New Mexico in Focus; 143; New Mexico Census

You According to a recent study, the U.S. Senate According to a recent study, the U.S. Census Bureau badly undercounted New Mexico's population in the year 2000. Why how much? Try 36,000 people.

Amazing. This undercount short-changing Mexico buy about $110 million in federal funding for eight federal programs, including Medicaid coming up on New Mexico Focus this week. We look at how this happened and what's being done to fix this for the next census. Haas on the line. We look at why Barack Obama just said no to public financing and look at why a judge released a convicted Marine. Keep it tuned here. New Mexico Focus starts now. It's only two years away, but if New Mexico doesn't get the 2010 census count right, it means a decade of underfunding for programs like Medicaid. States like New Mexico with higher numbers of Hispanics or Native Americans are even more likely to be undercounted. And coming up on the line, Senator Barack Obama has decided to reject over 84 million in public funds to do his own campaign fund raising instead.

Also, did Judge Murdoch do the right thing in reducing Elton John Rashad's sentence to time already served? All this, plus Mayor Marty Chavez is land deal and the new Hewlett Packard Support Center in Rio Rancho. But first, the discussion about why in 2010, when the Census Bureau sends you that form or comes knocking on your door, you definitely want to do your civic duty and respond. According to a special kids count report released by New Mexico voice for children, New Mexico's population was undercounted in the 2000 census by nearly 36,000 individuals, which meant New Mexico received $110 million less than it should have. The report is based on a study by Price Waterhouse Coopers, a consulting firm which looked at eight federal programs including Medicaid and the Child Care and Development Block Rants, which are two programs that low income families here in New Mexico depend on. Here to help us understand why the undercount happened and what steps are being done to make the next count more accurate are Adela Mar Alcantara, Senior Demographer at the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, or Bieber, layered Grazer, Chief Accountants with the Department of Finance and Administration, who is also a Census 2010 liaison. And Jerry Bradley, Research Director for New Mexico Voice for Children.

Thank you all three for joining us. I wanted to begin with a question for all of us here, maybe beginning Jerry with you. I just mentioned we have an undercount, 36,000. In your own words, why is this a problem? Well, it's a problem for us for several reasons. One is an economist. We're looking at the states per capita income is probably the prime indicator of the health of the state's economy. If we have a census undercount, we're overcounting, we're overestimating our states per capita income, and that's giving us an illusion of better economic performance over the course of the decade and more than should be. So that's one very large problem. I looked at this today, and if the Bureau of Business and Economic Research is numbers are correct, and we'll talk about the two series, the census, and the Bieber's numbers as we go along. If their numbers are right, then our per capita income ranking is not 44th. It's 48th, and that's a very big problem as far as understanding the health of the New Mexico economy.

Jerry, just to be clear about how this per capita income becomes, I guess, inflated is because we're not accounting for all the people we have. We know the amount of money folks are making, but we're not counting, you know, we're dividing it by kind of a smaller number so the actual average income looks higher. That's correct. And that matters, for what reason there's federal funding determination? What New Mexico voices for children is our primary focus in our state advocacy effort is the New Mexico Medicaid program. New Mexico Medicaid program is driven by a formula based on the state's per capita income, and if the state's per capita income is too high, we get less federal funding for our Medicaid program. So that also is a giant problem. I did some calculations, and if we were getting the same amount, if we had the same formulas that we had in 1996, now we'd be getting $70 million a year, more federal funding for our Medicaid program.

What would you add, or to that two more little pieces of statistics, based on the PWC study in 2000, as Price Waterhouse Cooper, consulting firm that did this 35,000 change under count, they looked at the eight big programs which included Medicaid. Those numbers divided them by the under count and came up with an astounding figure of $305 per person under counted per year, just in those eight programs. And then when we'll get to it later on in this program of what can we do, I did a further calculation which said that if we can improve our relative per capita, our relative population count by only half of a percent. And Delhi's numbers are that that's well within the ability of the state to get that half a point, that half a point on Medicaid loans worth $15 million a year in federal funds that come into the state.

And I've Delhi, you're of course with the Bieber, the arm of UNM that does a lot of this really important research, economic development research. What would you add to what Jerry and Larry said in terms of why is this a problem in terms of how the methodology works with this U.S. Census Bureau and the end result in terms of the numbers that come out and the funding decisions that stem from those. Okay, I can speak to the methodology that they use and the methodology that we use and why we come up with completely different sets of numbers. And I will say a front that by our 2007 estimation, the census estimate is already behind or fewer people about 89,760 fewer people in 2007. The Census Bureau thinks that there's 80,000 and change fewer people living in Mexico than you guys.

Yes, we guys, the Bieber estimated. We guys, yeah. And that stems from the difference in the methodology. The Census Bureau uses what they call administrative record and they use burst deaths and income tax return, federal income tax return and the federal income tax return is used to estimate migration. We have already proven many times over since the 90s that using the income tax return for New Mexico, the federal income tax return for New Mexico will underestimate us because not everybody files income tax returns. And since we have a very high poverty rate, some people unless they have some motivation to file for the federal income tax do not file and so they're not counted. First time filers like our students, college students that come here, they don't have jobs so they don't file when they come, they're not in that file.

When they leave or during the period that they're here in college, they get a job they file for income tax and then when they leave, you know, they're now counted as leaving, but they were never counted coming in. So that's one major flaw of the administrative record. Now, even given that flaw, when we review the raw estimates that is a privilege information that come to us. You're talking about the estimates that are done in between each census to kind of provide estimates for federal programs that then determine funding levels based on those estimates. So those are called inter-sensile estimates. So the raw numbers that the census give us for review, when we compare our numbers, there are significant differences but not that large difference. But what exacerbates the underestimate is after they estimate all the counties, they make that conform to an independently, the census independently estimates in national total.

And this is done before December 31st of each year by law, so they have to do that. And then the counties are estimated later. And once they're done with the county estimates, they add them up. They compare them with that national total. If they don't add up to that national total, they rake the county numbers. Now, that probably is a new term for a lot of people. It sounds like it almost means they kind of sort of fudge the county numbers so that they align with the big kind of national numbers. Is that right? It isn't, I guess fudge is a strong word, but statistically, they make them align to that total. And from our experience, a bottom-up approach, which is from the county adding it up to a state or to the US, usually is higher than that total. So inevitably, all the county population are raked down or adjusted downwards. Which makes this undercount worse? Under estimate worse. Because the count refers to the descendant.

So now, what makes it worse, even more worse than the rake, is when a county complains to the census and they said, you underestimated us and they're able to provide evidence like housing units or in the case of one of the cities in New Mexico, trash bins. And they accept that. And so they give them a higher count than they take it out from the other counties. And then they rake everybody down again. So we lose twice if someone challenges the estimate. Now, the Bureau, the BBR methodology, is housing unit based. So we count housing units and then repopulate them using occupancy rates and using persons from household. Now, Claire, why doesn't the Census Bureau do what Delhi just outlined? Why can't they have a more sophisticated and accurate way to go about taking these estimates in between the decennial census?

Back up one step. And I have a wonderful quote from director of the Census Bureau, Steve Murdock. And I heard this in person two weeks ago. And the quote is this. The Census canvass. Now, again, we're talking about the decennial. And it's very important to understand that while Jerry and Delhi are very much concerned with the entered period, the 10 years between the census, all of the interdecile, you know, the intercensual counts are benchmarked to the Census count. That's the biggest issue. And so the biggest issue is arguing about the year by year variation is not the, for me, the more important thing, the more important thing is getting the Census count right. And if we can gain back as many of the 89,000 people that Delhi thinks are in the state that are not likely to be counted on this Census methodology. So the quote is, and this is from Steve Murdock, who was the former demographer in the state of Texas.

So we have a demographer heading the US Bureau of Census. And that's not always been true. Here's the quote. The Census canvass is not a canvas of people. It is a canvas of addresses from which we get households, from which we get people. That's the census methodology. And whether we argue about a top down or a bottom up, if we get the Census count right in 2010, then Delhi and Jerry's problem going forward from that will be moderated. In your view, is it a flawed methodology? I don't think so. I don't think there's any other way. The interdesile, I would prefer to be housing based. And with this quote from Dr. Murdock, it's perhaps that he can have some influence over the Census Bureau to move in this direction. The other thing I would say, when they get it right in 2010, if they do, it still won't help the funding for the previous years. We're stuck with, you know, that's not going to be revisited. It has been lost.

But starting in 2013, this methodology for Medicaid is quite complicated. I won't even try to explain it. I have been through it a number of times and I can actually do it. So I know of which I speak. But starting in 2013, if we start getting the annual increase that I think is potential, that annual increase goes from 2013 to 2022. So we will benefit for a long period of time getting a census. Do you want to jump in? I agree with Jerry because we can get the base correct. Have we ever gotten the base correct? No. But we're trying to get that correct. In fact, this is the first time that the state, as a whole, represented by Bieber and facilitated by Laird, that's the first time that we were designated as the state level reviewer. The BBER participated with EDAC, the Earth Data Analysis Center at UNM, to review what is called the master address file or the list of addresses that the census will be using to canvas the people in 2010.

Now, having said that, and like I said, I agree with Jerry in that once that estimate is released for that year, it is never revisited so that they could get the deficit from the funding. Even if we get the base correct, we will be okay for a few years after the census, but our experience, and this is now my third census, is that further away from the disanial census, which is the base of the estimates that the census does, the inter-sensile estimate, now the verges from our own estimate in very large numbers. Like I said earlier, 2007, we have now estimated that the census is 89,760 people behind, so we have to be vigilant. Now, just one more point, we are in a research committee, and Jack, my assistant, is part of that, that is doing research using housing units to question the administrative record method that they're using. And we would like to win that argument, and that for certain states like New Mexico, where we found the housing unit based estimate to be more accurate, the administrative record, that they accept our methodology, and accept our estimate as an alternate, and we're also arguing that they will accept our estimate and average it in with their own estimate, and that moderates the underestimate for that year.

So Jerry, the word underestimate comes up a lot, housing and addresses. One thing for folks who may not follow the details of this discussion, I imagine that has been out there, is that with certain groups of folks, Hispanics, Native Americans in this state, this problem is more acute, that the census original base count tends to undercount those populations, immigrants is another population that I've heard mentioned. Can you speak to those three groups? I know New Mexico voice for children is particularly interested in those populations. Well, we are concerned, and the new survey that the census is doing to replace the long form that many people are familiar with from the dissonial census is called the American Community Survey. And that's a survey that's providing us each year, it has a bigger sample in all the states, and each year it's giving us more demographic information.

And that's New Mexico voices for children did a report this week actually on the characteristics of the foreign born, on the characteristics of immigrants in the state. So we use the American Community Survey for that. The trick of the American Community Survey and the current population survey, the census's other surveys, is that it's all tied to the inter-sensile estimates. So everything that we do, I'm a data user, everything a data user does, these people have more influence than I do, although I absolutely support everything that they're doing. But as a data user, it depends on the accuracy of these inter-sensile population estimates, so that's really what I care about. Well, you talk a lot about the problem, undercount, funding implications, methodology, what can be layered, what can be done going forward to make the next count more accurate than the previous ones? Okay, I think we go back to this quote of Steve Murdoch. In order to get the people right, we have to get the households right. In order to get the households right, we have to get the addresses right.

What does that mean specific? It means that what Deli has just mentioned to you is that in 2000, we had 780,000 households defined in New Mexico. With this effort, that's joint between the state of New Mexico and the Earth Data Analysis Center and Bureau of Business and Economic Research, we have added 132,000 households to the master file. This is our proposal. Each of those 132,000 addresses has behind it data from the counties and from the cities on building permits, on registered addresses. Well, what happens with communities that don't have addresses like these colonias here in New Mexico? What do you do with them? Okay, we have an override which is that we added 3,500 blocks and we were able Earth Data Analysis Center looked at aerial maps and they had very highly trained specialists to actually went in and on each track counted the number of housing units that they could see. And we provided those to the census. So as part of the overall canvas, we expect that if they go into on the ground, they go in and they start counting addresses and putting the physical address into their records, which we were not able to do because there are no city style addresses as the phrase, then they, when they verify that area, they can then look at the block counts that we provided to them.

And if there are a long way away from what we provided, they can go back in. That sounds like the same thing. Marjorie Childress, one of the writers for the New Mexico Independent. She talked about Pajarito Mesa, Colonia here on the Oscars Albuquerie. No addresses, not counted. That sounds like a solution. Our time is running short, but Deli, first of you, anything you would add to what Laird said in terms of what maybe in terms of methodology we should be doing looking forward to make sure we can do this in a more accurate way. Well, we would like to have better address listing for building permits, because so that we don't have PO boxes or qualitative directions one mile towards this and make a left, you know, so it's a data collection issue. We would like to have city style addresses when they collect those building permits, because rural addressing people at the county level, they designate those addresses.

So we want more accurate reporting. The other is I'd like to say we, I guess funding is an issue if we use continue to use the orthophotography of those those aerial photographs, and we would like to use those precisely for places where we don't have addresses or even building permits. So we need to continue to do that. But leaving to the 2010 census, there's a real opportunity for the people of New Mexico as the census calls it, it's in our hands. The accuracy of the 2010 census is in our hands. There are going to be opportunities both for managers in New Mexico and this piece of paper here that says complete count activities. Albuquerque will need 3,968 qualified applicants in two blocks, one in late 2009 to go in and verify addresses and physical locations. Be the army on the ground.

Again, in beginning roughly in April 1st of 2010, April 1st is Census Day, that will be the people who don't have physical street addresses, and they will end up having those army of enumerators that go out and make sure everybody gets counted. The only thing that people can do is if they don't get counted, and they want to be counted, look for a be counted site, and we as a committee hope that we can get as many be counted sites. What we can do, we can talk more about that, is that data approach is real quick Jerry, I think 30 seconds so we have left. You're in the advocacy world at what New Mexico was. What would you advocate, apart from what has already been said? The education and the improvements to the count in 2010 that Larry is talking about are incredibly important to the state of New Mexico, and I hope that the citizens of New Mexico will participate and support the census. Whatever criticisms I have of the census and their procedures, this is crucial.

Well, on that note, we have to end it, that's going to be our last word for today, but a great discussion, thanks for helping us understand this little better, Jerry, Larry, Deli, thank you for joining us. Now Gene Grant and the line are ready to dig into a full plate of topics this week, like they always do, but before we go to their dining table, photographer Antony Lostetter took a camera out to Albuquerie's Old Town to talk to you about the tax stimulus package, editor Josh Keenan wrapped up the package for us, and we'll show it to you now. You know, I know a lot of Americans are concerned about our economic future. Do you have big concerns about the economy in general right now? Absolutely. I think we're in the dumps personally. A year after the Democratic Congress took power, they and President Bush have finally agreed on something. The forecast from Wall Street, we're screwed. And our third story tonight, Mr. Bush continues to deny it, but the recession debate has become not if but when, if not already.

So both of you in from Chicago, what are the general thoughts because here in New Mexico, people are still fairly optimistic about the local economy. What's the scene in Chicago like? You know what? I'm in the restaurant business right now, and it's hitting us really hard. We don't have as many customers as we used to, and I think that it's really affecting my tips. We need to give money to the people who are suffering the most from the high gas prices, the loss of employment, and from other economic effects that are hurting the people at the bottom. What do you think of this economic stimulus plan as a whole? Do you think it's something that's going to work and help to spur things a little bit? I think it'll spur things. Hopefully it will. I think it's, you know, another stopgap fix, quick fix for, you know, all the problems that we have. This growth package must be built on broad-based tax relief that will directly affect economic growth. Do you think it's going to work? Do you think it's working? Do you think it was a good idea?

I don't know. I think we're going to have to pay for it later, but then when they just send you money like that, what are you going to do? Send it back, you know? They waste money on a lot of other things, and so what are you going to do? I don't know if it'll work or not. It just depends. I know a lot of people are planning on paying bills with it, so not spending. Unfortunately, this package recognizes that lowering taxes is a powerful and efficient way to help consumers and businesses. Again, you know, I don't know that a whole lot of government can do with the gas prices, but there's a lot of other things they can do. And, you know, I mean, I don't know how many millions they're giving back, which, you know, it adds up to something real when you put it all together, as opposed to, you know, me getting, you know, 600 bucks, like, you know, yeah, it's something, but I don't say changing, you know, my lifestyle in any way. I've always believed that allowing people to keep more of their own money and to use it as they see fit is the best way to help our economy grow.

Of course, I'm glad to give money, but, you know, it's like the flip side of where's the money coming from and what's it doing? Bill provides individual tax relief in the form of tax rebates. These rebates will amount to as much as $600 for individuals and $1,200 for married couples with additional rebates for families with children. Do you think that this economic stimulus plan will do with the president and the Congress hopes it will? I don't think so. I don't think it's enough. I think we need more. I mean, I don't think we need any more stimulus. I think, you know, there's a lot of things I have turned around before it really stimulates the economy. I think this, you might have a little bit, but not very much. You have. That's pretty fast, you know, $300 or $600 goes pretty fast. Absolutely. Josh, for that interesting video, let's get right to this. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama announced last week that he will opt out of the public financing system for the general election.

Will it get us to discuss what this might mean for New Mexico voters? But first, let's introduce our panelists for this week. Starting with our regulars, we have Scott Donnell, communications director for the State Republican Party, Jim Scarentino, columnist with the Weekly Alibi and the blog, New Mexico Politics.net. Margaret Montoya is out of town this week, so we have two guests, the first being Heather Brewer, executive director with Nairal, pro-choice, New Mexico. And we welcome back Sophie Martin, blogger with duxityfix.com. I think I might have thrown in a couple of comments on duxityfix this week. Very possible. The public financing system limits the amount of money that a campaign can spend in return for public money. Senator Barack Obama, as you might have heard, went back on his pledge from last year to take public money, some $84.1 million to be exact. And doing so, Obamacan now spend as much as he can raise, and Jim, he's raising a lot of money, but there are issues here. But I want to get a first gut check on how this idea of flip-flopping is the calling it hit you.

Boy, I wish you hadn't come to me first. Okay. You know, I've been inspired by Barack Obama. I've been thrilled by his oratory, and now I'm wondering if I've been conned. He's not a reformer. Just because he raises a lot of money is not an excuse for breaking the pledge, because that's the challenge for all the candidates who must live under the public finance system. And this speech he gave where he made it sound patriotic, and then for the first time he fixed the system because he's raising it from just regular American people. Well, that's flat out not true. When he was here in Albuquerque, he met with the women who work at Flying Star, but he also went to a $5,000 ahead fundraiser. A one-third of his contributions are $1,000 and above. And this week, in exchange for helping Hillary Clinton pay off her campaign debt, he's now acquired her bundlers who can bring him $100 million. He's not a reformer, and I'm just saddened, very, very saddened, that he just looked like any other politician. Now that frees us to get beyond the myth of Barack Obama, and just look at his policies.

But he doesn't look any different to me now than any other politician. If you were the same shoes, Scott, would you have made the same choice, or would you have made a goal of it on equal financial footing with your opponent? Every presidential candidate since 1976 has chosen to go with the system. I mean, that's why this is fairly extraordinary. I don't think the issue so much for voters is public financing as an issue, because to be honest, I'm not sure a lot of voters really understand and grasp necessarily what that means. We've certainly seen that when we tried to debate it here in New Mexico. I think the biggest issue is the fact that his reversal was a direct contradiction from what he has said he is, who he has defined himself to be during this entire election season. How many times have we heard the new style of politics from Barack Obama? In fact, it's sometimes very arrogant when he talks about how he's just better and different than all other politicians.

In this case, his principles dictated one thing, and he clearly articulated that a number of times during this campaign to this point. And then self-interest and the lure of a lot of money totally took him in a different direction. And the other thing about his speech, he raised this specter of Republican 527 groups out there who are going to be taking him to task. I mean, it's not the Republicans who have these 527 groups with a lot of money behind them in this election cycle. Move on.org, defenders of wildlife, Sierra, club, all of these other groups that are extraordinarily well-funded this election cycle, who are going to be taking the Republican candidates to task. And every time they've done so, to this point, in this election campaign, Barack Obama, despite calls to do so, has not come out against their very, you know, harsh attempts. In the last cycle, there were three times as much money spent from the Democratic side by 527s as Republicans. I'm pretty sure, Heather Brewer, I've got a question about campaign finance reform. A lot of folks are calling this the end of it by doing this.

Do you agree with that? Absolutely not. I have to respond to what Jim said. You can't be a reformer if you don't win. Because as politics, it's pragmatism. It's how are you going to get into the White House and do the things you want to get done. And I don't think this is the end of campaign finance reform because it keeps the dialogue going. Looking here in New Mexico, where we have a great public finance system in the city of Albuquerque, there are checks and balances in place. If outside money comes in, then you as a candidate get more, different groups can spend more. There are really great checks and balances in place. At a federal and a national level, we need to look at that too. This isn't the end of campaign finance reform. It's the beginning of the next day. I'm hearing you right on that because I hear this in different wording. That the point is just to win. Do you really expect that he would call for more strenuous campaign finance reform by writing the backs of a lot of money and then make call for campaign finance reform? Is that not contradicting each other? I just think there's a real difference between politics and policy. You've got to get elected to change policy.

And it's that simple. The money that's out there and that's required to win is available to him. For all of the people who believe in him and support him, would they like to have a righteous victory at the end or do they want to have a real victory and actually get meaningful reform and meaningful change accomplished when he's president? I for one want meaningful change. Fair enough. I'm going to push on this just a little bit more. Another issue that comes out in this is everyone was already due to campaign finance reform when Republicans had all the money. And now that it seems like the Democrats have all the money, so it'll be Martin. It just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Am I awful now? No, no. Unfortunately, I think that you've just said the thing that I've been kind of bouncing around for a little while now, which is that the guy who has all the money has much less interest in taking that deal, right? Because it is about winning ultimately. It is about getting into that position. And so I'm really, I will say, as a Democrat, I'm really torn. As Jim said, I want this to be a clean and beautiful election for Barack Obama. And at the same time, I really need the man to win.

And so I have to balance my own feelings about that. We've left the primary season where we, you know, we know in the primaries that you tend to pitch yourself more toward the die-hards. And the die-hards are going to care about public financing. But in the general election, I assume that adjustments will have to be made. And I would hate to have it come down to the man was too naive to get through the political process. That would be a terrible tragedy. Couldn't he win if it's about policy and ideas and taking a stand? Couldn't he win straight up with the same money it seems to me, Scott? Yeah, I mean, this makes no sense to me. This idea of realism and pragmatism. I mean, I think Hillary Clinton was running her entire campaign on that sort of very realistic pragmatist approach. And it was rejected by Democrats in favor of somebody who they feel to be very idealistic and lofty and above all of the other rhetoric and things like that. Only he could pull off telling voters, I'm going to reject the public financing system. A pledge I've already made so that I can take more of your money and trust me when I get in, I'll change the system when I get there.

I mean, it's just that we can never hear a Republican advocating for the spending of taxpayer dollars. Well, actually, I mean, that's a very good point. At the state level and state and local level, you know, we've been very vocal against a lot of the public finance. You mentioned the public finance system in Albuquerque. I think it's absolutely atrocious. The one thing the public financing, the way that it's been outlined for legislative races and statewide races, the one thing it would do more than anything is entrench incumbent control for decades because challengers would rarely ever be able to out-raise, out-compete, out-message the current incumbents. I think there are some very big spots. Let's go ahead. So we keep you the last two minutes. I have to say about this. You know, I think that we spend an awful lot of time, especially people who do what we do around this table, looking for signs, looking for hints about what candidates are going to do, looking for signs as to how the electorate's going to go. And I feel between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party this moment, we don't have to look for signs. What judges will be appointed, what will be the policy toward the war in Iraq? These are issues that go way beyond the public financing issues for me.

And so I think, yeah, you know what, it happened, but I still believe I'm going to get better judges. I still believe that there's going to be a different attitude toward diplomacy in the world. And those are the substances to different substances between the two parties for me, and the two candidates for me at this moment. We're still going to look more local and talk about something that's been in the air this week for sure. Elton John Rischard, a decorated Marine, as you no doubt heard, chased and killed a car burglar because he felt his family was being threatened and it was sentenced to two years in prison. He is a free man today, however, after Judge Albert Pat Murdoch reduced his two-year sentence, excuse me, two three months he had already served. Judge Murdoch says that media pressure had no bearing on this decision to reduce the sentence, even though there was a public outcry and, oh, what an outcry from that original sentence. But did the judge do the right thing here or did the going back on his original sentence somehow increased the idea that's out there in the public a little bit about vigilante justice being the right way to do it. And that's a very loaded word I realize, vigilante.

Well, no, I think, I mean, I've said here table before that I don't believe that Rischard should have served jail time, so I obviously think that it was the correct decision to allow him out. For a variety of reasons, I just don't think that he deserved jail time in the punishment that was originally handed down. Now, as far as the media influencing his decision, it's tough for him to say that it didn't influence his decision because in a very rare move after he made the sentence, he went on Jim Villanucci's show here in Albuquerque to talk about it. He was back in the paper again after making this new sentence. And I think that that's something that definitely is concerning. If you're really, by principle, think, all right, I made a bad decision on that punishment and, you know, we're going to reconsider and reduce it. Fine, make it, but like with all other decisions made by judges, make it in the courtroom and then leave it there. I mean, that's what we expect. That's why we sequester jurors so that the outside does not come in and influence what's happening in the courtroom so that it is, you know, based on what is presented in the court. Judge Murdoch made it as serious air the first sentencing round. He held an abbreviated sentencing hearing. He truncated the presentment of the facts to him. He did not give Mr. Rashard's side much time to bring in the eyewitnesses who were in the police reports or for Mr. Rashard to explain what happened.

And he issued this sentence that contraindicated all the discussions that had gone on between Mr. Rashard's lawyers and the prosecutor. What I feel terrible about is that so many people have made decisions and judgments about this very tragic case based upon not knowing the facts and never, you know, just filling in the gaps with their own prejudices, you know, and their own predispositions. The facts once they were presented to Judge Murdoch were that he didn't shoot Mr. Rashard in the back while he was climbing offense. The police reported self said they had no idea what happened at the shooting. So I don't know why the prosecution was ever brought when the police themselves say we don't know. And the only evidence was Mr. Rashard himself who in the package that was presented to Judge Murdoch said talked about how he ran parallel to Mr. Rashard in socks after Mr. Rashard had reached for the gun. I mean, that's a crazy man who keeps reaching for a gun. And when Mr. Rashard jumped over fence following Mr. Romero, Mr. Romero came at him out of the darkness and that's when he fired.

So that is the only evidence. And based upon that evidence, I first of all think the prosecution never should have been brought. But I think Judge Murdoch was finally correcting, correcting his original mistake. Heather, we had also pressure from, hi, meeting Governor Richardson. Interesting. Was that appropriate in your view for a governor to weigh in on this situation? I certainly think that Governor Richardson weighs in on a lot of things that carries a lot of sway and has a lot of opinions. And I do think it's appropriate for the governor to make his voice heard judges listening to that voice. That maybe that that's where I heard something inappropriate may or may not have happened. But my real issue with this case is looking at someone like Mr. Rashard who's been trained to kill people sent into a war zone where he was actively involved in one-on-one combat, hand-to-hand combat, and killing people. And then brought back to the United States, it's no longer okay, right? We have a civil society. We don't want that kind of violence. Are our veterans getting the kind of help they need, readjusting to society? If this had been a different person, would they have reacted differently if his transition back to family life had been different, would his reaction have been different?

And for me, that's a much bigger issue here is we're training people to kill, we're sending them off to do their duty overseas. But are we taking care of them when they get home? Or do we have a lot of time bombs out there that are sort of waiting to go off and not getting the care they need? No, I must say, right there, you did exactly what I feel so sad about. You're presuming he's suffering from PTSD, time bomb. He's had multiple opportunities to shoot Romero before this chase, and he didn't. Why wouldn't this is where he kept telling the guy to get down, get down, and try to hold him for the police? What authority is he telling them to get down, not in his property anymore? Since this occurred, there have been incidents of drivers pushing over a drunk driver on the road and holding him to the police arrived. There was an incident of somebody took a gun off an armed robber and shot him in the lake. There have been incidents of a robber who flees the store and customers go after him and tackle him.

They're not prosecuted for assault or battery or unlawful imprisonment. This happens every day in the society where people protect themselves and hold felons until the police arrive. That's what went on here. But there are also other cases where the people who do that are in jail. There's a case of a Mr. Torres in Albuquerque who did almost the identical thing to what Mr. Richard did. He is in prison. It's from my understanding unless he were involved in the case and there was something I don't. It was very similar. Somebody committing a property crime chased off the property and then killed off the robber. Yeah, but he went out to shoot him intentionally, whereas here the evidence was Mr. Romero. He has a gun at Mr. Rishar. So what was his intent? It was never to shoot a really good question. He is armed. He is armed and he did pursue Mr. Romero. So he had some sort of intention, but it seems that W. Force was part of the menu of possibilities for him at that moment. And so what is the difference between, I don't know, a stated intent for this other person and then not stated?

It's been asked that, you know, this is a trained Marineist how they're pointed out. What if he didn't have the gun chased him down? Wouldn't you think a trained Marine could have handled this guy with hand to hand stuff? Is the X factor the gun? It's a very tricky thing. Well, but it's also very difficult when you're in your home and, you know, you take the role very seriously, that you're going to protect your family and your home and you see somebody intrude onto private property. You know, it was very sad. I heard a red that one of Mr. Romero's family said it was only a car and he didn't deserve to die. No, he didn't deserve to die. That's why this is a tragedy. But what happened was obviously a chase ensued. The other part that's missing is that supposedly he was calling for backup and now you've got a situation where Richard could be positioned between Romero and whoever coming from another direction. It is in that moment. It shows it's a good lesson that people who think that when they commit petty crimes, there's only going to be potentially small consequences. These things can escalate. And in the heat of the moment, obviously this occurred and that's why it's a tragedy. But I don't think you can presume that veterans who have just come off of combat are time-bombs.

Let's move on on that one. We've got troubles brewing at the U.S. Mexico border. First, the Supreme Court rejects a plea by environmentalists to halt the building of a two-mile section of fence in the San Pedro, riparian national conservation area in Arizona. This is implications for the hundreds of miles of fencing planned to go up throughout California, Arizona, in New Mexico and Texas, of course. And drug trafficking reportedly produced a hit list naming about 18 people, some of them who may be living in southern New Mexico. Very scary situation there. And even as drug-related violence escalates in the U.S., citizens still flock to Juara's gas stations and search of cheaper gas. I don't mean to laugh about that, so it's, I mean, going to show you. Yeah, I prefer drugs too. I mean, for prescription medications. You know, there's all sorts of reasons to go down into. Take your pick from that list. There's a lot of stuff at the border right now. I was fortunate in the last couple of months I did get to take a tour of the southwest part of the state and speak with a number of ranchers in that part of the state about a number of issues. But one of them that came up was this issue of border defense and immigration.

And the community down there of property owners who are dealing both with people coming across their land and the issue of, these, they're going to be violences as legal immigrants come through. And then also dealing with issues of hiring seem very deeply conflicted about how and when and, and to what extent we stop immigration across the border. I think it's a much more complicated issue than just let's throw up a fence. And this guy's trying to kill that guy. We have a, we have a deeper, deeper set of problems there. I'm not sure that I'm qualified. I'm sure one of you guys will have an idea about this, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to say here's the silver bullet in this situation. Certainly I don't think it's great to come across the border or to have a hit list of anybody. I'm not, you know, I'm not advocating that kind of activity clearly, but I also think we have a tendency sometimes to say we're going to build a fence and that's going to fix it. I just don't see that. My father was a narcotics agent in New Mexico. And the percentage of drugs, illegal drugs that are trafficked through New Mexico and onto other areas that originate from Mexico is absolutely phenomenal.

That's basically what they end up fighting most of the time or Mexican drug cartels. I personally feel there's a reason for that. It is very economical for people to process and, and, and make and begin to distribute drugs from just on the other side of the Mexican border. Because it's very easy for them and they know that they're going to have absolutely no problem getting it into the United States. And they currently don't. And for a country like the U.S., which tackles and solves big problems or is supposed to be able to all the time for it to be so easy for that to happen is egregious. So my, it might be a simplistic silver bullet. But the case I make for securing the border such that there is literally no illegal traffic, illegal immigration traffic across the border. The reason why I believe that's so important is because I believe we can become more immigrant friendly as a country if we do that. I think we can increase the number of people we allow to come into our country from Mexico if we're able to simply monitor who they are. And we would not be spending the resources on tackling illegal immigration instead on making sure that the folks who are coming to our country find good jobs become productive Americans and as part of our society get a piece of the American dream.

We can become a more immigrant friendly country. But I think it starts with doing the difficult deeds, whether it's offense, a wall, personnel, all of these together, a massive project to simply stop illegal traffic that we were not diverting resources to that. And instead can open our walls even even wider. And I think we should really should. I think it's Jim and you're on this, you know, this idea of a hit list. And there's been, by the way, a lot of Mexican police officers who have been killed this year, and if I'm hundreds, hundreds, and I believe it's about 450 homicides in the water as this. The national, basically the national police chief was killed outside his home in Mexico. Where does the New Mexican law, I mean, you said your dad's a former carry, how do US officers deal with something like this if we've got US folks on this list? Well, you know, does it, does it make the case for the wall?

We're dealing with more than just street crime because the cartels are using rocket propel grenades, armor piercing bullets, I think even mortars. Very heavy weaponry in their battles with the Mexican police. The police chief of Palomis, Mexico, which is on the border right below Columbus, defected, came to the United States seeking asylum. He didn't go to his own government. He came to us. The Mexican government does not control its northern border. It really is a war zone there. And our rural police cannot deal with this. The fence isn't enough. I mean, these guys are taken out armored personnel vehicles in Mexico. They can go through the fence. It's not a silver board. It may make the job easier for some border patrol agents. It may slow some of the traffic, but it's going to take having our troops back on the border. It's going to take building up the Mexicans on their side. There's something called the Medidad Initiative, which is to give Mexico assistance just like we do to African countries, you know, to handle their internal problems. We need to handle this because we cannot have this situation on our southern border. These gangs and cartels are here in Albuquerque that they reach across the country and they are deadly. They are vicious.

It's almost like dealing with a foreign government that's antagonistic to the United States. Sure. We're going to watch that one closely for sure. But it is that time again, time to put our panelists on the clock. They'll have just one minute as a group to tackle each of the following issues. So first up this week, House appropriators, voted Wednesdays has shut down a billion dollar plutonium manufacturing program at Los Alamos. Alamos, excuse me, in National Labs Congressman Tom Udall, voted against the cuts and moved sure to Anger, Anger, nuclear weapons opponents who cheered the House Committee's decision. Udall, who of course is running against Steve Pierce for the Senate, was criticized by Pierce for not supporting Los Alamos last year. Heather, this I'm talking that Mr. Udall is being a little wishy-washy on this issue. And that his original quote, if you think about it, in the journal on when the story broke, was not a forceful, I will absolutely fight this tooth and nail. But was his nuanced approach better in your gut and just let it play out? How did you see this?

The leadership is nuanced, and this is what I was talking about earlier, you get into office, excuse me, and that's when the policy really comes into play. And Representative Udall walks so really fine and really difficult line between the economic development and economic sustainability of Northern New Mexico and his deep commitment and his constituents' deep commitment to much more peaceful world. I think he made the right decision given the circumstances that he's looking at, but it's a really hard decision and for anyone to say that there's black and white, yes or no, that's too simple. He plays hand very well. Tom Udall, let his Democratic colleagues know that this was acceptable to him. He didn't use his power as a member of the Appropriations Committee to draw the line and say, yeah, you may take 2,000 jobs from this program in my district, but you're going to put 2,000 back with this new transition to the new future. He didn't put that other piece in place. We elect for the Senate a tremendous advocate. We've had one in Senator Domenici. He has absolutely shown both times last year, this year, no willingness to lead on the issue. He's shown no willingness to lead on the issue. It's simply been, especially on this part, sort of a him-hime and client to vote against it, and then I'm going to duck an albuquerque journal reporter after I make the vote. There's just no leadership there.

Mayor Martin Chavez makes a deal to buy only 17 of the council recommended 22 acres for a balloon landing site at Vista del Norte in Osuna. City councilors are not happy. The mayor says it's all a good deal all around for everybody, but councilors specifically Debbie O'Malley says the mayor is acting, quote, like a little king. Sophie, interesting. I feel like Debbie O'Malley is going to say that no matter what. What card is she going to pull out now? And I say that with a great deal of affection for her. I feel the city has plenty of good uses for their money, and there is a part of me that's like balloon fiesta landing spot. And then everything else. And so, you know, a parcel solution. I feel like I'm okay with this. Sure. But the mayor just wants to peel off five acres that are under power lines and develop them. They said you can't land there anyway. What's the matter with that?

Well, you know, I think it's, the mayor certainly has a great style of leadership where he's, when he believes that something is the right thing to do for the city by God, he is going to do it. You certainly have to tip your hat to him in that regard. Obviously, I tend to side usually on the side of Debbie O'Malley. It does seem like it's something of a compromise, but it really needs to be what is the community want? Not what is the mayor decided he wants? What is the city council decided they want? What is the community want? And the community has been very, very frustrated with this. You guys can build out on that one and get you on the next one. Colorado's loss is New Mexico's gain. Computer giant Hewlett-Packard will shut down a technical support center in Colorado Springs and employees about 800 and open at even bigger center here in Rio Rancho. Scott, interesting story here. Is this the kind of development we need for the economy, what we've been waiting for? It seems like a winner all the way around. Absolutely. And I think the biggest signal that sends to our lawmakers is it reinforces that we're in a competitive environment between cities, between states, and now between nations. And we have to make sure that if we're going to win and get those jobs in the economic development, we've got to be in the game.

And so all around the board, everybody needs to be in. The average salary is pretty good. The word is out. Albuquerque is the place to be in the United States. Hewlett-Packard is a terrific company and there's going to be more companies following their lead coming into that area. The only thing I would like better about the deal is if there was some reason the HP could never move away. There is some sort of geography issue that kept them here, but no, I'm thrilled and thrilled and thrilled. One thing I would like to see is with this many jobs coming, I'd like to see more work on infrastructure so that we're not just creating more traffic issues and workers who are strapped with the cost of gas, getting to work in Rio Rancho, making sure that that city really can sustain that large of an increase in jobs. Well done. That's all the time we have, guys. This week, thank you both for being here. You guys are terrific. Good to see you both again. We will, let's see. See you next week, but before we end the program, we have another special segment for you. Last week we introduced a new feature, which we hope you'll entice you to explore our website a little bit more. This week, Lillian Kelly took a trip south and here's her video on welcoming the full moon at White Sands.

It's almost like being on another planet. It's almost like being on Mars. White Sands National Monument is the largest gypsum sand dune in the world. It encompasses 275 square miles of 97% pure gypsum. This gypsum sand comes from the surrounding mountain ranges, which is the Sacramento, the San Andres, and the Oregon Mountains. It comes out of solid gypsum and turned into a granulated sand after millions of years of evaporation and crystallization due to the large ocean that was here thousands of years ago. It's surprising just the White Sands alone make you feel as if you're in a southwest moon scape. And it's surprising when you walk through it, you see bits of life, plant life.

It's really being in a different world and it's true desert, no doubt about it. Tonight, we're going to go on a three-quarter mile hike into the dunes, going to take about 45 to 60 minutes. And we're going to see how many animals and plants have learned how to adapt in this barren, wild, and worthless environment as it was considered in 1856 by John Also Barlett. We're here and we're having a wonderful time. We're meeting wonderful people, knowledgeable people as well. If you want a nice traveling experience, an experience in nature as well, White Sands is a great place to start. I'm hoping that we see some wildlife emerge and I understand that animal life in general is more active under the full moon. And I'm hoping we see some desert life come forth.

As the moon rises over the horizon, you see how the White Sands is illuminated for miles and sometimes you wonder if you're actually standing on Earth itself. And when you take a second look around, you'll find out that this is a very beautiful place to be in a full moon. We love to have your feedback, so be sure to send us your thoughts on this week's show. The email address is in focus at canemy.org or you can drop a slide on our website at canemy.org slash New Mexico and Focus.

While there, you can also watch this week's episode again or check out any recent shows you might have missed. So until next time, thanks for watching and have a great week. you you