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.

So this week’s question is: President Obama told Senate Republicans today that he will send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and request an additional $500 million in supplemental funding for border security.

If you had $500 million to spend on improving the situation at the border, what would you spend it on?

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

The Rail Runner to make up the difference between the ticket price of $10 and the actual price of $48 (one way to Santa Fe.)  The price of fuel per day exceeds ticket sales.

ARTHUR ALPERT, veteran newsman, columnist and blogger:

Illegal immigrants come for the jobs. The only way to minimize their numbers is to crack down on the businesses that hire them – the bigger businesses, in particular. That requires  political will, not a lot of dollars. I would, therefore, return most of that princely sum you cite to the Treasury so that it can maintain current levels of corporate welfare.

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

It is unlikely that even half a billion dollars will ‘improve the situation’ on the border with Mexico.  How much has been spent already?  Billions and Billions.  And it has had some  effect since fewer are crossing the border.  However, the longterm problems on the border can only be improved by Mexico’s own government embarking on economic reform, better education, and cleaning up corruption in its own house so it can ruthlessly deal with the drug cartels.  This country can only improve the situation by helping them to do this.  Fences won’t work.  Troops to seal the border won’t work. Scapegoating Mexicans by two bit politicians won’t work.  Having reform minded smart leaders on both sides of the border is probably the most important thing. Now, if I had half a billion to put into border security it would be to reform drug laws in this country in a way that takes cash out of the Cartel’s pockets.  Yes, that means legalization.  But first, lets honor the Mexican President’s pleas to stop the sale of assault weapons in US border states to the Cartels, even if it does upset the NRA.  If we can’t do that then everything else might not mean much.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

The question does not make it clear where the $500 million is coming from. If the answer is taxpayers, then I think we should return the money to taxpayers or pay down the debt because no amount of money is going to solve the border issues.

Now, if the money were my own, I’d spend it to set up several free market think tanks in Mexico to work with their government, elected officials, and citizens. After all, the best long-term way to solve the immigration issue is to convince Mexico to pursue free market reforms that would make Mexico a wealthier, more prosperous place.

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

Breathe. First, everyone involved in this debate ought to take a breath or this difficult issue will never get solved. And it needs to get solved in a very big way. Second, everyone ought to stop using emotion laden words which do not accurately reflect what has been or is being recommended…like the word amnesty. Third, the very best minds should look at both sides of this issue…securing the border and the 9 to 12 million in the US who are here without legal status… and begin to craft a solution which is based on solving both of those problems. The money should then be directed toward supporting those solutions. Let’s get the politics sidelined a bit here and put our good judgment and smarts toward solutions that are sensible and will work to secure our boarders and constructively deal with 9 to 12 million people in the US.

Welcome to The Independent Forum. Every week we ask a different question and solicit responses from a diverse group of New Mexico thinkers, pundits and other observers of the state’s political landscape. We’ll add more 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.

On Sunday, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin endorsed Susana Martinez’ in her effort to win the Republican nomination for Governor.

Palin is either passionately adored—or passionately hated. But everybody agrees she has the ability to attract attention.

So this week’s question is: What effect, if any, will Palin’s endorsement have on the governor’s race?

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

Apparently, Susana Martinez refused to take questions at her news conference with Sarah Palin on Sunday.  Why would that happen?  What is there to hide?  Would issue oriented questions be asked? (Like ‘Why you are taking so much money from the oil and gas industry?’) Would she embrace the factually wrong ranting of Palin and the Tea Party?  We may never know.  But she can’t get away with this for long.

One thing we can take from this is that Martinez is not sure what the Palin endorsement will ultimately do to her campaign, otherwise she might have been forthcoming in front of the press yesterday.  I actually think it strengthens her in the primary election against Allen Weh, who is after all the consummate insider.  He served as GOP chair and made millions in war profits from the Bush Adminstration.  That probably has not gone completely unnoticed.  But, I believe the endorsement will weaken Martinez somewhat in the general election against Lt. Governor Diane Denish. Diane is an insider with a soul at least, unlike Palin.

We all really don’t know if Palin’s endorsement will help here, but I have a feeling that a lack of thought in accepting this endorsement will haunt Susana’s move to the dark side.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

An endorsement from a prominent national figure is bound to have some small, positive impact in the primary election. Given the time between now and November, however, I doubt that Palin’s endorsement has much impact at all in the general election. Now, if Palin were to campaign actively on Martinez’s behalf leading up to the general, that may be a bigger story, but the bounce is focused on pushing her over the top in the primary and it may just do that.

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

It’s hard to tell, but my instincts say Palin’s endorsement of Martinez will help Martinez in the primary. The race has very tightly closed in on two candidates and the nudge from Palin to Martinez might well take her over the top. But, if Martinez wins the primary, I’m not so sure that the endorsement will be the same help in the general. That, as they say, will be a whole other ballgame.

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.

Wow. That oil spill just keeps getting worse. And now everyone’s blaming everyone else for the mess. This week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger  withdrew his support for a plan he championed to allow new offshore oil drilling off Santa Barbara County, citing the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

So this week’s question is: What lessons should we take away from this spill?

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

Oil is dirty.  It causes destruction and pollution from the exploratory stage to the production stage to the transport stage to the refining stage to the internal combustion stage.  Can we get off it completely any time soon?  The answer is no.  Can we get off it at some time in the future?  Of course but it will take a sea change in how we power our economies.

The lesson we learn from the current spill in the Gulf is that no matter how good we think we are at containing the harm from oil, we are actually not that good. ( This makes things look bad for nuclear energy too.)  Even stricter regulation and safety requirements are necessary.

One lesson we can learn is that we must keep the oil and gas industry isolated from influence on politics.  We must pass legislation on a national level limiting any extractive industry from providing campaign funds to politicians, committees and parties.  Or, a constitutional amendment I suppose.  We need tougher people in the Federal Government policing these folks.  The industry’s political influence makes that difficult and so it seems we always have to wait for a disaster like the current one for action to occur.  Kind of like the giant financial meltdown caused by greedy and not so smart bankers and traders on Wall Street.

Now lets look at the oil and gas industry’s influence in New Mexico.  The GOP is run by Yates Petroleum.  The oil boys seem to own some of the current candidates for Governor.  Just yesterday republican Susana Martinez came out with a TV commercial railing against environmental regulations on the oil industry, which had just given her $110,000 in donations.  Even Democrat Lt. Governor Diane Denish continually praises the oil boys and their importance to the state’s economy, although she will not be owned by them.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

We haven’t even found out what caused the spill at this point, but there are certainly a few issues and takeaways, even at this early stage.

For starters, we must come to grips with the fact that our entire society is reliant — not addicted — to oil and fossil fuels in general. There are certainly things that can be done to reduce demand over time, but oil goes into too many products to eliminate offshore drilling. We all benefit from these products in terms of higher living standards, mobility, readily available electricity, and heated/cooled homes. So, we must understand that all forms of mining or oil drilling have certain risks associated with them. These risks must be mitigated to the best extent possible.

One thing that should not happen is to retroactively change a law that caps BP’s liability for economic damages at $75 million by raising that cap to $10 billion (this cap does not apply if BP is found to have acted negligently or violated the law). This law — which was adopted by Congress after the Exxon Valdez — also set up up a system under which BP and other oil companies put money away in the unfortunate event of an oil spill.

The best lesson we can take from this tragedy is that we don’t want them to happen again. While humans are imperfect, we must aim to come as close to perfection with regard to unmitigated environmental and human disasters like this spill.

ARTHUR ALPERT, veteran newsman, columnist and blogger:

Ho-hum. Another reminder that our oil addiction kills humans, flora and fauna and damages livelihoods. Even as it misdirects the national economy long-term. And subverts foreign policy.

This addiction rewards oil producers, oil field support companies and businesses dependent on oil and gas. Given that there hardly exists a concept of the national interest different from business interests, look for corporate America to emerge with its rewards unscathed – after a  lot of  sound and fury, of course, signifying nothing.

That’s the lesson.

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

We hear a lot about the spill, with differing thoughts and opinions on its size, scope, solutions, speed of administrative response (i.e. “Obama’s Katrina”), ranging even more inanely into what state the spill resembles, in size or shape.  Not being an expert at all, what I find woefully inadequate is the amount of information and dialogue around the specific cause, what’s in place to keep this from happening, and what the driller’s and government’s plan is if it happens anyway.  Was there more prevention that could or should have been done by the driller?   Were the rules and regulations followed?  Is the status quo in that regard reasonable, or does more need to be done to ensure this  doesn’t happen again.  We certainly need our oil but we don’t need oily beaches and environmental catastrophes.  Off-shore drilling comes with much more cost, complication, and environmental risk than on-shore, so the answers are really important and if the discussion focused less on the sensational and political and more on the facts that matter, the answers would be much more evident already.  The same thing happens when they talk about taxes…

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

We’ll know about “lessons learned” when we discover what went wrong with the safety valves that were supposed to work…but didn’t.  I hope we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water when we find that out but stay smart about how to create a safe but more plentiful and independent oil supply for the US in the future.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

One of the shocking things from this oil spill is how suddenly all the anti-government folks are expecting government to clean up (literally, figuratively, and financially) a private company’s disaster.  Even more shocking is the libertarian Rio Grande Foundation’s insistence that BP not pay for the damage it causes (in fairness, they’re OK with BP paying $75 million, which is less about one days’ worth of profits–not revenue, profits).  Normally, even libertarians believe that if you cause harm to others, you should be held accountable.

The RGF’s protection of BP from liability is stunning, but maybe it has to do with RGF’s funding.  Much has been made over the funding of liberal groups over the past few years, and to their credit, the most highly-criticized progressive group, Center for Civic Policy, did disclose donors’ names.  I’d love to see how many mega-corporations and foundations with mega-corporation money are behind RGF and NM Watchdog.  By way of full disclosure, my union’s revenues come 100 percent from member dues and voluntary political contributions from nurses, corrections officers, police officers, fire fighters, groundskeepers, people who investigate child abuse, and dozens of other noble professions.  Some retirees from those positions also contribute.

My main takeaway is that oil companies and others with the potential to do tens of billions of dollars in harm should be accountable for every penny, including to all the private businesses like fishers and hotel owners along the Gulf Coast.  If BP has to sell every single asset to make this happen and go into bankruptcy, so be it.  But future BPs (read: every oil company in the country) should have to take out major insurance to pay the victims of these types of tragedies.  Why aren’t the libertarian/watchdog thinktanks concerned about small private business?  Follow the money.

So much for conservative/libertarian “principles” of accountability and paying for your deeds.  This oil spill has highlighted not only the dangers inherent in deep-sea drilling, but the fundamental hypocrisy of conservative and libertarian leaders in America and New Mexico.

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.

In 2003, Gov. Richardson signed a law allowing undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses. Richardson said he hoped the move would allow more drivers to buy car insurance. In 2004, Gov. Jeb Bush supported a similar measure in Florida, saying “[O]nce [undocumented immigrants are] here, what do you do? Do you basically say that they’re lepers to society? That they don’t exist? . . . A policy that ignores them is a policy of denial.”

Now it’s becoming an issue in the GOP primary. What do you think?

“Should New Mexico continue to allow undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses?”

ARTHUR ALPERT, veteran newsman, columnist and blogger:

It’s time to kill this idea that undocumented immigrants should be treated humanely. Giving them driver’s licenses enables them to get to work and feed their families; -this will only encourage them to compete with native-born Americans for the few jobs industries haven’t exported over the past 25 years. I say, treat them like the criminals they are.

Besides, without scapegoats, we might have to examine our own personal and societal responsiblities.
I would, however, overlook the sins of those illegals employed by agribusiness, meatpacking and other big businesses reliant on cheap labor. Hey, what’s government for if not corporate welfare?

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

Undocumented immigrants should be allowed to obtain driver’s licenses.  They are here.  They are working in many jobs that Americans wont take on.  Our society would fail without their contributions to the economy and their families back home would fail if they didn’t send money to them.

If the Republicans use this as a wedge issue I can only say it is not much better than the Jew-baiting carried out in 1930s Germany.  I am not saying the GOP wants to commit genocide, but that they are willing to scapegoat a certain segment of our population as being the source of all of our problems.

Governor Richardson was justified in signing the law in 2003.  Jeb Bush was right to follow that lead in 2004.  Will the now extreme GOP abandon all sense of decency?  Let’s hope not.  I would like to see a strong and moderate republican party emerge at some point to keep the fringe ever further from running our democracy.

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

Those who want to repeal the law seem to have a solution in search of a problem.  There is no evidence that allowing unauthorized immigrants to get a driver’s license would have any value to our society or to public safety. There is no evidence that it would curb the flow of unauthorized immigrants into our state.  Driver’s licenses do not make someone less deportable or more likely to find work.

I’ve yet to hear of a problem caused by an unauthorized immigrant having a driver’s license.  But when I heard the debate at the Roundhouse a few years ago, I heard a litany of problems from law enforcement who argued in favor of licensing.  Law enforcement and other advocates testified about the importance of having positive identification when someone is stopped for questioning.  They also know that if unauthorized persons have a driver’s license they know our traffic laws and they can get insurance, and that’s important for the safety of all of us.

Lawmakers and Governor Richardson did the right thing when they took the advice of law enforcement and passed this law.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

This issue is merely a symptom of the larger problem: immigration policies that create an underground world. We need to have realistic immigration policies and then, for the first time in American history, enforce them. If we really have a major need for new employees, let’s give them a legal means to come in and work. Creating an underground society and economy makes immigrants vulnerable to all kinds of abuses, from their employers, from domestic violence, and from the inability to participate in many parts of normal society.

I’ve written about this issue before. The solution has to involve serious enforcement, not against immigrants (who are simply trying to provide for their families), but against the employers who gain an unfair advantage over law-abiding employers. And I don’t mean a fine–those just get written off as a cost of doing business, as we’ve seen from the horrible mine owner in West Virginia. I mean put people in jail who hire workers without proper documentation. For a long time.

If there are no jobs available without legal status, and we give those already here a path to citizenship (after all, we invited immigrants here and very intentionally refused to enforce our laws for decades), then we’ll effectively cut off the incentive for undocumented immigration, without disrupting the lives of innocent immigrants who we’ve invited here.

If our economy needs more employees, employers will have to make that case to Congress and we’ll have to change our legal immigration policies. We also need to be supportive of keeping families united–the new policy shouldn’t break up families. But we also have to be a nation of the rule of law. The current system of an underground economy and society makes immigrants’ lives far worse than they would otherwise be. It empowers criminals of all kinds. It deprives innocent immigrants of basic human protections and rights. It destroys the labor market for legal immigrants and citizens. It forces otherwise law-abiding companies to themselves become criminals because they have to compete with unscrupulous employers.

Driver’s licenses? I don’t see how our country can invite people here–and make no mistake, that’s exactly what happened–and then compound their already difficult lives, and the lives of citizens, by forcing them to drive without insurance, without passing a driver’s test, without passing an eye exam, and giving every incentive to flee accidents. Most law enforcement I’ve heard speak on this issue think it’s a good idea to issue licenses. But that’s addressing one small symptom of a far larger issue. We need to return to being a country of the rule of law, and can do so by establishing orderly, compassionate, reasonable immigration laws and enforcing them.

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!

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.

Gov. Bill Richardson says he “hates” the food tax, but by reimposing the gross receipts tax on food, the state would save around $68 million that it’s been giving local governments to compensate for stripping the tax a few years ago. That’s lot of money. Are Richardson’s hands tied?

QUESTION: “Should Gov. Bill Richardson sign the food tax bill? If not, how specifically should he fill the hole that vetoing it will leave?”

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

This is a tough one. At this point, there is not much that can be done. I’d rather Richardson “hated” the business-killing gross receipts tax (GRT) which is far more harmful than the grocery tax and now exceeds 8 percent in some communities and will soon be above 7 percent in Albuquerque. Of course, he already raised the GRT once (by half a cent) to pay for elimination of the grocery tax the first time around, so consumers and businesses are getting hit with a double-whammy.

So, his hands may be tied at this point, but by ramming through the RailRunner, the Spaceport and $80 million annually in film subsidies, refusing to get serious about cutting government spending and our bloated state government (including merging agencies as was recommended by his own government efficiency task force), Richardson has tied his own hands. Since he won’t get serious about cutting spending, it looks like tax hikes are coming. Thus, reinstating the grocery tax is marginally less anti-economic growth than hiking the income tax or further hiking the GRT.

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

The Governor should veto the re-imposed food tax.  It is just too regressive and hurts those who are on the bottom of the income brackets the most.  I don’t believe the Governor’s hands are tied.  He can call the legislators back into session no later than September 1 to deal with the issue.  If the economy picks up in the meantime the Legislature may have an easier time of dealing with this.  This might be overly simplistic, but sometimes simple things work.  The Legislature has to come up with a way of living up to their responsibilities instead of trying to put the screws to cities and local governments.  Those are where a good portion of the revenues are generated already.  The Governor and lawmakers need to raise the income tax to fill in the deficit.  It would be a fast and easy way of handling the situation.  Perhaps a two year sunset on the tax hike could be put in place.  We should not forget that the Governor and Legislature have cut revenues by almost a billion dollars in the last seven years.

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

Richardson should veto the food tax.  It is an extremely regressive tax and it affects lower income people in a very disproportionate manner.  The $68 million should be realized by dumping the 5,000 state employees that Richardson has added since the end of the frugal Johnson administration.

MARK WINNE, food and agriculture policy expert, author of Closing the Food Gap:

Gov. Richardson should not sign the food tax bill; he should veto it.

Why? In the checkout line the other day at Albertson’s, I saw an elderly woman empty out her purse for the change tangled up in her kleenex, gum wrappers, and other pocketbook effluvia. She was struggling to pay the grand sum of $33.14 for her groceries. Though I tried not to stare at her, I could tell she was embarrassed and that her hands were trembling. The matter was resolved (I suspect that the sympathetic cashier gave her an “under the table” break). After I checked out and wheeled my cart into the parking lot I saw a stylishly dressed woman loading bags upon bags of groceries into the back of her Lincoln SUV. Certainly no need to rifle through the bottom of her purse here. Why do we always turn to the least among us for financial solutions while letting those with ample capacity off the hook? The food tax is nothing more than another way of turning our pocket books inside out in hopes of scrounging up a few loose pennies from those who need them the most.

FRED NATHAN, executive director of Think New Mexico:

Governor Richardson should line-item veto the food tax. It is a regressive tax on a necessity that particularly punishes large families and low- and middle-income New Mexicans.

Many more sensible alternatives to the food tax have been proposed. We agree with Attorney General Gary King that if we must impose a regressive rather than a progressive tax, it would be far better to tax a luxury like alcohol than a necessity like food. According to the Attorney General, a liquor tax could raise as much as $80 million, eliminating the need for the $68 million food tax passed by the Legislature.

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

I’m in Beijing, China right now. We’re here on one of the Chamber’s Discovery Missions. This has nothing to do with the food tax, a question I will answer in a moment. But, for an on-line newspaper, like The New Mexico Independent, responding to this on-line— while on the way to the Great Wall of China—speaks volumes about the world today and about the role of online newspapers in the future.

Now, back to food. Yes. The Guv should sign the partial reinstatement of the food tax. Signing it gets us closer to the fact that it should never have been repealed in the first place. It was bad tax policy. We need broad based taxes so that they can be kept low and fair to all. We should, however, use effective programs like LICTR (Low Income Comprehensive Tax Rebate) to help New Mexicans neediest families. Finally, the package that the legislature came up with was hard fought and fragile. Finding another $68 million will be sure to ox someone’s gore. Let’s not.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

This is an incredibly difficult dilemma, but one that in the end does have a decisive answer.  My union proposed 19 different ideas for raising revenue, and was crystal clear that we thought raising the gross receipt tax and the food tax were the two least appealing options of the lot.

Four great ideas near the top of our list went through:  Personal Income Tax add-backs are progressive and simply close a bizarre exemption only used now by five states.  Applying the compensating tax to some out-of-state Internet sales is a long-overdue start to leveling the playing field for New Mexico businesses, including small brick-and-mortar shops.  Withholding state tax from out-of-state residents who work here and owe us money is nothing more than a compliance and efficiency tweak, which even conservative Republicans voted for in the Senate.  And the cigarette tax, while somewhat regressive, is also totally voluntary and has some outstanding health benefits and long-term cost benefits for the state.

Married to those four, though, were the small GRT and food tax increases, which moderate and conservative legislators insisted had to be part of the trade-off for the progressive elements of the revenue package.  I agree with Terri and others that the GRT is also regressive, but it was also exceedingly small:  12.5 cents for every $100 spent.

As for the food tax, the Catholic Church knows that it already won a major victory by having it scaled back from 6-7 percent to 1-2 percent. I’m also glad for that victory.  Food is going to be taxed at anywhere from 15 percent to less than a third of what other items are, and that’s due in large part to all of the advocates who argued for more progressive taxation and to the legislators in both chambers who listened.

So should that scaled-down food tax be vetoed?  Absolutely not.  Unless the same progressives think they can round up the votes for more progressive revenue sources, like a partial roll-back of the 40 percent tax break given to millionaires in 2003, a veto is insanely bad policy for the most vulnerable and poorest among us who use services like Medicaid and TANF, or child day care subsidies for working families.

Arguing for a veto is an easy political position to be sure.  Most people don’t enjoy taxes of any kind, particularly conservatives, and progressives, including myself, are appalled at any regressive taxation.  But the government programs that are funded by that $68 million form the very core of survival services for thousands of our most vulnerable.

If I thought there was one chance in 10 that the Legislature would come back and raise the personal income tax on the richest (say, $250,000 and up) New Mexicans in place of the partial food tax, I’d be in favor of giving it a shot.  In Dumb and Dumber, Jim Carrey asks the girl of his dreams “Give it to me straight.  What are my chances with you?”  She replies “Not good.”  He says “Like one-in-a-hundred”?  She comes back with “More like one-in-a-million.”  He lights up and says “Yes, so you’re saying there’s a chance!”

The revenue package is far from perfect, but it saved the programs we all know are vital for the poorest New Mexicans.  Holding out hope for another special to make up the $68 million with progressive revenue is a bit too Carrey-esque for those of us who saw up close how hard it was even getting the current package to pass.

Finally, for my friend Paul, I still haven’t heard the explanation for how government hasn’t been cut when it’s been slashed by $700 million in 2009 and by another $300 million this year.  Or how this administration is now about 15 percent SMALLER per capita than under Gary Johnson for front-line, classified employees, and several percent smaller overall per capita than under the RGF’s libertarian standard-bearer.  But that’s the fun of being political, si? :)

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:

Should he sign, (or can he veto it) and how to pay for it? Answering the should question: Yes. The Governor was a part of the deal, he crafted the proclamation calling the special session, and he should sign the bill.  Just as important, it’s the right thing to do. When food was removed from the gross receipts tax base, the general fund paid the entire cost of that deduction, both the state tax and the local tax, because we held local governments “harmless,” paying them back the money they would have lost. To do that, the state’s rate was raised 10 percent on transactions within cities (by eliminating an inter-government rate credit), exacerbating regressivity and the pyramiding problem,  and resulting in a $100 million bigger hit to the general fund than the analysts counted on. A significant part of this cost went to benefit moderate and higher income families, not to mention tourists.  So they will also be included in paying the restored 2 percent tax this bill represents.

The proposal on the Governor’s desk is a partial fix to this problem and it also increases by 20 percent the Low Income Comprehensive Tax Rebate (“LICTR”) – a targeted mechanism to relieve the regressive effects of the state’s tax system from the most vulnerable. Apparently some believe that taxing food is “evil.” But taxes aren’t a punishment. They’re not a penalty for doing something wrong. They’re the cost we pay to live in a civilized society. And while the NMTRI doesn’t like regressive taxes, LICTR is the answer–not empty rhetoric on what should or should not be taxed.

Now back to the question of can he veto it and how to pay for it.  I would never presume to tell this governor what he legally can and cannot do, so let’s look at the numbers. We still need to balance the budget. What is the alternative, more furloughs?  We’d need 42.5 days from our state workers.  He could veto some appropriations, but which ones? He has some amount of discretionary federal funds (ARRA), but they’re not enough and the budget is already asking him to cover $25 million of public school and higher education costs with those funds.  He could veto LICTR at the same time since that’s why it’s there, but that needed  to be looked at again and it would save only $5.3 million.  He could also simply wait and see if the reserves are sufficient to cover the gap. That just postpones and increases the pain facing future administrations, legislatures, taxpayers and state funded programs.

The governor says he “hates” all tax increases and budget cut proposals, same as any mainstream politician will tell you; however these are tough times and we still haven’t stepped up to the plate.  Next year, assuming the current revenue forecasts can hold up, we’ll still be facing another shortage of at least $220 million dollars – meaning another budget crisis like this  year’s, or perhaps worse. Given the magnitude of the problem, I don’t think it’s asking too much for everyone to make a sacrifice and compromise on the solution.  And it is just that – a compromise.   This proposal won’t make any “side” happy, but we simply can’t afford poorly targeted and expensive populist tax policies at times like this, nor should we try to defer to the future the fiscal problems of today.

Photo by Litandmore

Welcome to The Independent Forum. Every week we ask a different question and solicit responses from a diverse group of New Mexico thinkers, pundits and other observers of the state’s political landscape. We’ll add more 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.

At the request of legislative leaders, Gov. Richardson on Tuesday postponed the special legislative session by five days. As he said: “Since the end of the regular session last week, lawmakers have been working on a budget compromise and have seen progress. However, the legislative leadership has requested that I give them a few more days of negotiation ahead of a Special Session and I am granting their request. I believe giving lawmakers this extra time to build consensus is the best thing for all New Mexicans.”

Lawmakers had two versions of a budget to negotiate during the last session–but they would have had to reconcile the differences between the two in a conference committee that was open to the public. Now it appears they intend to craft a budget deal before coming to Santa Fe.

So this week’s question is:

QUESTION: “Why do you think lawmakers want to make a deal before they deliberate in public?”

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

Lets get real.  They do this all the time on bills.   Just watch a floor session sometime when these guys are running back and forth making deals. They do it after hours over a drink. They do it in private meetings in their offices with other legislators and other lobbyists. They do it on the phone. They find it easier to do out of the public eye. That is not always bad in reality, but many times it is. This is how legislative processes work. A bill that will be openly debated in conference committee will be a rare thing, for sure.

The general public doesn’t really seem to care as long as they get their work done. I don’t see anyone but the media worried about this. It is inside stuff and in a perfect world it would grab the imaginations of the public, but it doesn’t. I think what the public does care about is ethics and corruption. That is where the media should concentrate.

PAUL GESSING, president of the Rio Grande Foundation:

As much as they claim to be “servants of the people” and want to talk about “transparency” and good government, too many politicians would rather cut deals with lobbyists outside the eye of concerned citizens. This has long been a problem in New Mexico and we are only beginning to see a glimmer of hope. For starters, the New Mexico House only this year started posting floor votes online.

Of course, President Obama pledged unprecedented transparency as a candidate, but instead he and his colleagues in Congress will be working to craft health care legislation in an opaque reconciliation process away from the public eye. So, the best of intentions fall by the wayside as soon as the debate starts to go the other way.

New Mexicans should demand, regardless of what is agreed to in these closed-door discussions, that their political leadership give them adequate say in the process. If that doesn’t happen in the budget discussion, I hope voters remember this lack of respect and understanding that they are indeed our servants on Election Day.

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

More smoke and mirrors..  We need sweeping changes in both the Legislature and the Executive.

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

I think it’s a reflection of two things: just how difficult this budget situation is, and how clubby the halls of government are. It’s not just the Legislature. Local boards and commissions throughout the state do this sort of thing all the time – they deal with internal dissent behind closed doors so they can come out with a unified front in public. It happens when school boards hire or fire a superintendent, when city councils select a professional-services proposal, and of course when lawmakers have to make a budget.

I think many, if not most, public officials have become a bit squeamish … there’s this idea that dissent and heated debate are embarrassing and unseemly. Or public debate is seen (often accurately) as a cynical opportunity for grandstanding, political posturing and epic time-wasting. So we avoid it at all costs. Second, legislators and other public officials have to work together. People of the same party are usually friends and colleagues, and they don’t want to criticize each other publicly. I think they sometimes put the ‘dignity’ of the body, party unity and/or their personal relationships ahead of the public’s interest in watching honest debate. And if they don’t feel any public pressure to be more open, then secrecy becomes the path of least resistance. (By the way, I disagree that the public doesn’t care about this. They may not pull on the levers of influence, but I am constantly approached by people who are outraged by official secrecy and thank me for FOG’s work.)

By the way, there’s one simple thing the Legislature could do to increase transparency – hold the House Taxation and Revenue meetings in a bigger room! I walked by more than once last week when people were milling about in the hallway waiting for a seat to open up. There are some real debates happening publicly, but seating is limited.

CARTER BUNDY, political action representative, AFSCME:

The irony is that if they came back for a special and hadn’t worked out some details ahead of time, there’d be a ton of backlash for wasting taxpayer dollars.

I’d prefer more of the deliberations be in the open, but Jim’s right–key parts of legislation are often hammered out by legislators in one-on-one meetings or small groups, and I don’t know that one can effectively outlaw that kind of activity.

Florida has great sunshine laws requiring open meetings any time three or more legislators meet if that meeting is planned in advance–even if informal.  Even then, it only applies if they plan to reach an agreement to take formal action.  Here’s a great summary of Florida’s sunshine laws.

It’s easy enough to just discuss the pros and cons of different items without reaching a full “agreement”.  There’s really no way, even under Florida’s strictest-in-the-country laws, to stop legislators from discussing the budget among themselves.  What’s the saying about sausage and laws?

Having said that, Paul’s also right that at a minimum we should make legislators’ positions, including committee and floor votes, available to the public within minutes of the vote.  We should also have archived webcasting of every committee and floor session, including interim committees.  That won’t stop deals from being struck, but at least the public will get to see where legislators stand on the issues, and that’s good for everyone regardless of party or philosophy.

The guns in restaurants bill was passed by lawmakers during the recent legislative session; it now awaits Gov. Bill Richardson’s signature or veto.

“I just find it amazing that the Legislature doesn’t allow concealed weapons in their workplace but you would allow concealed weapons in a workplace where busboys and cooks and waitresses and hostesses are working. I mean, what is this?” said Baca, who is also a former mayor of Albuquerque.

Baca is a gun owner, he said, but he doesn’t think guns belong around alcohol.

“Just having a concealed weapon in a restaurant that allows liquor to be served–it’s stupid!”

By a vote of 54-12 the bill, sponsored by Sen. George Muñoz, passed during the waning hours of the session. Though SB 40 saw fierce debate in the Senate, with five attempted amendments failing, the House held no debate. The bill allows concealed carrier permit holders to enter restaurants that serve only beer and wine while wearing their weapon.

The New Mexico Restaurant Association strongly opposed the bill, as Executive Director Carol Wight explained on this site (in  The Independent Forum).

Other Forum panelists opposed the bill, including former Albuquerque Mayor Jim Baca, and a former director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, Bill Turner, who said, “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.”

Under the law restaurants that did not want patrons to carry concealed weapons inside have the right, as do all private businesses, to post signs stating that concealed weapons are prohibited.