you with near maniacal fervor from people who talk about peace and sleep in the woods.”

Meanwhile, Carter Bundy writes today on my blog that ex-state Rep. Robert Aragon, a member of the state Democratic Party’s central committee, should be removed from that committee because of his support for a Republican congressional candidate.

And blogger Mario Burgos says stricter firearm laws will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He believes criminals, who already have little or no respect for the law, will merely break new gun laws. So, he says, only law-abiding citizens trying to protect themselves will pay the price under new gun-control laws.

Last, Democracy for New Mexico asks today why New Mexico’s members of Congress won’t openly support the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

NMI’s Danielle Bauer pretty much wrote this posting.