Thanks for Commenting
Yeah, it will look so much better with an oil rig planted there don't you think? It's funny, but in Montana and Wyoming oil and gas workers earn 3x's as much as they do in NM. Yet you still claim the oil and gas industry helps take us out of poverty instead of just greedily lining their pockets. Parroting talking points gets you no where.
Reuben, 90% of NM's capital outlay for schools and infrastructure comes from oil and gas revenues. 15-20% of the state budget comes from oil and gas revenues. Some talking points are worth "parroting."
Oil & gas is the past. Given our climate and other resources, New Mexico could lead the nation (the world?) in the development of alternative clean sources of energy. Wind, solar, etc. This will only happen if we elect forward looking people like Baca instead of the carbon monoxide lovers in the GOP. Heck, even Pete Domenici raised the possibility of implementing a floor on gas prices recently so as to encourage alternative energies for *national security reasons.* He includes nuclear which might be ok too. Sometimes the market doesn't respond until it is too late and smart leaders are needed. Baca & Madrid will both win, mark my words buddy 
How is pointing out that Republicans are in the back pocket of Big Oil the same thing as not wanting ANY oil or gas industry in New Mexico not to mention the attendant revenue? No seriously, that's what you're asserting: that one equals the other.
Please explain because, so far, you haven't bothered.
Asking a "serious" question and putting your name as my email is just silly. If for whatever reason you are unwilling to own your thought, no problem. Just please use "Anonymous" for a name. I've gone ahead and changed this for you.
Edited By Siteowner
Yo Mario- has anybody briefed you on the State Land Office Budget? Check out the ISSUES portion of Jim Baca’s website – the man has vision. Pat Lyons’ blog is full of bluster and bile – if you’re trying to be like that, you don’t have much further to go.
Mario, the libs have your number. They are the only ones commenting on your blog lately.
So here goes. Alternative energies are a misnomer. The only way they are viable is due to legislative action requiring them or incentives to make the energy produced cost competitive with what is currently on the market.
So when Baca talks about alternative energy he is talking about subsidizing solar, wind and other area of energy. That money for the subsidizing comes from taxpapers like you and I. We don't have a choice if people like Baca are elected they make the choices for us.
Look at how will the film industry is doing in New Mexico; all due to taxpapers money. Richard Gere gets a credit on his private jet and we wait in traffic for the governor's motorcade.
Allow politicans to choose the winners or losers in the marketplace is wrong whether they be republican or democrats; it is wrong.
I was going to comment to the posts here, but I think Frank said all that needs to be said.
The explosion of the oil and gas industry at the beginning of the 20th century also required "legislative action" in the form of government funded road and highway construction nationwide- you can't pretend that the addiction we have to gasoline is simply the natural state of things and anything new and different is government manipulation. Both sides manipulate the market equally- just for different reasons.
The explosion of government funded roads and highway construction at the beginning of the 20th century had very little to do with encouraging the growth of the oil and gas industry, and everything to do with Roosevelt's New Deal to pull the country out of a recession.
The growth in importance of the oil and gas industry is just a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. You would have us make the same mistake a second time.
Instead, how about we just let the market take care of itself? Let oil and gas go to $100 a gallon, and you'll get the change you desire.
I'd always thought that the interstate highway system was constructed specifically to support the defense industry.
As for alternative power... anyone serious about it includes nuclear power. Alternatives such as solar and wind (and wind, for some reason tends to impact very badly on birds of prey, unless they fixed that problem) require heavy subsidies and while that may be a good plan for the future, it mostly just sounds good to the right people now. People that don't realize that they'll be paying for it, and those who plan to take advantage of the subsidies.
The idea that rich corporations are *bad* is a religious belief at heart. It's something taken on faith because it sounds good.
The national highway system was built to subsidize the oil and gas industry. That is either a joke, bad one at that or the person that wrote that is serious misinformed.
A problem with someone making statements like the one above is that no one(press) points out the failure in the statement. Thank you Mario.
Okay, the origins of the Interstate for anyone who cares can be found here. Below is an excerpt:
Legend has it that the Interstate began with President Roosevelt drawing three lines East and West and three lines North and South on a map of the United States and asking the Bureau of Public Roads to build it. That probably is a legend but I have no doubt that the President did draw those lines on a map as we shall see.
The first formal inquiry into the possibility of building an Interstate system goes back to Section 13 of the Federal Highway Act of 1938 which states..."The Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads is hereby directed to investigate and make a report of his findings and recommend feasibility of building, and cost of, super highways not exceeding three in number, running in a general direction from the eastern to the western portion of the United States, and not exceeding three in number, running from the northern to the southern portion of the United States, including the feasibility of a toll system on such roads."
But why would Congress put that in the Act? What did they want to accomplish? Congress usually calls for a study when they are feeling a lot of pressure to legislate something. This was the case then. There was a strong "Superhighway" movement and FDR was one of the advocates. The following article was published in the Washington Post February 20, 1935...
Class dismissed.
I never said that the highways were built specifically to subsidize the gasoline industry but that this industry could not have exploded the way it did without what the federal gov't did. This was in response to someone tying alternative energy to "legislative action." My point is all sorts of economic changes are a result of legislative action, whether intended or not. The emphasis on roads and gas and cars was not a "mistake" at the time but it is a mistake now unless you want to be at war perpetually. Class dismissed? You are no professor but you are certainly a very smug self satisfied blogger- see your bizarre little crusade to get Gov "60%" Richardson to debate you. Good luck with that.
Sam, you're right, I'm not a professor; however, I did spend five years in a classroom as a teacher. I also have a Masters Degree, so I would imagine I could teach at the college level if I so choose. As it so happens, my degree is in counseling, so I feel pretty confident in saying that your ad hominem attacks are the result of projecting.
Your point is very close to mine: "all sorts of economic changes are a result of legislative action, whether intended or not." My point is that the unintended negative consequences outweighs the intended positives more often than not. History is the best way to analyze those results, and to prevent the same mistakes in the future.
I think it will be interesting to see how many people do not vote for Richardson on election day.
Commenting by HaloScan
