As May fades into June and summer begins to really “rev-up”, I find my calendar crammed full of activities such as family events (my father-in-law turned eighty this week) and outings associated with my legislative responsibilities. On Memorial Day my wife, Carol, and I drove to Tularosa to participate in a very impressive memorial service. I was honored and privileged to have been asked to speak. Tuesday, the next day, I listened in at a regional meeting of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association. They are a great group of people trying hard to keep the food on all of our tables. Wednesday I participated in a health care task force headed by the Mayor of Roswell. We are working on making sure rural communities have the physicians they need. Friday afternoon was consumed with a forum on juvenile detention concerns put on by CYFD. The social worker/law enforcement split was fully visible. In my mind the absolute number one responsibility is to protect the community.
All of that just in the last week!
While I could drone on with “How I spent my summer vacation” tales, I would rather offer for your consideration some works by other writers. Over the past few months I have discovered some articles that I have found particularly interesting and thought-provoking. One such essay is a piece by Bill Kristol titled “Let 1,000 Republican Flowers Bloom”. I came across this during the legislative session. I have wanted to share it for some time.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Taxpayers Deserve to See What They are Paying For
The following essay appeared on Heath Haussamen’ blog. It was in response to a column by Mr. Eric Witt, the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Through out this debate I have mentioned the study of the film subsidy by the Arrowhead Center of New Mexico State University. That study is available on line here. The Ernst & Young study touted by the film industry can be examined here. In addition the Legislative Finance Committee staff economist did a comparison of the two stufies. That analysis is found here. I urge every interested individual to read all three and form their own conclusions.
Taxpayers Deserve to See What They are Paying For
As a first time State Legislator, I have been surprised by the intensity of the interest in my position on the film industry subsidy, or as some call it “The Film Incentives.” The film subsidy program requires the State to pay film production operations 25% of their qualifying expenses. This program will cost New Mexico over $50 million. The question is “Is it worth it?” When my legislation to repeal the film industry subsidy died in committee on March 3rd, I expected that to be the end of the matter. However, a few days ago, Mr. Eric Witt, the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff, published an essay critical of my position.
The Studies
Several assertions in Mr. Witt’s column were incorrect. He touted the independence of a study done by the firm of the Ernst & Young and claimed that the study done by the Arrowhead Center at New Mexico State University is not quite as independent because its funding comes from the Legislature. But Witt fails to acknowledge that the Ernst & Young study was contracted by the New Mexico State Film Office and the State Investment Council (SIC). Both of these agencies are connected to the film subsidy program.
The Ernst & Young study claims that for every taxpayer dollar spent, the State or local government receives $1.50. Interestingly, the Ernst& Young study asserts that the film subsidies increase tourism, generating $.55 out of the $1.50, over a third of the purported benefit. However, there is no direct economic evidence to support this claim. This is just one example of the “curious” conclusions in the Ernst & Young study.
SIC Loan Program
Another part of the film subsidy program is the loan program administered by the troubled State Investment Council (SIC). Instead of interest payments to the State’s permanent funds, movie companies are to pay a percentage of the film’s profits. Amazingly, none of the films that have received “zero interest loans” have shown a profit. This SIC program cost the State over $12 Million in 2008.
Dialog
Following the debate of my legislation, I had a dialog with twenty to twenty-five individuals from the film industry. Unfortunately Mr. Witt was not present. The position of the opponents of my legislation after this two hour meeting was that there was no room for compromise with the industry. No one was willing to consider a cap on expenditures or a phase out of the program.
Secrecy
Mr. Witt is correct in stating that advocates of this program are happy to tout its reported benefits, but there is no way to obtain any real details to verify their claims. Early in the session I called and asked for data on film production reimbursements made by the Tax and Revenue Department. I received no information from my phone calls. Finally after three letters to the Secretary for Tax and Revenue, I received a list that consisted of seventy-two payments to film production companies. The Tax and Revenue Department has so far refused to provide me with the address, officers, registered agents, or owners of these film companies. Tax and Revenue has also refused to provide details regarding the qualifying expenditures made by these companies. This refusal to provide information essential to a fair evaluation of the program is the basis for my concern about secrecy.
Following my first phone call to the Tax and Revenue Department, I received a personal visit from Mr. Witt. During that visit, Mr. Witt stated it might be possible for him to arrange a situation where I could look at data unavailable to the public. However, I could not make copies, I would be prohibited from taking notes, and I would be responsible should the data make it into the public domain. I declined his offer.
The Need for Transparency
During my first session in Santa Fe, I actively pursued efforts to increase transparency in our State government. I submitted a bill to put the State budget online. This bill was tabled, but a memorial to study this concept was passed. I also did webcasting from the House Judiciary Committee. I firmly believe transparency is critical to clean, fair, and effective government. There are individuals who seriously support the incentive program for the film industry. There are others who have grave doubts about its appropriateness. The public is bombarded with conflicting claims and statements. The only real way to resolve this is with total transparency.
The Film Incentive program is estimated to cost us $50 million in 2010 at a time when state employees are taking a pay cut. The District Attorneys who are responsible for protecting us from dangerous criminals will have a 1.9 % budget cut this year. Many other agencies are also facing larger cuts. This film subsidy program is unique in that no other budget item in our state takes so much money from the public treasury with so little public accountability.
Who are getting these payments? What is the address of the production company getting the taxpayers’ money? Who are the officers/owners of these companies? Exactly what have they done to qualify for your money? Where and from whom did they make purchases and when? These are the types of questions I believe need to be answered about a subsidy program that will cost New Mexico taxpayers $50 million this year and more in the future.
The Film Incentive program demonstrates how the current lack of accountability and transparency raises doubts and concerns in the minds of the public. Whose interests are being served? New Mexico Taxpayers deserve to know the answers.
Taxpayers Deserve to See What They are Paying For
As a first time State Legislator, I have been surprised by the intensity of the interest in my position on the film industry subsidy, or as some call it “The Film Incentives.” The film subsidy program requires the State to pay film production operations 25% of their qualifying expenses. This program will cost New Mexico over $50 million. The question is “Is it worth it?” When my legislation to repeal the film industry subsidy died in committee on March 3rd, I expected that to be the end of the matter. However, a few days ago, Mr. Eric Witt, the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff, published an essay critical of my position.
The Studies
Several assertions in Mr. Witt’s column were incorrect. He touted the independence of a study done by the firm of the Ernst & Young and claimed that the study done by the Arrowhead Center at New Mexico State University is not quite as independent because its funding comes from the Legislature. But Witt fails to acknowledge that the Ernst & Young study was contracted by the New Mexico State Film Office and the State Investment Council (SIC). Both of these agencies are connected to the film subsidy program.
The Ernst & Young study claims that for every taxpayer dollar spent, the State or local government receives $1.50. Interestingly, the Ernst& Young study asserts that the film subsidies increase tourism, generating $.55 out of the $1.50, over a third of the purported benefit. However, there is no direct economic evidence to support this claim. This is just one example of the “curious” conclusions in the Ernst & Young study.
SIC Loan Program
Another part of the film subsidy program is the loan program administered by the troubled State Investment Council (SIC). Instead of interest payments to the State’s permanent funds, movie companies are to pay a percentage of the film’s profits. Amazingly, none of the films that have received “zero interest loans” have shown a profit. This SIC program cost the State over $12 Million in 2008.
Dialog
Following the debate of my legislation, I had a dialog with twenty to twenty-five individuals from the film industry. Unfortunately Mr. Witt was not present. The position of the opponents of my legislation after this two hour meeting was that there was no room for compromise with the industry. No one was willing to consider a cap on expenditures or a phase out of the program.
Secrecy
Mr. Witt is correct in stating that advocates of this program are happy to tout its reported benefits, but there is no way to obtain any real details to verify their claims. Early in the session I called and asked for data on film production reimbursements made by the Tax and Revenue Department. I received no information from my phone calls. Finally after three letters to the Secretary for Tax and Revenue, I received a list that consisted of seventy-two payments to film production companies. The Tax and Revenue Department has so far refused to provide me with the address, officers, registered agents, or owners of these film companies. Tax and Revenue has also refused to provide details regarding the qualifying expenditures made by these companies. This refusal to provide information essential to a fair evaluation of the program is the basis for my concern about secrecy.
Following my first phone call to the Tax and Revenue Department, I received a personal visit from Mr. Witt. During that visit, Mr. Witt stated it might be possible for him to arrange a situation where I could look at data unavailable to the public. However, I could not make copies, I would be prohibited from taking notes, and I would be responsible should the data make it into the public domain. I declined his offer.
The Need for Transparency
During my first session in Santa Fe, I actively pursued efforts to increase transparency in our State government. I submitted a bill to put the State budget online. This bill was tabled, but a memorial to study this concept was passed. I also did webcasting from the House Judiciary Committee. I firmly believe transparency is critical to clean, fair, and effective government. There are individuals who seriously support the incentive program for the film industry. There are others who have grave doubts about its appropriateness. The public is bombarded with conflicting claims and statements. The only real way to resolve this is with total transparency.
The Film Incentive program is estimated to cost us $50 million in 2010 at a time when state employees are taking a pay cut. The District Attorneys who are responsible for protecting us from dangerous criminals will have a 1.9 % budget cut this year. Many other agencies are also facing larger cuts. This film subsidy program is unique in that no other budget item in our state takes so much money from the public treasury with so little public accountability.
Who are getting these payments? What is the address of the production company getting the taxpayers’ money? Who are the officers/owners of these companies? Exactly what have they done to qualify for your money? Where and from whom did they make purchases and when? These are the types of questions I believe need to be answered about a subsidy program that will cost New Mexico taxpayers $50 million this year and more in the future.
The Film Incentive program demonstrates how the current lack of accountability and transparency raises doubts and concerns in the minds of the public. Whose interests are being served? New Mexico Taxpayers deserve to know the answers.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Let's Just Get More Information
This essay written by me was posted on Heath Haussamen’s blog and referred to in Joe Monahan’s April 22nd blog. An earlier editorial, critical of my concerns about the film industry, titled “Dumb and Dumber” appeared in certain newspapers.
Let's just get more information
At one point during this past legislative session a flood of emails, phone calls, and office visits deluged the capitol begging, pleading, and on rare occasions demanding that a particular piece of legislation be stopped. We were warned that, should this particular bill be allowed to become law, the effect would be catastrophic for New Mexico.
I am not referring to a sweeping piece of social legislation such as Domestic Partnership, the Freedom of Choice Act, or the Death Penalty. Rather the bill that produced this tsunami of reaction was a revenue bill--my revenue bill. HB 725 was a bill to repeal the Film Production Expense Rebate.
Although the bill was tabled in the first committee, some individuals (including a recent columnist) continue to demand that this subsidy must not be questioned, criticized, or touched. Any who take an opposing view are to be mocked and vilified.
Currently the State of New Mexico pays film production companies for certain activities. The most prominent part of the existing law is a 25% rebate from the State for all qualified direct production expenditures. In 2003 this program cost $1.1 Million. By 2008 the cost had increased to $47 Million, and it is expected to grow to $54 Million in 2010.
While it is obvious that certain individuals and companies have profited handsomely from these subsidies, the issue before this legislature and this administration is how to be good stewards of a dwindling supply of increasingly harder-to-produce tax dollars--dollars squeezed from a shrinking work force.
The two studies of the New Mexico Film subsidy program have produced widely differing conclusions. One study claims the return to taxpayers is $1.50 for every tax dollar paid out. The other study identifies the return to be only 14.5 cents on the dollar. There have also been additional studies of the effectiveness of these subsidies in Louisiana and California. The Louisiana study puts the return at 16 to18 cents on the dollar.
Much attention has been paid to the fact that California, in the middle of a budget crisis, has adopted new incentives to woo back film production. However, little has been said about the report from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. The California Legislature was advised to “reject the film tax credit”. That advice was ignored.
The recently adopted New Mexico state budget shifts an increased burden onto our public workers. These workers will now have their pay reduced by 1.5% to save the state $40 Million. In addition, the budget calls for dipping into the state’s savings to the tune of $136 Million.
How can this administration call on sacrifices and savings depletion while at the same time give away $54 Million to one protected industry? How do we face the struggling small businessman, the laid-off factory worker, or the state policeman and say that he or she must sacrifice, but this program cannot be questioned?
Obviously there are different perspectives on this issue. The studies mentioned above have one showing a return TEN times greater than other studies. Which is correct? I believe the answer can be found in closely reviewing the details of this program which are now hidden in secrecy. Exactly who is getting these tax dollars? What exactly have they done to justify getting your tax money? What is the actual benefit to the taxpayers of New Mexico?
This is a serious public policy problem that must be examined and resolved. That is not done by hurling verbal abuse at those who dare to express concern or think this is a grave problem. In my prior job with law enforcement, answers to questions like these were called “evidence,” and it is so much more helpful in public debates than witty comments or vindictive insults. Let’s have an open and public examination with a sober and serious discussion. I believe that is what the public deserves, and I believe that is how effective public policy is made.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Last Few Days Part I
Although we had been working long hours at a hectic pace, the last week is an entirely new experience. The Round House goes into high gear, and the pulse of the political process races faster and faster. Saturday noon is the deadline for all legislative activity. For some, the need is to complete the approval process for an issue they hold dear. For others, the goal is to run out the clock on bills they find unacceptable. These conflicting motives coupled with long hours create an incredible tension throughout the Capitol.
The last week began with a Sunday floor session starting early in the afternoon and going well into the evening. We continued to have daily committee hearings and floor sessions up through Thursday. On Wednesday and Thursday we worked until midnight. Friday’s floor session began at 10AM and went without break until 3:30 Saturday morning. We returned at 8:30 that same morning to deal with the last few items working until noon which is the end of the session. So much occurred in that last week that I will need to break this report into at least two parts.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research, SB 77
The final week witnessed the other great moral debate of this session. We began the session with the debate over the death penalty, and largely concluded with the debate over embryonic stem cell research.
There are honest and good people on both sides of both issues. I believe life begins at conception, and that the responsibility of government is to protect the weak and the vulnerable. SB77 would authorize embryonic stem cell research. This is different from adult or umbilical cord stem cell research which is currently legal, accepted as ethical by all, and has been actively pursed well over a decade. SB77 was presented to the House Judiciary Committee on which I sit, and we had a lengthy discussion about the bill. The sponsor of the bill was Senator John Ryan, a Republican. He authored it for very personal reasons. Senator Ryan and I had a private and candid conversation before his appearance in the Judiciary Committee. He knew I was opposed to his legislation. I have tremendous respect for Senator Ryan, but I believe he is wrong on this issue.
The bill passed through committee and proceeded to the floor of the House. Because a Senator cannot present a bill on the floor of the House, a Representative must perform that task during the floor debate. SB77 was presented to the House of Representatives by Al Park (D-26) who is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The debate lasted a full three hours, and I took part in that debate. Since others eloquently put forward the moral and ethical concerns with SB77, I spent my time pointing out the problems in the way the bill was written. My intention was to try to convince any undecided representatives that the bill was flawed and should not pass into law. I do not know if I had any effect on the opinions of my colleagues, but the stem cell research bill was defeated by a vote of 38 to 30.
Private Meeting with Governor Richardson
Tuesday morning of the last week Representative Keith Gardner (R-66), the Whip for the Republican Party in the House, came up to me and said, “I need to see you in private.” My initial response was, “What have I done wrong?” Keith promptly assured me that I was not in trouble, but that he needed to share something with me. Governor Richardson wanted to have a private meeting with me, and that meeting would occur in Representative Gardner’s office which is right off the floor of the House of Representatives.
Governor Richardson asked to speak with me personally because he was preparing to make his decision on signing the death penalty repeal. He had heard about my speech on the floor of the House during our debate of the death penalty. The meeting between myself and Governor Richardson was a private meeting, and I will not share the details of what we said except that I expressed my sincere belief that the death penalty should be retained. I was extremely honored that Governor Richardson would seek me out for my opinion. He is a very prominent political figure who has played a major role on the national and international scene. He has been the dominant political figure in our State for well over a decade. I, on the other hand, am a freshman representative with the minority party. He did not have to ask for my input. Although I am disappointed with his decision, I am gratified that he sought me out and asked my opinion.
We are now home in Roswell. I will reflect on the session and post more thoughts later.
The last week began with a Sunday floor session starting early in the afternoon and going well into the evening. We continued to have daily committee hearings and floor sessions up through Thursday. On Wednesday and Thursday we worked until midnight. Friday’s floor session began at 10AM and went without break until 3:30 Saturday morning. We returned at 8:30 that same morning to deal with the last few items working until noon which is the end of the session. So much occurred in that last week that I will need to break this report into at least two parts.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research, SB 77
The final week witnessed the other great moral debate of this session. We began the session with the debate over the death penalty, and largely concluded with the debate over embryonic stem cell research.
There are honest and good people on both sides of both issues. I believe life begins at conception, and that the responsibility of government is to protect the weak and the vulnerable. SB77 would authorize embryonic stem cell research. This is different from adult or umbilical cord stem cell research which is currently legal, accepted as ethical by all, and has been actively pursed well over a decade. SB77 was presented to the House Judiciary Committee on which I sit, and we had a lengthy discussion about the bill. The sponsor of the bill was Senator John Ryan, a Republican. He authored it for very personal reasons. Senator Ryan and I had a private and candid conversation before his appearance in the Judiciary Committee. He knew I was opposed to his legislation. I have tremendous respect for Senator Ryan, but I believe he is wrong on this issue.
The bill passed through committee and proceeded to the floor of the House. Because a Senator cannot present a bill on the floor of the House, a Representative must perform that task during the floor debate. SB77 was presented to the House of Representatives by Al Park (D-26) who is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The debate lasted a full three hours, and I took part in that debate. Since others eloquently put forward the moral and ethical concerns with SB77, I spent my time pointing out the problems in the way the bill was written. My intention was to try to convince any undecided representatives that the bill was flawed and should not pass into law. I do not know if I had any effect on the opinions of my colleagues, but the stem cell research bill was defeated by a vote of 38 to 30.
Private Meeting with Governor Richardson
Tuesday morning of the last week Representative Keith Gardner (R-66), the Whip for the Republican Party in the House, came up to me and said, “I need to see you in private.” My initial response was, “What have I done wrong?” Keith promptly assured me that I was not in trouble, but that he needed to share something with me. Governor Richardson wanted to have a private meeting with me, and that meeting would occur in Representative Gardner’s office which is right off the floor of the House of Representatives.
Governor Richardson asked to speak with me personally because he was preparing to make his decision on signing the death penalty repeal. He had heard about my speech on the floor of the House during our debate of the death penalty. The meeting between myself and Governor Richardson was a private meeting, and I will not share the details of what we said except that I expressed my sincere belief that the death penalty should be retained. I was extremely honored that Governor Richardson would seek me out for my opinion. He is a very prominent political figure who has played a major role on the national and international scene. He has been the dominant political figure in our State for well over a decade. I, on the other hand, am a freshman representative with the minority party. He did not have to ask for my input. Although I am disappointed with his decision, I am gratified that he sought me out and asked my opinion.
We are now home in Roswell. I will reflect on the session and post more thoughts later.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Into the Final Stretch
Transparency in Government
On Tuesday my House Memorial 78, Study Searchable Database of State Budgets, passed the House. This was originally a bill to require the State to make expenditure information available on line. I felt this was a government transparency issue that all legislatures would support, but fourteen (14) Democrats voted against my memorial.
Ineffective Counsel
Also on Tuesday I presented my “Ineffective Counsel” bill (HB 797) to the Consumer and Public Affairs Committee. If a criminal’s conviction is overturned because an appeals court has determined that the defense attorney did not do his job, the State has to let the criminal go free or re-try him. My bill would suspend the “ineffective” attorney from practicing law until he received more training and passed the bar exam (a test all attorneys must pass). Furthermore, the attorney, who didn’t do his job, would pay for the re-trial. Needless to say, defense attorneys did not like this bill and it was tabled.
Insensitivity to Crime Concerns
The number of bills that have been introduced that, in my opinion, weaken the ability of law enforcement and the criminal justice to protect the public has been astonishing. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have seen the constant stream of legislation to “help” criminals.
On Tuesday my House Memorial 78, Study Searchable Database of State Budgets, passed the House. This was originally a bill to require the State to make expenditure information available on line. I felt this was a government transparency issue that all legislatures would support, but fourteen (14) Democrats voted against my memorial.Ineffective Counsel
Also on Tuesday I presented my “Ineffective Counsel” bill (HB 797) to the Consumer and Public Affairs Committee. If a criminal’s conviction is overturned because an appeals court has determined that the defense attorney did not do his job, the State has to let the criminal go free or re-try him. My bill would suspend the “ineffective” attorney from practicing law until he received more training and passed the bar exam (a test all attorneys must pass). Furthermore, the attorney, who didn’t do his job, would pay for the re-trial. Needless to say, defense attorneys did not like this bill and it was tabled.
Insensitivity to Crime Concerns
The number of bills that have been introduced that, in my opinion, weaken the ability of law enforcement and the criminal justice to protect the public has been astonishing. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have seen the constant stream of legislation to “help” criminals.A few examples are as follows:
HB 285 Repeal the Death Penalty was introduced by Rep Gail Chasey (D-18), a retired educator and attorney. This was an intense debate in both the House and the Senate. I spoke extensively against this repeal in both committees and on the floor. It has passed the legislature and is on the Governor’s desk.
HB 396 Reliable Eyewitness Identification was introduced by Rep Joseph Cervantes (D-52), an attorney. This bill creates all kinds of new rules and regulations for police officers to follow. I won’t bore you with all of my objections, but let me note that when this was heard in Judiciary, the “expert witness” who sat with the bills sponsor was well known criminal defense attorney Michael Stout. I strongly spoke out against this in committee and on the floor. Unfortunately it passed the House by a vote of 34-31. All the Republicans voted against this bill.
HB 807 Jail Good Behavior Standards introduced by Rep Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-16), an attorney. This bill strips the authority of Magistrate Judges to deny “Good Time” to individual convicted of misdemeanors. I publically opposed this in committee and on the floor. It was defeated on the floor of the House.
HB 866 Criminal Record Expungement Act by Rep Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-16), an attorney. This would allow courts to conceal from the public certain convictions after specified time periods. It passed the Consumer and Public Affairs committee on a 3-2 vote and is currently in the House Judiciary committee.
Web-Casting
I have been attempting to do live Web-casting during my committee hearings. This is also being done by Representative Janice Arnold-Jones and Representative Candy Spence Ezzell. I got some attention in a political blog by Heath Haussaman at http://haussamen.blogspot.com/ posted on March 10, 2009 at 12:36PM.
Unfortunately I have had a number of technical problems. This is an all volunteer effort with borrowed equipment. I am not comfortable with the quality of the web-casts. I really wish the Legislature would do this with a team of professionals. Sadly there seems to be people of influence who do not want the public to be able to see want is happening in committees
HB 285 Repeal the Death Penalty was introduced by Rep Gail Chasey (D-18), a retired educator and attorney. This was an intense debate in both the House and the Senate. I spoke extensively against this repeal in both committees and on the floor. It has passed the legislature and is on the Governor’s desk.
HB 396 Reliable Eyewitness Identification was introduced by Rep Joseph Cervantes (D-52), an attorney. This bill creates all kinds of new rules and regulations for police officers to follow. I won’t bore you with all of my objections, but let me note that when this was heard in Judiciary, the “expert witness” who sat with the bills sponsor was well known criminal defense attorney Michael Stout. I strongly spoke out against this in committee and on the floor. Unfortunately it passed the House by a vote of 34-31. All the Republicans voted against this bill.
HB 807 Jail Good Behavior Standards introduced by Rep Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-16), an attorney. This bill strips the authority of Magistrate Judges to deny “Good Time” to individual convicted of misdemeanors. I publically opposed this in committee and on the floor. It was defeated on the floor of the House.
HB 866 Criminal Record Expungement Act by Rep Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-16), an attorney. This would allow courts to conceal from the public certain convictions after specified time periods. It passed the Consumer and Public Affairs committee on a 3-2 vote and is currently in the House Judiciary committee.
Web-Casting
I have been attempting to do live Web-casting during my committee hearings. This is also being done by Representative Janice Arnold-Jones and Representative Candy Spence Ezzell. I got some attention in a political blog by Heath Haussaman at http://haussamen.blogspot.com/ posted on March 10, 2009 at 12:36PM.
Unfortunately I have had a number of technical problems. This is an all volunteer effort with borrowed equipment. I am not comfortable with the quality of the web-casts. I really wish the Legislature would do this with a team of professionals. Sadly there seems to be people of influence who do not want the public to be able to see want is happening in committees
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Two Weeks to Go
More Sad News
I am sorry to report the death of two more family members of Legislators this week. Representative Ray Begaye (D-4) lost his mother and Representative Zachary Cook’s (R-56) father passed away. Please keep them and their families in your prayers.
The Film Industry Subsidy
On Tuesday evening I presented HB 725 which was a bill to repeal the Film Industry Production rebate. Currently Film Production companies get 25% of their qualifying expenses rebated to them by the state. This program will cost us an estimated $54 Million next year. We do not do this for any other industry.
Supporters claim that the state benefits from this program. I have studied various analyses of these issues and I am convinced this is a poor use of the taxpayer’s dollars.
I hope to be able to post these studies on line soon.
The hearing did not go favorably. The audience was packed with film industry people including leaders of their union. They all spoke about how they had personally profited from their employment in film production. I did not and do not dispute that they have prospered. The question is at what cost and who pays?
Immediately after the bill was tabled, at the suggestion of the committee, I met with representatives of the film industry. We talked for two hours. They were unwilling to compromise in any way. They would not yield on a cap, a reduction of the size of the rebate, or any sunset clause.
Here is a pretty good article about the committee hearing:
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/SantaFeNorthernNM/2009-Legislature-Film-industry-wins-fight-to-keep-incentives
Some Additional Issues
As part of my inquiry into the film production rebates, I requested information about who has received these rebates: How much are they paid? How are their claims substantiated? The administration sent me a simple list with the names of 67 companies (many are duplicates) that have gotten your tax dollars but no details about how much they got, when they were paid, where they are located or what they did to deserve this money. I will continue to work at shining the light of day on this program. You have the right to know how your tax money is spent.
Finally it must be recognized that this is a very influential and powerful special interest group. They have the support of some of the most prominent politicians in this state. Based upon the reactions, I must have hit a nerve.
Transparency in Government
My bill to put the State’s budget on-line stalled in the House Appropriations Committee on Monday. The opposition was from the Information Technology Department which was concerned this would cost too much. At the suggestion of the Committee Chair, I went back and had my bill converted into a House Memorial. The Memorial calls for a study to be conducted on this concept and a report to an interim committee. The hope is to come back with a bill next session.
I went back to Appropriations on Friday and my Memorial was passed. It should come to the floor next week. I want to thank Representative Don Bratton (R- 62) and Representative Larry Larrañaga (R-27) for their assistance in getting this through Appropriations. I also appreciate the encouragement of the Chairman of Appropriations, Representative Henry “KiKi” Saavedra (D-10). They are all real gentlemen.
Web-Casting
I have begun live Web-casting. I have started with the House Judiciary committee. You can watch at www.nmgov.tv Please understand I am trying to keep the link open, run the camera, and do my work as a committee member all at the same time, so it is a little rough.
I am sorry to report the death of two more family members of Legislators this week. Representative Ray Begaye (D-4) lost his mother and Representative Zachary Cook’s (R-56) father passed away. Please keep them and their families in your prayers.
The Film Industry Subsidy
On Tuesday evening I presented HB 725 which was a bill to repeal the Film Industry Production rebate. Currently Film Production companies get 25% of their qualifying expenses rebated to them by the state. This program will cost us an estimated $54 Million next year. We do not do this for any other industry.
Supporters claim that the state benefits from this program. I have studied various analyses of these issues and I am convinced this is a poor use of the taxpayer’s dollars.
I hope to be able to post these studies on line soon.
The hearing did not go favorably. The audience was packed with film industry people including leaders of their union. They all spoke about how they had personally profited from their employment in film production. I did not and do not dispute that they have prospered. The question is at what cost and who pays?
Immediately after the bill was tabled, at the suggestion of the committee, I met with representatives of the film industry. We talked for two hours. They were unwilling to compromise in any way. They would not yield on a cap, a reduction of the size of the rebate, or any sunset clause.
Here is a pretty good article about the committee hearing:
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/SantaFeNorthernNM/2009-Legislature-Film-industry-wins-fight-to-keep-incentives
Some Additional Issues
As part of my inquiry into the film production rebates, I requested information about who has received these rebates: How much are they paid? How are their claims substantiated? The administration sent me a simple list with the names of 67 companies (many are duplicates) that have gotten your tax dollars but no details about how much they got, when they were paid, where they are located or what they did to deserve this money. I will continue to work at shining the light of day on this program. You have the right to know how your tax money is spent.
Finally it must be recognized that this is a very influential and powerful special interest group. They have the support of some of the most prominent politicians in this state. Based upon the reactions, I must have hit a nerve.
Transparency in Government
My bill to put the State’s budget on-line stalled in the House Appropriations Committee on Monday. The opposition was from the Information Technology Department which was concerned this would cost too much. At the suggestion of the Committee Chair, I went back and had my bill converted into a House Memorial. The Memorial calls for a study to be conducted on this concept and a report to an interim committee. The hope is to come back with a bill next session.
I went back to Appropriations on Friday and my Memorial was passed. It should come to the floor next week. I want to thank Representative Don Bratton (R- 62) and Representative Larry Larrañaga (R-27) for their assistance in getting this through Appropriations. I also appreciate the encouragement of the Chairman of Appropriations, Representative Henry “KiKi” Saavedra (D-10). They are all real gentlemen.
Web-Casting
I have begun live Web-casting. I have started with the House Judiciary committee. You can watch at www.nmgov.tv Please understand I am trying to keep the link open, run the camera, and do my work as a committee member all at the same time, so it is a little rough.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
A Dramatic Week
SB12
Domestic Partnership has hung over this legislature since before the session began. We have wrestled with many issues, the budget, the death penalty, ethics reform and others, but always hovering over this body has been the fundamental question of “What is the definition of marriage?” This single issue has produced the majority of e-mail, letters and phone calls. I firmly believe in Traditional Marriage and was prepared to fight for it. I did not have to defend the institution, as the battle was won in the Senate. On Thursday, February 26th the Senate voted against SB 12 by a vote of 25-17. I was fortunate to actually be present on the floor of the Senate when the vote occurred. Those Senators who stood strong to defend Traditional Marriage are all heroes.
State Worker’s Pay
On that same day, I am sorry to say, the House was not as noble. First the House passed HB 854 which takes 1.5 % of the gross pay of teachers, state policemen, and other state workers. The pay cut is diverted into the worker’s retirement, and the state’s contribution from the General Fund is reduced by the same amount. This is done to save the state $40 Million in FY2010. There has been NO other effort to reduce spending. I voted against this bill.
The Budget for FY2010
Also on Thursday, we voted on the state budget for FY2010. If I am not mistaken, it was the first straight line party vote of this session. The debate was long and serious. Rep. Don Bratton (R-62), one the most respected members of the House Appropriations Committee, spoke extensively against the bill. The FY 2010 budget cuts into our reserves in the amount of $136 Million. The projected price of oil and gas products is way too optimistic. Except for the 1.5% cut from the paychecks of state workers, there is no reduction in State spending. These and many other problems make this a flawed budget. I joined all of the other Republicans and voted against this budget.
Budget Transparency Bill
My HB 452 which puts the State’s “checkbook” on line, made it through the first committee, Health and Government Affairs, on Tuesday, February 24th. I had meetings with individuals representing the State Department of Finance, municipalities and counties who suggested some changes. I was pleased to be able to work with these folks and put forward a better bill. The next stop is House Appropriations. That is a tough committee, but I am hopeful.
A Questionable Bill
On Saturday, HB 864 “Voting System Budget Adjustment” was brought to the floor for debate and vote. This bill was sent to ONLY one committee and had the “Emergency Clause” which means if it passes the Legislature, and the Governor signs it, it goes into effect immediately. The Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) has this brief explanation:
The federal auditors reviewing Secretary of State spending of a Help America Vote Act federal grant has rejected $6.3 million spent on advertising with media consultant A. Gutierrez and Associates … A possible resolution to the audit finding is to make an accounting shift of the unaccepted expenditures… However, this shift requires the Legislature to expand and reauthorize the $11 million appropriation made in 2006…
The entire FIR is here: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/09%20Regular/firs/HB0864.pdf
The Attorney General is investigating this whole deal, but only AFTER the Feds said this money was misspent. Along with Reps Arnold-Jones and Larranaga, I asked a lot of questions during the debate. Many of us feel this is being done to protect the former Secretary of State. This is another example of the problems in this state that NONE of the proposed ethics legislation addresses. I hope the news media digs into this.
The bill passed, but without the “Emergency Clause,” so the soonest it could take effect is July 1, 2009.
Domestic Partnership has hung over this legislature since before the session began. We have wrestled with many issues, the budget, the death penalty, ethics reform and others, but always hovering over this body has been the fundamental question of “What is the definition of marriage?” This single issue has produced the majority of e-mail, letters and phone calls. I firmly believe in Traditional Marriage and was prepared to fight for it. I did not have to defend the institution, as the battle was won in the Senate. On Thursday, February 26th the Senate voted against SB 12 by a vote of 25-17. I was fortunate to actually be present on the floor of the Senate when the vote occurred. Those Senators who stood strong to defend Traditional Marriage are all heroes.
State Worker’s Pay
On that same day, I am sorry to say, the House was not as noble. First the House passed HB 854 which takes 1.5 % of the gross pay of teachers, state policemen, and other state workers. The pay cut is diverted into the worker’s retirement, and the state’s contribution from the General Fund is reduced by the same amount. This is done to save the state $40 Million in FY2010. There has been NO other effort to reduce spending. I voted against this bill.
The Budget for FY2010
Also on Thursday, we voted on the state budget for FY2010. If I am not mistaken, it was the first straight line party vote of this session. The debate was long and serious. Rep. Don Bratton (R-62), one the most respected members of the House Appropriations Committee, spoke extensively against the bill. The FY 2010 budget cuts into our reserves in the amount of $136 Million. The projected price of oil and gas products is way too optimistic. Except for the 1.5% cut from the paychecks of state workers, there is no reduction in State spending. These and many other problems make this a flawed budget. I joined all of the other Republicans and voted against this budget.
Budget Transparency Bill
My HB 452 which puts the State’s “checkbook” on line, made it through the first committee, Health and Government Affairs, on Tuesday, February 24th. I had meetings with individuals representing the State Department of Finance, municipalities and counties who suggested some changes. I was pleased to be able to work with these folks and put forward a better bill. The next stop is House Appropriations. That is a tough committee, but I am hopeful.
A Questionable Bill
On Saturday, HB 864 “Voting System Budget Adjustment” was brought to the floor for debate and vote. This bill was sent to ONLY one committee and had the “Emergency Clause” which means if it passes the Legislature, and the Governor signs it, it goes into effect immediately. The Fiscal Impact Report (FIR) has this brief explanation:
The federal auditors reviewing Secretary of State spending of a Help America Vote Act federal grant has rejected $6.3 million spent on advertising with media consultant A. Gutierrez and Associates … A possible resolution to the audit finding is to make an accounting shift of the unaccepted expenditures… However, this shift requires the Legislature to expand and reauthorize the $11 million appropriation made in 2006…
The entire FIR is here: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/09%20Regular/firs/HB0864.pdf
The Attorney General is investigating this whole deal, but only AFTER the Feds said this money was misspent. Along with Reps Arnold-Jones and Larranaga, I asked a lot of questions during the debate. Many of us feel this is being done to protect the former Secretary of State. This is another example of the problems in this state that NONE of the proposed ethics legislation addresses. I hope the news media digs into this.
The bill passed, but without the “Emergency Clause,” so the soonest it could take effect is July 1, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
