Thanks for Commenting
Not sure about Ms. de'Pascal but in the end Brad Winter voted to extend out the tax instead of reducing it, i.e. from this morning's Journal
"The override of the veto was favored by Isaac Benton, Michael Cadigan, Don Harris, Martin Heinrich, Debbie O'Malley and Brad Winter. It was opposed by Craig Loy, Sally Mayer and Ken Sanchez.
"
Rory, you more than anyone, ought to recognize this for what it is - political games. The Mayor's veto of the tax cut is an empty gesture simply designed to be spun for political gain. Mayor Marty should have just let it stand as is. Granted, we would all prefer for a tax cut to take effect immediately; however, spending a six months going back and forth in a pissing contest, doesn't get us the tax break any sooner either.
If the Mayor really wanted to make a statement, instead of vetoing the budget, he could have put forth another 1/8 cent tax cut. Now that would have been a bold move.
Oh I agree it is all ploitical games and Marty is trying to position himself for something else. However, knowing Winter as I do his vote was because he is still bitter over loseing to Marty. I also agree that Marty should come forward with another 1/8 cent tax cut.
Well, I'm glad to see public funding of campaigns is off to such a great start. Now we, the taxpayers, get to pay for the campaigns in order to leave more money for front groups to spend in slander campaigns. It's a beautiful new day.
Rory has already pointed out the discrepancy, or lack thereof. But I do find it interesting that you use this opportunity to slam public funding of campaigns. I prefer to look at public funding as a way for people of more modest means having a legitimate shot at election. Many people of modest means with NO political connections would make fine political leaders. A campaign finance system without public funding is the child birthed by our two major political parties. In other words it is a system to guarantee that Republicans and Democrats maintain their lock on public office.
You know I don't particularly care for the R's, but quite frankly the D's are only a touch better. The real difference in the two major parties is how quickly they fall on their knees and worship at the altar of "big money". Generally speaking, the R's genuflect just a bit quicker, but not by much.
By the way, I did finally find the AP report about David Obey's remarks on earmarks. If earmarks see the light of day and have a persons name attached to it, then at least we have some accountability. I don't have a problem with earmarks so long as we know the who and why of the line item. But I will be disappointed if last minute items are snuck into the appropriations. THAT is the real problem.
My recommendation for you and your R buddies is to put a leash on Heather and Pete as a sign of good will. They are both pretty good at this pork barrel stuff. Maybe starting with folks in your own party will make the rest of us believe you are sincere about ending all the unbalanced budgets. Or, maybe we can wait until the end of the cycle and see what the real, if any, difference a year (and an election) makes in the budget.
Thanks for the post, Mario. It's unfortunate that the battle around the tax cut has turned into a political hit campaign. It's also unfortunate that there hasn't been more disclosure around the mail pieces and robo calls that have gone into certain districts.
Mario, I also want to comment on the popular new public financing system. First I'm quite certain folks who live in the East Mountains will not be paying for Albuquerque's public financing system. Second, those living in Albuquerque approved the system by almost 70% in a referendum two years ago. Albuquerque residents understand this innovative system will cost each of them only about $1 per year. It will not only provide for more speech during our election process, it will also allow candidates to spend more time with voters.
While no system is perfect, the people of Albuquerque know that public financing beats the old status quo.
Matt,
"It's also unfortunate that there hasn't been more disclosure around the mail pieces and robo calls that have gone into certain districts."
Unfortunate? C'mon you can do better than that. If I were the champion of taxpayer funded campaigns, I wouldn't use the word "unfortunate" to describe an act that goes against everything that motivates those who support taxpayer funded campaigns. Where's the outrage? Where's the anger? Matt, I know you're a good guy, and I know you are firm believer in civil discourse, but somethings deserved to be condemned. Join me and strongly condemn their actions. Save the talk of "unfortunate" things for accidents.
As to East Mountain folks paying for Albuquerque elections, this might come as a surprise to you, but many East Mountain folks pay ABQ GRT, so yeah, they're paying for the elections.
Mario,
Whether it's using the word "unfortunate," or "outraged," or anything else, the Committee for Responsible Budgets' tactics are wrong.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised at your righteous indignation over my choice of words. Just because someone doesn't express outrage in the manner you deem appropriate doesn't mean they are not working to expose and address the problem. I think instead of splitting hairs over my use of words, your energy can be much better spent digging into this issue a little bit more to see what you can reveal through your heavily trafficked blog. We're on the same side with this disclosure business; let's not forget that.
As for East Mountain folks paying GRT in ABQ, you make a valid point. But, with the low cost and overwhelming popularity of the public financing system in our city, it's a pretty minute point.
Matt, I've got a pretty good idea who is behind the phone calls. Unfortunately, I have not figured out how to confirm my hunches.
With regard to "righteous indignation," I think you know me better than that. I don't really get indignant about these things. I'm glad to hear you're experiencing outrage, albeit repressed outrage. 
Commenting by HaloScan
