D e s e r t E x p o s u r e
December 2009
Editor's Notebook
Page: 2
The state also needs to take a hard look at the millions of dollars in tax credits that suck money away from the budget. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, New Mexico gives away almost as much tax revenue in special exemptions, deductions and credits as it spends in the general fund budget. And we're one of only nine states not requiring a "tax-expenditure report" to let the public know the true cost of these tax breaks and whether they're still accomplishing their goals.
To single out just one example: Is the state really getting its money's worth from incentives for the film industry, which now total $98 million a year? An Ernst & Young study calculated that state and local governments get $1.44 for every $1 in moviemaking rebates. But an earlier study by NMSU's Arrowhead Center put the figure at just 14.4 cents. Taxpayer irked by recent highway closings to accommodate film production just might be willing to accept the NMSU numbers and bid Hollywood hasta la vista, baby.
Of course, New Mexico's expanded film role is part of Gov. Richardson's legacy, and he'd no doubt be loathe to relinquish it. But it's looking like New Mexico taxpayers just can't afford that legacy. The party's over — and we're stuck with the bills.
Not So Wild About Harry
Teague disappoints Democrats with health-care votes.
New Mexico Democrats who exulted in Harry Teague's victory in the Second Congressional District election just over a year ago understandably expected a sharp break from the hard-right voting record of Rep. Steve Pearce, the Republican who held the seat until making an unsuccessful US Senate run. Especially on the issues that really count in pushing President Obama's agenda forward, Second District Democrats no doubt believed the newly minted Rep. Teague would vote like, well, a Democrat.
But on the most important House vote of 2009 — the Affordable Health Care for America Act — Rep. Teague voted like a Republican. He was one of only 39 Democrats to vote against the bill, and one of only 12 from a district in which Obama got at least 49% of the 2008 vote. Both of New Mexico's other two Democratic House members supported the health-care reform bill. Teague also voted in favor of the Stupak amendment, which tacked on extreme restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions; then, having saddled the legislation with that amendment, Teague turned around and voted against the whole package.
Teague explained that he was "concerned that American taxpayers will end up footing a nearly $900 billion tab for a bill that doesn't do enough to 'bend the cost curve' in a way that permanently reduces both costs and the national debt." According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, however, the bill would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $129 billion over the next decade.
One UNM political science professor characterized Teague's votes as an effort by the congressman to make his positions closer to that of his 2010 opponent, the returning Steve Pearce. Second District voters who pulled the "D" lever in 2008 must be wondering whether their vote made any difference — and why they should bother to support a pale imitation of Pearce in 2010.
Teague took a lot of heat for voting in favor of a controversial climate bill earlier this year, and perhaps calculated he needed to tack rightward. And, to be fair, he has voted with fellow Democrats nearly 90% of the time since taking office, according to the Washington Post.
But we can't help recalling that when running for Congress last year, Teague stated he supported "allowing Americans to buy healthcare coverage through the same plan that members of Congress enjoy." That sounds a lot like the much-debated "public option" — only more so. What happened to that stance once he got to Washington?
When it comes to being represented in Congress, Second District voters deserve to get what they thought they cast their ballots for. And come Election Day 2010, Rep. Harry Teague may discover that his efforts to appeal to more conservative voters cost him the enthusiasm of the progressive activists he needs to win re-election.
Moving On
Fans of Donna Clayton's popular Business Exposure column will flip the pages of this month's issue in vain looking for their favorite. Sadly, the demands of Donna's full-time job commitment have caught up with her after nearly a year of juggling work plus the extensive research and writing the column required. We and Desert Exposure readers will miss Donna's engaging and often news-breaking (pretty amazing in a monthly publication!) column. Over the years, not only her column but her lively features — not to mention all she did for Desert Exposure behind the scenes — have been essential to the editorial excellence we always strive for. We'll try to continue that standard while wishing her the best, but it won't be easy!
Local business coverage will find a new, albeit briefer, home in our Tumbleweeds section; email business news to editor@desertexposure.com
Fleece Fun
Finally, as we close out another calendar year (already!), we want to thank all the advertisers and readers who helped make 2009 memorable for Desert Exposure. Despite economic gloom and countless obituaries for other publications, your support has continued to make Desert Exposure a bright spot in southern New Mexico every month.
As usual, our December cover doubles as our holiday card to you all. While "Fleece Navidad" puts a punny spin on the season, we trust this issue puts a warm glow in your heart for the holidays.
We hope to meet you again in these pages in 2010. We'll be here, looking forward to a new year serving advertisers and readers with "the biggest little paper in the Southwest."
David A. Fryxell is editor of Desert Exposure.