New Mexico State of the State Address; 2016 Analysis

Maybe that's where I'm thinking of. Okay. But the other thing is, yeah, so that was 13. And some of the other expenses still hit into 2017. Okay. So that's where it gets you. Okay. You're going in in the budget stuff. Right, I know. I know. I am on the call. It's on the call. We forgot. It was so small. It was back under the Instagram down. The highest. Okay. That sounds good. the state. That was that. That's what she's been saying. That's good too. Okay. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Who served there for going a structural deficit? What are we talking about? All right. I saw you react to that. Right. Because we already gave away all our cash under Richard's. All of our deficit. And so then, you know, he's allowed it. Hold on guys, here we go. No, no, no, no, no. That's why it's a structural deficit. It's a structural deficit. Our structure is crumbling. Oh, I can't understand. Crumbling infrastructure. No. You want kind of men? Kind of sin. Hold on guys. Take it in close.

Thank you for staying for a web extra here online. We're covering the governor's 2016 state of the state address. I'm here with Janice Aldo-Jones from Republican state representative. Didi Feldman's here, former Democratic State Senator Daniel Foley, Republican and former New Mexico House minority whip and regular on our show. And Eric Riego from a Democratic state senator. And thank you all for staying a little bit more. Let's touch on a couple more things we couldn't quite get to. A lot in here, Janice Aldo-Jones, you first taxes. Why didn't you either hear or didn't hear about taxes that in this speech? I heard that there have been a few reductions in taxation, but didn't really hit everybody. Lots of tax incentives. And very little discussion about correcting the tax structure that oftentimes drives our own Native New Mexican businesses out of business. What is part of that structure? What's part of that problem that drives businesses out of here?

What would you like to see solve? Well, I'm going to say so. I'm going to get a hold of it. One, there are so many incentives, deductions, credits that it often puts New Mexico businesses at a disadvantage to the businesses that are being recruited. What would I like to see? I would like to see the grocery seats tax revamped, redone. I would like to see our state be able to say we have a 3% grocery seat or sales tax take your pick. And there's no paperwork involved. It's simple. Everybody gets it. It's right across the board. But we didn't talk about that. And I was very disappointed because there's been a lot of work reforming and revising our tax policy. Interesting. You've been part of that reform effort going back a few years. One of the possibilities that we can get to something, what she's not buying this guy's stuff, but the things the governor's proposing here. Oh, slumny nut. Slumny nut and bustle even Santa Fe. Really? Yeah, I mean, I think you're going to get the token support for a tax credit that, you know, there'll be a bipartisan agreement for cutting a few taxes. You know, one of the things I've learned during my time in the legislature

is that when there's a Republican governor who wants to cut taxes, there'll be a bipartisan support to cut some taxes. There's a Democrat governor that wants to raise some taxes. There'll be bipartisan support to raise those taxes and it all kind of washes out in the end. I think Representative Arnold Jones is right. I think that the tax system in New Mexico is unbelievably flawed. I mean, it is literally made up of who's hired the best lobbyist at what time to get an exemption for themselves. There seems to be agreement across the border. There it is. And what's a shame is Representative Jason Harper has worked with both Republicans and Democrats to kind of go in and say, look, because you can't piecemeal fix it. It's literally got to be one of those deals where you say, stop, we're doing it all and it's going to change everything effective, you know, July 1, because if you, if you, if you dribble it out, the minute you impose one deal, then there'll be an exception below and there'll be a change here and a change there. It's got to be, it's got to be a total change. And Jason Harper's done a great job working with both Democrats and Republicans. I think the governor's missing an opportunity during a 30-day session to, you know, actually do something that could be a legacy. Yeah, interesting.

Senator, Phil, let's talk about ethics. I, you would have thought, I got to talk. I'm on the way to that question. But you, we've tackled this on this show for a number of weeks now. Almost anticipating that the governor, it was going to make a statement. Make a statement of some kind. At least about that. What a sense of that. Well, I was stunned that it was just a glossed over very quickly. At a time when we've had major scandals when the, the population of New Mexico has lost faith. I mean, look at the polling data. They have a lost faith in the elected officials. They're not voting in local elections. And there was not even a mention of an ethics commission, which at the last poll, 85% of the people in New Mexico favor. And, you know, in ethics, these, some of these ethics things are possible compromises where both Democrats and Republicans could come out looking like they're doing something without too much trouble. And even the transparency measures, you know,

where the lobbyists need to get their act together and report more accurately. There needs to be more information about dark money. A lot of those things are, people agree on that. And yet, there wasn't really any mention of it. I'm disappointed. We've just had the specter of, you know, one of our highest-ranking officials, a mug shot, a booking shot in the newspaper. That should concentrate the mind. But it never has. And we've had it. We've had that every, it seems like every three or four years, someone gets hauled off in handcuffs, whether it's a treasurer, Secretary of State, a State Senator, represents. It doesn't matter. And there's a big hole blue in the media and then everybody kind of lets it dissipates nothing. These issues are connected. And I want to say the last time, when I was in City Council, we got public financing past the year that Robert V. Hill was indicted,

because when you let the voters actually weigh in and vote on something, like if we just said, okay, we don't want to deal with this, put it on the ballot. All of these things have passed over one million. I carried, you know, D.D. carried the bill for several years and I carried the bill this one year, just a one-year waiting period here. And I'll never forget the legislator, who, one of my colleagues, who should remain nameless, just waxed poetic about how important lobbyists were, you know, the kind of lobbyists that sort of represent a lot of these tax cuts for individual companies. Just, he couldn't believe that they were great people. You know, they are. They're good people. I used to be a lobbyist for schools at one point. But guess who went on very next year to become a lobbyist? It wasn't me by the way. It wasn't him. And so the point is, if you want to stop this Christmas tree approach to people going in and selling their latest tax break for industry extra, and see why that's going to save the state and create jobs, that really, that really cozy relationship between the, I think it's over 800 lobbyists now up in Santa Fe. That's about eight to every, almost eight to every single one.

And the Fed said that it's growing at the state level faster. I mean, they're leaving the federal level and going to the state level because of the economy. There's more money being spent at the states and there is the federal interest thing there too. Isn't it sad, though, that we recruit a business from out of state and the first thing we say to them? Boy, don't worry. We'll take you up to the legislature and get you a new deal. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. I mean, ski tickets, tax break, you know, and we just want to show them who are the right lobbyists that are hired. Jane retires next year. He'll carry your village your hierarchy next year. Exactly. Senator Griegel, we, um, interesting on immigration. As I'm looking at the speech here, I see a couple of things. Immigrants from all over the world, that was interesting to me, not just from a specific country that used to be sort of the hint, so to speak. Now, the folks coming from all over the world. In the fact that she says the public is with her, did I not see some recent polling that says, well, wait a minute. We're thinking kind of opposite this. Am I wrong here?

I guess we're wrong. No, I mean, there's brand new polling. There is a bipartisan compromise on the table right now that's being supported by credible, serious Republicans and credible serious Democrats. That basically says we can do this in a way that we can all support, which will be completely really, really compliant for folks who want that kind of driver's licenses, but does not have to penalize undocumented immigrants. Okay. There's the votes for that. If the governor would just allow the house to sort of let it happen. This is a great example, is she could choose to really get us out of this box and she could even claim victory. Look, I got him off this deal. We have a, we have, we've solved the problem. She chose not to do this in the speech. And I think it's unfortunate because this is an issue that sucks up so much oxygen up there. And there's a lot of work that doesn't get done because we can't resolve this. There's no reason why she can't claim victory. I got him to do something. I got him to finally take care of immigrant drivers licenses. Instead, she's choosing to, to again, use it as a political issue. It's unfortunate. I know no one can speak for the governor here so late, but is it an all or nothing deal, genocidal Jones where if she's not going to get

the driver's license deal, she wants nothing's going to happen? Why not take a little bit this year, go for a little bit more next year and a little bit more than your last year? Well, I would say so to be clear, this identical bill was introduced in 2011. It was introduced before that. And I think you've heard the governor say, this year, I'm not going to take the all or nothing approach. But it wasn't as clear in her speech. I believe that she, Papa Chico is carrying the bill that does what most people think is right. And she said, I support this. Let's get it done. And I think it was tremendous wind and again, another missed opportunity. Well, I think it's, you know, I think people forget too. And I think Janice will remember, you know, we first started discussing the driver's license deal. I stood up on the house floor and said, fine, why don't we have one driver's license that works and one that's an ID card? And I was told, I was literally attacked and told that I was no different than the Nazis wanting to put the star of David on people that this is unfathomable that you would do such a thing. It's very late at night.

And at the end of the day, you know, you're just like, I mean, now we've come full circle. So I think that, I think that the reality is that the governor has talked about a compromise. I think the governor has said, look, I want to get it done right. And I think that there's been some real opposition, especially in the Senate, that the House has said, we'll work together. We'll do something to get something over there. And then there's those individual, the king makers that say, you know, we're not going to hear it. I'm not going to put on the agenda. And it doesn't get heard. And I think that's a huge hurdle that has to be overcome. And I think if they get the right compromise done correctly through the House, I think that there's a good chance that it'll get heard on the Senate. Whether certain people want it to be heard or not, I think that if the compromise comes up with as much money as being spent by both sides to get their message out, I think if the great bill gets to the floor, I don't think anybody's going to be able to stop. Interesting. I have a question. Why have you four here? I would be remiss if I didn't ask you all this around the table. Would 45 grand a year in being a full-time legislature? In your previous experience, would that have changed you markedly as a legislator?

Going up Mr. McMillan's bill, I think I've been looking for a lost cruiser that wants to propose that a legislator's be paid 45 grand a year in work full-time. Would you have been a different legislator? I think I wish, I could say yes, but most of the folks who do this, if you do it, you have to either be retired, have an employer that allows you to do this, or like I was self-employed with my own company at the time and then briefly for a nonprofit that allowed me to do it, which was very difficult. I learned that it was too hard to have a real job and be up there to do a good job. There are a few people without families, probably, who live fairly nearby, who could say, okay, I could do it for 45,000, if they're actually working. I think for most folks, it would be great for retirees, it would be great for folks who could still do some business on the side, because I think they would, I mean, it would be nice. I mean, I think if you're serious about it, look at what are some other states, is it better than the current system? Probably, because, you know, you... Actually, no. I mean, I think it's not better than the current system. If you tell somebody that they're gonna make a total of 45,000 dollars a year,

you've completely taken away 80% of the population that can't do this. I mean, family, you couldn't be a mother or father, a single breadwinner, a 45,000 year, and be a state legislator, especially live outside of Santa Fe or Albuquerque. What are you talking about? There is no salary at all, right now. I mean, I think that those two questions can be divorced, that's one time legislature versus a salary. The center of my point was he was saying full time at 45,000. You go to places like Florida, I believe it's 100 now, and it's not full time. I mean, it's basically what we do now, it's they go to legislature, they go to committee meetings, but they have a job on the outside. And so, you know, but then, you know, we would just have this conversation with a friend of mine from Boston, Gene, you can relate to this. He was just back there and they had the top, you know, the top pension getters from, you know, in the state of Boston. And I mean, you know, take away the teachers from the universities, it was all legislators. I mean, and these guys are making five,

$600,000 of your pensions, because they were making a bucking 80, 200,000 here. I mean, right now, the speaker of the house in Boston from where I, from where I understand, makes almost $300,000 a year. I mean, that's an unbelievable amount of money in the state where the median income is, Eric, I'll defer to you, the median income, 29, 30,000. Here? Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, so to say you're gonna pay someone 150,000, but, you know, here's my question, is Terry Macmillan, who's a doctor? Is he gonna close his practice for 45,000 here? I'm not gonna stop doing what I do for 45,000 years. And so I think you're gonna limit the type of people that can do it. I think there needs to be some component, whether it's expenses or something, because, especially, and I'm not, I'm not drawing a rule and urban fight here. But I'm telling you, in Roswell, when I had my insurance office, and my name was on it, I'm telling you, people in my district, they thought I was a congressman. They thought I had a big staff, they thought I could move mountains. I live in Rio Rancho now, and I'm telling you, people knew who our city councilors are, more than I knew who the state reps are. I'm not down playing that.

I'm just saying, though, I bet, you know, my accountant told me that the year I got out of the legislature, I saved almost $90,000 in expenses, not time away from work, not gas, in monies that I was expending on my own, that I never could get back, that it was a pay raise to get out for me. And so I think we gotta, I think there's gotta be a serious discussion, because at the end of the day, asking people to give the amount of time they gotta give for nothing. It, I think, I think you wind up with very few people wanting to do it. Interesting point there, Janice, your thought on this, I'm curious where, how about for younger people? I mean, maybe younger people could live on 45 grand a year maybe, but that was too long. That was too long, that's true, that's true. So you hope in every legislature that there is a true cross-section of the population. And, you know, I, for one, could not, would not step away from my job to be restricted to 45K, but also to be required to leave my area of expertise, which was I wish a little bit unique in the legislature. Turned out, it was important information, just like Dr. McMillan.

There are many people who have been there who, you know, so I think his intention is good, but it's more complicated than that. And, but I, and I guess I'm old school, there is something very special about our citizen legislature and the commitment with which people take to Santa Fe to do this job. And to simply say we're going to hire somebody to do it, you would lose so much. You can't even buy this. Interesting. Someday, though, we're gonna have to deal with the inherent conflict of interest, of people serving and also having their own private business. And in New York, for example, where they have just had convictions of the top leaders of the Senate and the House, they are now introducing a bill that says, you know, if you want to be a legislature, you have to put your business on hold because there's too much opportunity to gain, right, for private gain, rather than public good.

And that is kind of the history of New York politics. We will disagree about that because I think there's plenty of laws on the books today that prevent you from doing that. They're not prosecuting to them. They're not going at the folks. They're not forcing them. So, but I think you also have to say in my counter to my colleague, Senator Filman, is that I think New York's in a little states that if they're gonna do this, they're talking about paying these guys a buck 80, 200. I mean, they're not asking people to leave that's her $35,000, $40,000 a year. And so, but the million dollar question is, we've now talked about this month, and we've talked about any issue. And none of that can happen unless the voters vote for it. And everybody has to remember the only way, the only way that we got a pretty increase was they tricked the voters into Mexico. I mean, they went out and asked them to raise it and they said, no. So, they came back and changed the language. And we said, you will pay us no more than what the IRS allows. And everybody's like, oh, we're screwing the legislators again. And they voted for it.

We went from $75 a day to $145 a day. So, anybody that thinks you're gonna go out and float a salary into Mexico. And the citizens are gonna say, that's a great idea. But there are other ways of doing it. There are a lot of other days. How do you say that? Yes. It's reimbursed, that's her sense. As a former staffer, I say, yes. Thank you all for being here. Good stuff. State 2016.