MB Blog - June 2008
Over the last week, we here at Clearly New Mexico have registered our disgust with the direction of the debate and the level of rhetoric over American energy policy (link)(link). Billions of dollars in public subsidies for oil and gas companies continue, while productive incentives for renewable energy languish. And, the inane idea of drilling for oil in coastal areas on the outer continental shelf is being billed as a legitimate response to the problem of $4.00 per gallon.
The Albuquerque Journal (subscription required) saw fit to ignore reality and jump on the "black gold" bandwagon in its Sunday editorial. Like Congress and the president, the Journal is no help at all for the people of New Mexico.
Because the president and his apologists in the press are beating the domestic drilling drum, I though it might be interesting to find out just what kind of a marginal effect, if any, increased American oil exploration would have. So, I did what any armchair research novice would do; I jumped on Google.
My grandiose plans of finding a slick econometric analysis quickly ended when I came across a story on NPR, one that put the nonsense about offshore drilling into simple perspective.
Henry Lee of the Kennedy School of Government talks about the 8-14 year time line for getting outer continental shelf drilling on-line and fully operational. High-end estimates put daily production at about 1 million barrels per day, or less than 1% of the world's daily oil consumption. This is hardly the kind of volume that would make a discernible dent. Plus, with growing needs from China, India and other Asian countries, oil from the outer continental shelf would have virtually zero impact on world demand. (NPR story)
There you have it. When it comes to finding a sensible solution to the related crises of skyrocketing fossil fuel costs and global climate change, leaders in Washington are ignoring plain facts. Instead of serving the public interest, leaders in Washington, and our own Albuquerque Journal, are no help at all.
The Albuquerque Journal (subscription required) saw fit to ignore reality and jump on the "black gold" bandwagon in its Sunday editorial. Like Congress and the president, the Journal is no help at all for the people of New Mexico.
Because the president and his apologists in the press are beating the domestic drilling drum, I though it might be interesting to find out just what kind of a marginal effect, if any, increased American oil exploration would have. So, I did what any armchair research novice would do; I jumped on Google.
My grandiose plans of finding a slick econometric analysis quickly ended when I came across a story on NPR, one that put the nonsense about offshore drilling into simple perspective.
Henry Lee of the Kennedy School of Government talks about the 8-14 year time line for getting outer continental shelf drilling on-line and fully operational. High-end estimates put daily production at about 1 million barrels per day, or less than 1% of the world's daily oil consumption. This is hardly the kind of volume that would make a discernible dent. Plus, with growing needs from China, India and other Asian countries, oil from the outer continental shelf would have virtually zero impact on world demand. (NPR story)
There you have it. When it comes to finding a sensible solution to the related crises of skyrocketing fossil fuel costs and global climate change, leaders in Washington are ignoring plain facts. Instead of serving the public interest, leaders in Washington, and our own Albuquerque Journal, are no help at all.
Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked an important bill from coming to the Senate floor. The bill would have extended billions of dollars in tax credits to the renewable energy industry. In an effort to refrain from sending the nation further into debt, the bill proposed paying for the incentive package by taxing the hedge fund industry (you know, the very industry that is driving oil prices up through speculation). (Abq. Journal story link)
This is maddening.
At a time in which regular Americans are getting hammered by high gas prices, forty-two Senators decided that being irresponsible with the federal budget was more important than the need for renewable energy.
This is maddening.
At a time in which regular Americans are getting hammered by high gas prices, forty-two Senators decided that being irresponsible with the federal budget was more important than the need for renewable energy.
One of the most disconcerting aspects of politics is the ascendancy of policies that are without merit. Examples of this dynamic on the federal level include the 2001 and 2003 federal tax cuts.
The so-called red light program is a local example of the very same dynamic. Remember, the red light program was ostensibly developed for public safety reasons, not to pad the city budget.
When policy is made by way of blind ideology, or to mask budgetary shortcomings, we the people eventually pay the price.
Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of health care.
For years, even decades, there have been discussions about how to cover more people, while simultaneously preventing insurance premiums from outpacing inflation. Needless to say, trends indicate an abject failure on both fronts.
I believe a primary reason for failing to extend coverage and keep costs manageable is the skyrocketing growth of money's role in the political process. Perverse incentives that push medical students away from primary care work are a big problem. So is the fact that our system places a heavy emphasis on treating sickness, instead of promoting wellness. But, the influence of money on the political process, which creates conditions unfit for truly evidence-based discussions, is the real elephant in the room.
There must be an honest recognition that we are stuck in a quagmire. The existing process is simply not equipped to make evidence-based decisions regarding the overhaul of our health care system.
In order to develop sustainable solutions to the looming health care crisis, New Mexico must develop a process that will allow for evidence-based outcomes. The only option for such a process is the development of an independent health care authority.
Read More »
The so-called red light program is a local example of the very same dynamic. Remember, the red light program was ostensibly developed for public safety reasons, not to pad the city budget.
When policy is made by way of blind ideology, or to mask budgetary shortcomings, we the people eventually pay the price.
Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of health care.
For years, even decades, there have been discussions about how to cover more people, while simultaneously preventing insurance premiums from outpacing inflation. Needless to say, trends indicate an abject failure on both fronts.
I believe a primary reason for failing to extend coverage and keep costs manageable is the skyrocketing growth of money's role in the political process. Perverse incentives that push medical students away from primary care work are a big problem. So is the fact that our system places a heavy emphasis on treating sickness, instead of promoting wellness. But, the influence of money on the political process, which creates conditions unfit for truly evidence-based discussions, is the real elephant in the room.
There must be an honest recognition that we are stuck in a quagmire. The existing process is simply not equipped to make evidence-based decisions regarding the overhaul of our health care system.
In order to develop sustainable solutions to the looming health care crisis, New Mexico must develop a process that will allow for evidence-based outcomes. The only option for such a process is the development of an independent health care authority.
Read More »
Major General Mel Montaño of Albuquerque has a stinging critique in today's Las Cruces Sun News. In the piece, Montaño takes President George Bush, Senator John McCain, Congressman Steve Pearce and Congresswoman Heather Wilson to task for refusing to support Senator Jim Webb's (D-VA) GI Bill.
The flagship provision of the bill is to provide full college scholarships for veterans that served in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The bill's annual price tag is estimated at $3-$4 billion-a paltry sum to help our returning service men and women. We spend more in Iraq on any given week.
By opposing this common sense initiative, we have to ask President Bush, Senator McCain, Congressman Pearce and Congresswoman Wilson where their priorities lie.
The flagship provision of the bill is to provide full college scholarships for veterans that served in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The bill's annual price tag is estimated at $3-$4 billion-a paltry sum to help our returning service men and women. We spend more in Iraq on any given week.
By opposing this common sense initiative, we have to ask President Bush, Senator McCain, Congressman Pearce and Congresswoman Wilson where their priorities lie.
As if on cue, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will gather this Thursday to mark up what should be an interesting report.
Now this isn't just any report on accounting practices or procurement problems in an obscure agency. Nope. This is a report on Jack Abramoff's contacts and connections with the White House.
A rather tenacious fellow from California named Henry Waxman chairs the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This is a sampling of how Congressman Waxman runs his committee, especially in the face of a hostile witness and a less than supportive ranking member. Really, the guy does not pull punches.
The issue of nefarious connections between people in positions of power and those who ostensibly petition their government through lobbying has been well documented. Also well documented is the trouble this dynamic causes when the connections are built with money (gifts, travel, meals, beverages, large campaign contributions, etc.).
But, Thursday's hearing raises another dynamic-the proverbial gift that keeps on giving.
The Abramoff scandal broke before the 2006 mid-term elections, causing a backlash against the party in power at the time. Incumbents from the party in power were thrown out in favor of new faces promising ethics reform. Here we are two years later and this particular ethics scandal is still haunting Members of Congress and the White House.
Bottom line, this theme of exposing nefarious connections and striving for reform is not going away. Not in Washington and certainly not in Santa Fe.
(See the the irresistible force meet the immovable object, courtesy of TPM.)
Now this isn't just any report on accounting practices or procurement problems in an obscure agency. Nope. This is a report on Jack Abramoff's contacts and connections with the White House.
A rather tenacious fellow from California named Henry Waxman chairs the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This is a sampling of how Congressman Waxman runs his committee, especially in the face of a hostile witness and a less than supportive ranking member. Really, the guy does not pull punches.
The issue of nefarious connections between people in positions of power and those who ostensibly petition their government through lobbying has been well documented. Also well documented is the trouble this dynamic causes when the connections are built with money (gifts, travel, meals, beverages, large campaign contributions, etc.).
But, Thursday's hearing raises another dynamic-the proverbial gift that keeps on giving.
The Abramoff scandal broke before the 2006 mid-term elections, causing a backlash against the party in power at the time. Incumbents from the party in power were thrown out in favor of new faces promising ethics reform. Here we are two years later and this particular ethics scandal is still haunting Members of Congress and the White House.
Bottom line, this theme of exposing nefarious connections and striving for reform is not going away. Not in Washington and certainly not in Santa Fe.
(See the the irresistible force meet the immovable object, courtesy of TPM.)
Yesterday, the New Mexico Independent highlighted the University of New Mexico Hospital's new ban on gifts from pharmaceutical companies. It seems UNMH has correctly identified the potential conflict of interest that comes with gifts from reps of big pharma.
The New Mexico state legislature has taken action on limiting gifts. Taking a page from UNMH and banning all gifts would go a long way toward giving New Mexicans confidence in the legislative process.
The New Mexico state legislature has taken action on limiting gifts. Taking a page from UNMH and banning all gifts would go a long way toward giving New Mexicans confidence in the legislative process.
At this point during election years in New Mexico, familiar themes seem to emerge. Candidates for office at all levels define themselves and their opponents (aggressively in some cases), while radio and television are flooded with all manner of advertisements. Our state also draws an inordinate amount of national attention, especially during presidential election years.
New Mexico's election years are beginning to add another theme to the list of familiars. That theme of course is the inaccuracy and malfunctioning of the Secretary of State's online reporting system. Unfortunately for the people of our state, this problem is rather unique to The Land of Enchantment. In the year 2008, practically every state in the country has a functioning, real-time campaign reporting system that is fully searchable and easy-to-use.
In order to understand the magnitude of this painful saga, I believe it is instructive to review the lack of progress over the past five years.
Let's take a look at the time line.
2003: The legislature overwhelmingly approves amendments (including requirements for electronic filing of campaign reports) to the Campaign Reporting Act. The amendments are set to go into effect in 2006, giving the Secretary of State a full three years to implement a workable system.
2004-2005: Advocates, supportive elected officials and state employees work to help implement the electronic filing system.
2006: After a three-year grace period, amendments to the Campaign Reporting Act, including electronic reporting requirements, go into effect (January 1). Beginning with the primary elections, candidates for public office, the media and the public quickly learn of major system deficiencies. The general election brings the deficiencies into full view.
2007: After a disastrous first-run with the electronic filing system, there is a major effort in the legislature to return to paper records. Thankfully, this effort is thwarted.
2008: Five years after the passage of amendments to the Campaign Reporting Act, the electronic filing system at the Secretary of State's office is still completely deficient (link) (link).
There you have it, folks. Five years and we are still waiting for some semblance of transparency and accurate information from the Secretary of State's office.
New Mexico's election years are beginning to add another theme to the list of familiars. That theme of course is the inaccuracy and malfunctioning of the Secretary of State's online reporting system. Unfortunately for the people of our state, this problem is rather unique to The Land of Enchantment. In the year 2008, practically every state in the country has a functioning, real-time campaign reporting system that is fully searchable and easy-to-use.
In order to understand the magnitude of this painful saga, I believe it is instructive to review the lack of progress over the past five years.
Let's take a look at the time line.
2003: The legislature overwhelmingly approves amendments (including requirements for electronic filing of campaign reports) to the Campaign Reporting Act. The amendments are set to go into effect in 2006, giving the Secretary of State a full three years to implement a workable system.
2004-2005: Advocates, supportive elected officials and state employees work to help implement the electronic filing system.
2006: After a three-year grace period, amendments to the Campaign Reporting Act, including electronic reporting requirements, go into effect (January 1). Beginning with the primary elections, candidates for public office, the media and the public quickly learn of major system deficiencies. The general election brings the deficiencies into full view.
2007: After a disastrous first-run with the electronic filing system, there is a major effort in the legislature to return to paper records. Thankfully, this effort is thwarted.
2008: Five years after the passage of amendments to the Campaign Reporting Act, the electronic filing system at the Secretary of State's office is still completely deficient (link) (link).
There you have it, folks. Five years and we are still waiting for some semblance of transparency and accurate information from the Secretary of State's office.
Posts By Month
PostsHighest Rated Posts
