New Mexico State of the State Address; 2016 State of the State Web Extra

That's what I'm thinking of. Okay. But the other thing is, yeah, so that was 13. Yeah. And some of the other expenses don't hit into 2017. Ah. Okay. So that's right again, too. Okay. Here we go. The end of the budget stuff. You're right. I know. I know. I think I'm right. He's on the call. He's on the call. He's on the call. He's on the call. It's on the call. It's on the call. It's on the call. It's on the call. It's on the call. It's on the call. It's on the call. You're on the call. You're on the call. Yeah. That was him. That was him. That was him. That was him. That was him. That was him. Yeah. Well, she's been saying that. She's been saying that. That was him. That was him when I said, he's first there going away. I was, like, a structural deficit. What are we talking about? All right. Well, I saw you react to that. Right. Because we already gave away a lot of cash for a bunch of rich people. How about a deficit? Yep. Yeah. So, then, you know, it's just a lot of extra cash. Hold on, guys. Here we go. No. Jonathan. 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 Janus Auto-Jones, former Republican state representative, D.D. Feldman's here, former Democratic state senator, Daniel Foley, Republican and former New Mexico house minority who whip in 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, Janus Auto-Jones, you first taxes. What did you either hear or didn't hear about taxes in this speech? I heard that there have been 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 the whole thing? Well, I'm going to say so. I can 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 on 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. But the things the governor's proposing here. Oh, slimming none. Slimming none of us leave a Santa Fe. Yeah, I think you're going to get the token support for a tax credit that there'll be a bipartisan agreement for cutting a few taxes. One of the things I've learned during my time in the legislature is that when there's a Republican government that 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 a 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 a agreement across the board on this. 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 in the law 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 has done a great job working with both Democrats and Republicans. I think the governor is 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 say about ethics. I, you would have thought, I got to talk. I'm on the right side of that question. But we've tackled this on this show for a number of weeks now. Almost anticipating that the governor... We'll make a statement of some comment.

We'll make a statement of some comment. At least about that. What a sense of that. Well, I was stunned that it was just 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, you look at the polling data. They have 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, and ethics, these, some of these ethics things are possible compromises where both Democrats and Republicans could come out looking like they're doing something. Right. Without too much trouble. And even the transparency measures, you know, where, you know, 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. You know, 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. Well, 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, doesn't matter. And there's a big hole blue in the media, and then everybody kind of lets it. These issues are connected. And I want to say the last time when I was in City Council, that public financing passed the year the rob of the deal 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 that pass over one million. I carried, you know, did he carry the bill for several years? Then I carried the bill this one year, just a one year waiting period,

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 the 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, skittickets, tax break, you know, and we just have to say that. And show them who the right lobbyists are to hire. Jane retires next year. He'll carry your village your hire next year. Senator Grillo, 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 they're 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, wait a minute, we're thinking kind of opposite this. Am I wrong here? I guess we don't know. 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, incredible, 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. Mm-hmm. If the governor would just allow the house to sort of let it happen. This is a great example. She could choose to really get us out of this box, and she could even claim victory. Look, I got him off this deal. Yeah. 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, again, use it as a political issue. It's unfortunate. I know no one can speak for the governor here certainly, but is it an all-or-nothing deal, general-general, 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'm going to 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 people forget too, and I think Janice will remember, when 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 literally attacked and told that I was no different than the Nazis wanted 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're just like, I mean, now we've come full circle. So I think that the reality is, is that the governor has talked about a compromise. I think the governor has said, look, I want to get it done right. 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 individuals, 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 right 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'm going to be remiss if I didn't ask you all of this around the table. Would 45 grand a year in being a full-time legislature? And your previous experience, would that have changed you markedly as a legislator? I'm going off of Mr. McMillan's bill, probably looking for a lost cruisers that once proposed that legislators 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. I 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. So 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... Actually, no. I mean, I think it's not better than the current system. If you tell somebody that they're going to 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. But what are you talking about?

There is no salary at all. Right now. I mean, I think that those two questions can be divorced. But you don't have the same time legislature versus... Okay, so let's... That's my point. 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. Right. I mean, it's basically what we do now. It's they go to the legislature, they go to committee meetings, but they have a job on the outside. Right. And so, you know, but then, you know, we 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 understand, makes almost $300,000 a year. I mean, that's an unbelievable amount of money in a state where the median income is arrogant, deferred to you.

The median income, 29, 30,000. Here? Yeah. I mean, so to say, you're going to pay someone $150,000, but, you know, here's my question, is Terry McMillan, who's a doctor? Is he going to close his practice for $45,000 a year? I'm not going to stop doing what I do for $45,000 a year. And so, I think you're going to 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 drawn a rule in 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. Yeah. I live in Rio Rancho now, and I'm telling you, people who are city counselors are more than I knew the state reps are. I'm not downplaying that. It's a good point. I'm just saying, though, 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. I think there's got to be a serious discussion because, at the end of the day, asking people to give the amount of time they got to give for nothing, I think you wind up with very few people wanting to do it. Interesting point there. Janice, your thought on this. I'm curious, how about for younger people? I mean, maybe younger people could live on $45 grand a year maybe, but that was too long. That's true. You hope in every legislature that there is a true cross-section of the population, and I for one could 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. Sure. Turned out, it was important information, just like Dr. McMillan. There are many people who have been there, so I think his intention is good, but it's more complicated than that. 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. We can't even buy this. Interesting point. Someday, though, we're going to 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 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 after folks. They're not forcing them. So, but I think you also have to say, in my counter to my colleague, Senator Feldman, is that, I think New York's in a little states that if they're going to do this, they're talking about paying these guys a buck 80, 200. I mean, they're not asking people to leave that's heard $35,000, $40,000 a year. That's right. But the million dollar question is, you know, we've now talked about this month, 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 going to go out and float a salary into Mexico, and the citizens are going to say, that's a great idea. There are other ways of doing it. There are a lot of other days. How do you stop? Yes. It's reimbursed. There's a poor staffer.

I say, yes. Thank you all for being here. Good stuff. Stay to the state, 2016.