Governor Gary Johnson and New Mexico State Senate

I can soften this light up. How's that work? If I soften this light up, that shadow won't be as harsh. And also a question on sovereignty, like this seems to be a free for all between the executive, the legislative, the judiciary, and also tribal government. And also a question on, you know, the third question will be on, this is the most expedient way for New Mexico tribes and plebos to establish a cash flow. And then I was going to ask your question concerning the new welfare reform package.

And that will be it. Very good. I can say anything is fair. Let's have some fun then. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Where's that? Okay. Governor Johnson, with respect to the state supreme court decision, you know, to block the move, you know, to block the move to facilitate Indian gaming or such. What do you expect, you know, the next legislative session? Well, clearly the state supreme court ruled that the legislature needs to participate in the compacts, in the upcoming compacts, and the compacts that were already signed. I don't know if you knew it or not, but there have been 100 compacts signed now in the United States. Out of those 100 compacts, two of those compacts have involved state legislatures. So clearly a precedent had been established that the governor and Indian tribes could negotiate compacts.

Now again, the Supreme Court rules, they say that the legislature needs to participate great. So looking at the next legislative session, there certainly needs to be an apparatus that's at least established to determine how the legislature, for example, determines what they want out of compacts. I mean, right now, what does the legislature want that isn't in the compacts? And we don't have a mechanism to provide that. And so at a very minimum, this next legislative session, I hope we at least establish that mechanism by which they can express what it is they want out of the compacts. So here, this seems to be a free for all involving the executive and the judicial branch, not to mention tribal sovereignty. Well, and that gets back to what I said earlier. There have been 100 compacts signed nationwide, and only two of those have involved legislators.

So we feel like clearly it has been established that the governor has had that power to negotiate compacts. Now going forward, we will deal with the state legislature, but again, we feel we did what was right. And the interior department yet has to rule yet on whether or not New Mexico's compacts are valid or not valid. Now, one interesting question, of course, is if they rule New Mexico's compacts are not valid, having signed them as valid, in essence, they could throw out all 100 compacts that have been signed. So it's quite a dilemma. And is this the most expedient way for the traditionally cash flow for reservations, pueblos, to establish a policy cash flow situation? Well, you know, I think that this is opportunity for the Indians, and that the Indians would have this kind of opportunity.

Great. I don't view Indian gambling as commercial gambling. The revenues that are got from Indian gambling go to programs on the pueblos, on the reservations. So again, I don't see it as an apples-to-apples comparison when you talk about profits from commercial gambling with profits regarding Indian gambling. Now, what I've said all along is, you know, hey, there's a trade-off here. If we're going to provide this kind of opportunity, and by provide this opportunity, when you talk about sovereignty, I believe that the Indians by federal law are entitled to have gambling, and that they are sovereign. And so with them being able to provide their own cash flow, with them being able to provide their own profits, these are monies that other taxpayers in the state won't have to spend. So I consider it a win-win situation.

And let me move on to a question concerning the new welfare reform package. You know, some critics have said that the proposed program targets those that cannot help themselves in limits the health that they can receive. You know, as long as you either buy into a balanced budget or not buy into a balanced budget, and I happen to buy into a balanced budget, I don't see how we can continue to spend more money than what you have. And so if you buy into the balanced budget, as long as we're doing it in an equitable manner, as long as we're cutting everything across the board to stay within our spending, you know, I see that as being fine. And that everybody's got to give a little bit, that's the consequence again of spending within your means. But I see that as being very important for the future of this country, for the future of my kids. So as long as it's equitable, you know, as long as we're not unjustly targeting poor individuals, well then again, no matter what, if you're talking about less money, you're talking about everybody having to spend less money. And so, sir, we come to the most favorite question of all your views, the last question. Is there anything you wish to add?

I appreciate you. I'm appreciative of the job that I have here in Santa Fe. You know, somebody said to me the other day that the longer you're involved in this process as governor, the more important that you think you become. And I think that's a good comment regarding politicians. I think the longer people are politicians, the more important they think they become. I hope I never become guilty of that. Again, I'm appreciative of the job I have, whether you agree with what I'm doing or not. My intention here is to do the best for all of New Mexico. All right. Thank you. I've been asked to give you an update on a couple of the projects that the state library has been involved in for a year or more.

The first of them is a statewide internet project. In 1994, the legislature approved $800,000 to be administered by the state library for the purpose of developing a statewide network of libraries and connecting those libraries to the internet. Our promise today is as follows. We have so far awarded to other software to connect to the internet. We also have requested additional applications and by mid November by the middle of next month. We will award another couple of $100,000 to another 40 or 50 libraries so that by the time our grant sideless completed, there will be between 80 and 100 libraries in the state who are able to connect to the internet through this project. These are not only public libraries, but also school libraries and some academic college libraries as well. And my handout, which on the street, there is a list of those who have so far received grants.

The second step in this project is to provide training to these people so that they can use the internet, which is a pretty complicated network of databases. We can navigate through the internet worldwide with using graphical browsers, which simply means that instead of typing in a lot of complicated commands, the library uses computer mouse, points to little icons, and our last accomplishment in this area is that we have worked with the state's opposite communications to obtain a statewide internet vendor. Thank you. Thank you very much. I believe that they're going to impact our state very negatively. I've always supported the idea.

I think that the whole idea of the block grants may impact as negatively. As far as demographics, I don't think they're going to take into consideration statistics regarding poverty or teenage pregnancy, or at risk people who use those sorts of demographics will not be considered in the block grants. The block grants will be sent to the executive of every state, each state to have flexibility. In other words, I'm fond of mandates. It'll be up to that state to the executive to determine what's important.

I've always supported the idea of welfare reform, but never and never when it's punitive, particularly against poor people and children. In New Mexico, who will be the strongest affected negatively, will be children, will be women, will be elderly. That will be affected by very significant cuts. For example, who has always helped the poor children in New Mexico alone, that will affect something like 50,000 children. For mothers that will not be able to be taken care of in their health care, I have a great concern about that. We have become a very insensitive nation. The conservative mood and the new federalism is, I recall a previous president saying that America had to become a gentler nation.

I think we need to start going back to that. We are becoming very insensitive, very condescending. That march to Washington told me a lot of what's going on. Not only about black people, but it's about black people and young people and yellow people and real people and Jewish people and all minorities. We all need to get together to help each other out. We've become too insensitive. What are they going to use? How much money are they going to use? Do you have an idea of how much money is going to be taken from New Mexico for a reference? I have no idea. I know that, for example, in the Medicaid, they're trying to take out 6 million in the state conference that could translate into 45 million from the federal government that we could match for and see that that's not going to happen. In other words, they're putting the burden on each state individually. In New Mexico, we're going to have significant problems because we are basically a poor state.

We have a lot of children that are very poor and they're not going to be able to be taken care of. I support welfare reform. There has to be certain components to welfare reform. There has to be job training. There has to be job creation. There has to be vocational education. There has to be an increase in the minimum wage. There has to be a component for a child support. What you see now is what I see now is the enormous burden on her state coming down from the federal level. It boils down to a net will hurt children, it will hurt women, and it's really going to hurt the elderly. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Testing, testing, testing. Testing, testing, testing.

Hi, sir. What are we talking about? I've been out of it in the hotel. Now, okay. It's going to be interesting. Cheers. And here's the rest. Do you want to do it? Yes. Hi, I'm Mark. That's Eda. My name is Eda. Eda? Yes. Let's see. I don't know if you can get it in there now. There we go. Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm standing close to the desk. It's horrible the lights. Okay. Right. Mr. Verrilla? Yeah. Very simple. Yes. Okay. I want you to identify yourself really quickly and then the district represent. Ready? Yes. My name is Lucky Verrilla, and I represent District 48 here in Santa Fe County. And I've been in the legislature for nine years. Okay. And you are? Homestate representative.

Okay. What we're doing now is we're just trying to get the feel of how is welfare employment in Mexico. Well, as you know, New Mexico is primarily a poor state. We ranked in the high 40s in terms of per capita income. So anytime you have a welfare program or a public assistance program, those states that are ranked high in terms of per capita income benefit more in terms of the welfare programs. So when you look at that particular component, and you look at the welfare plan that has been adopted by the Congress, where you're not going to have the kind of growth that we've experienced in the past, based on the economic standing of the state, we may have to experience some shortfalls in terms of federal dollars. And what you serve shortfalls do you see? Well, when you look at welfare, I don't think you can separate that from Medicaid or even Medicare. And they all have a relationship.

So I'm hoping that when we look at the total funding from the federal level in terms of the block grants, that we will be looking at what's going to happen to welfare, what's going to happen to Medicaid because it affects not only the elderly, but the children of the state of New Mexico, Medicare, of course, is for the elderly. So when you put all of these together, we're going to have a substantial impact in terms of the total effect of the block grants. How much do you see being cut from these programs? I don't have a dollar a month because the Congress has not given us a definitive number. They haven't been able to quantify that. But given the status of New Mexico as being poor state, I think that when you look at the individual states in terms of the formula, we're going to suffer a substantial loss. I would imagine that it'll be in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year. So what do we do? We have to either look at making it up at the state level, to continue the same level of support for cutting these programs.

And I have a concern that by getting into the block grant concept, the federal government is separating themselves from the responsibility of the individual states. I would like to see us have a partnership with the federal government and with the local governments to be able to balance the funding for public assistance and also the Medicaid and Medicare programs so that we can have a partnership with the federal government and that they still have a responsibility to make sure that the states, even though we're more autonomous in terms of the funding, that we live up to the responsibility of providing adequate funding for each and individual state. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Let's give this up again. Here we go. Can I have any staff? Okay. So, sir, for the record, which line identified yourself in your position? Yes. My name is Joe Córdoba and I am president of the National Federation of the Blind of New Mexico, where a consumer organization of blind people, the largest consumer organization of blind people in the state and the nation.

And with regards, you know, today we're up here from K&E TV. We're doing a story on the proposed welfare reforms. And so, like, you know, what's a common knowledge is that there's some cuts, you know, significant cuts coming down from Congress such, you know. And so, like, and we're wondering, you know, the state will be faced with a situation of picking up, picking up the cuts or dropping the programs. So, with regards to programs that may impact, you know, the group that you represent, should the state drop, you know, drop the programs? Okay. I don't think they should be dropped. However, at the same time, I think there can be put in place policies that will enable these very people to go back into the mainstream of society to become contributing citizens rather than relying on the welfare roles.

Certainly, there has to be, I believe, reforms in welfare in this country, because what we have had over the years hasn't really worked. And people that are on welfare really, I don't think, want to be on welfare, but they're often faced with other options. Many blind people feel that they have no other opportunities in life, except perhaps to be on the public roles. We have a very unique problem in the blindness field, in that nearly 80% of adult blind people are unemployed. So, if we're going to have true welfare reform, then perhaps the thing to do is for the state governments to become more involved actively in assisting blind people to become employable, perhaps some work opportunities, educating the employers about the abilities of blindness,

and do it in a gradual phasing process rather than just totally drop these people off the roles entirely. Okay, sir, that's a wrap. You wish to thank you. Thanks. I hope it's straight, etc. Are we good here? Okay. Is that all right? Yes, sir. We need to bet the lights in a little bit. First and embarrassing question. And so, the first question, sir, for the record, which reminds you of your name and position? My name is Max Call. I'm chairman of the House Appropriations and Finance Committee, and I'm vice chairman of the Legislative Finance Committee. And with respect to the projected cuts that will be coming down from Congress, with respect to the wealth to welfare programs, Medicaid, social services,

is there any indication where home New Mexico will sell them to lost dollars, or will New Mexico drop the programs? Two-thirds of the money we appropriate from the General Fund goes to education. About half of our budget goes to public schools. Another one-sixth goes to higher education. That accounts for two-thirds of our budget spending. If we're going to make up some of these losses in federal funds, they're going to have to come right out of the school children's hide. We're going to have to appropriate less money to schools, because two-thirds of our pie now goes there. If we're going to make up a shortfall, a major shortfall, and the other one-third, where does it have to come from? The school kids will pay disproportionately for these cuts, and that distresses me a lot. Is there any indication? Well, right now, is there any indication how the federal cuts will impact New Mexico?

We're guessing, because the Congress hadn't finally acted, but the range is anywhere from a $5 million loss less money coming from the federal level to about 50 million less money coming from the federal level on Medicaid alone. The other programs, I don't know what the effects will be. We don't have a range estimate on that yet, but it could be a big impact. Now, there's been two points, you know, two programs. It seems to me, from my sources, maybe, singled out to FDC and General Assistance. General Assistance, we basically do, out of the General Fund budget, straight out of that. It's those that are kind of in need of help until they can get on Medicaid or AFDC. It's kind of a bridging funding, and it affects sort of the poorest of the poor people.

And I hate to see that come back, be cut back, because those people are the ones that are in dire need of assistance, but that may be one place we have to go. Will there be caps on AFDC, foods, dances, or the medical procedures? I don't know, those are options that we're going to have to consider. We're going to have to look at a bunch of options if we're going to have to shave back some of these programs. Has the Human Services Department given, you know, presented their new budget, their new plan, or has there been any indication from the Human Services Department? We've had some inklings from Human Services about what they're going to do on Medicaid cuts, especially AFDC. We haven't had a detailed plan out of them yet. These kind of cutbacks will impact people, and they're going to have to decide how to recommend we deal with it. And we as the legislature are either going to buy off on it or not.

We're going to have to decide what funding level we're going to fund these programs at. Regardless of whether we get enough federal money to do it, we're going to have to make decisions of budget priorities. And unfortunately, with two-thirds of the money currently going to schools, the only place you can find dollars to make up those losses or go hunting where the ducks are. Go into that two-thirds. For years, for years, our medical costs have been growing at three times the inflation rate. Schools have been growing at about the inflation rate. So for years, disproportionately, these programs have been getting funded over the schools. And it's going to get worse now. It's a great big cost shift coming from the federal level. Cost shift and health care dollars, especially. If we don't take it out of the school kids and make it up in the budgets,

then there's going to be about, let's say, the worst case scenario on Medicaid. $50 million less comes down. And we don't fund it. We don't take it from the school kids and fund it. Then what's going to happen? The people that need the help are going to access health care through the emergency room doors. And anyone that now pays a health insurance premium is going to pay that. It's going to be a tax increase that comes to them, even though there's no tax increase past. The insurance companies are simply going to build the rest of the public. The paying, consuming public for more health care costs. And that whole $50 million is going to be shifted to our pocket, to our wallet. It's going to take a bite out of our wallet, whether we want it or not. And that's going to be the net effect, truly. And so, sir, we come to the favorite part of all interviews the last question. Is there anything you wish to answer? Yeah, I think that if we're going to reduce the federal deficit,

you do have to quit operating on borrowed money here. You're going to have to operate more on cash as you go. New Mexico has done that for years. And that's one of our problems. We don't borrow money to pay current expenses. We can't do it and we won't do it. And I'm very glad we don't. The Congress, however, has not been in that mode. They borrow the money and spend it and leave it to the next generation to pay back. I'm glad to see the Congress in a mode to try to balance the budget, try to do less on borrowed money. But what it's going to mean to each person in the Mexico is, we're going to have to make this up with money out of our wallets currently. And it's going to be like a tax increase on us whether we want to call it that or not. We're going to have to pay current expenses with real money now instead of borrowed money later.

And that's one of the facts of life of balancing the budget on the federal level. Thank you, sir.