Fourteen Democrats, and counting, have either declared their candidacies for president or have begun campaigns with the establishment of presidential exploratory committees.

Eleven Democrats are considering running and many will no doubt announce for President within a few more weeks.

So far, President Donald Trump is the only Republican who has announced he is running for election in 2020.

Both Democrats Hillary Clinton, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Ohio United States Senator Sherrod Brown have announced they are not running.

NOTE: For the complete listing of all the candidates by name, see the below postscript after this article.

DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY POLLS

On February 12, 2019, a poll was released by Morning Poll that tracked how those considered to be the top Democratic presidential candidates with bases of support and financial backers are doing among Democratic primary voters nationwide and in early voting states.

The poll was taken in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

More than 5,000 registered voters were polled daily and each week to track how the race changes.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders emerged as the two main preferences at this point in time with Kamala Harris coming in 3rd and all the others in single digits.

The poll released by Morning Consult revealed the following:

Joe Biden 29%
Bernie Sanders 22%
Kamala Harris 13%
Elizabeth Warren 8%
Beto O’Rourke 7%
Cory Booker 5%
Amy Klobuchar 3%

Among early Democrat primary state voters, Joe Biden has a bigger lead with 33% support, followed by Bernie Sanders at 21%, Kamal Harris at 11 percent, Elizabeth Warren at 10%, Cory Booker at 6%, and Beto O’Rourke at 5% with Amy Klobuchar polling at 2%.

Morning Consult also asked voters who their second choice would be.

Biden, Warren, and O’Rourke voters said Sanders was their second choice.

Sanders and Harris voters said Biden was their second choice.

The age demographics was very revealing.

Among the top five candidates of Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren, and O’Rourke, former Vice President Biden’s supporters are the oldest, with an average age of 52.

Among the top five candidates, Sanders’s supporters are the youngest, averaging 41.

44% of Sanders supporters are under the age of 30, while 30% of Biden’s are over the age of 60.

Morning Consult asked Republican voters how they feel about 2020 with 1 in 5 saying they would like to see someone else besides President Donald Trump on the GOP ticket.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/12/18221752/2020-democrats-biden-bernie-sanders-beto-poll

TRUMP’S APPROVAL RATING REMAINS STEADY

On March 5, 2019, a Gallup Poll was taken from February 12 to February 28 based on interviews with 1,932 adults was released.

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3%.

The poll found that a clear majority of 54% of adults disapprove President Trump’s performance as president.

President Trump’s overall approval rating sits at 43%.

The Gallup Poll showed that President Trump’s approval rating on the economy has reached the highest level in his Presidency with a new high of 56% of adults approving of Trump’s handling of the economy.

The poll also found that 54% approve of Trump’s job with unemployment.

Further, a 51% majority of voters approve of Trump’s handling of North Korea despite his failure at the most recent summit that he walked away from.

According to the Gallup poll, Trump gets his lowest approval marks on his handling of relations with Russia (39%), race relations (38%), and corruption in government (37%).

Poll respondents were split heavily along partisan lines in their views of Trump.

A whopping 93% of Republicans approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, compared to just 20% of Democrats.

Additionally, just 6% of Democrats approve of Trump’s overall job performance, while 90% of Republicans approve, according to the Gallup poll.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/432595-trumps-approval-rating-on-economy-hits-new-high-gallup

HOUSE DEMOCRATS LAUNCH AGGRESSIVE NEW TRUMP PROBE

On March 3, 2019, Democrats in the United State House of Representatives launched a sweeping new probe of President Donald Trump.

Democratic leaders have pledged to investigate all avenues and review special counsel Robert Mueller’s upcoming report before trying take any drastic action such as impeachment.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said his committee was beginning the probe into possible obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power.

The committee sent document requests to 81 people linked to the president and his associates.

It is likely the Trump probe will be an aggressive investigation that threatens to shadow Trump through the 2020 election with potentially damaging inquiries into his White House, campaign and family businesses all leading to Articles of Impeachment against Trump .

https://www.apnews.com/c1c319d8e4c943a482d03195d069e92a

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is far too easy and all too tempting for political pundits to say that no matter who the Democrats nominate, that person will beat Donald Trump in 2020.

That would be very wishful thinking.

There are more reasons to impeach Trump than there are candidates running against Trump, and that is a hell of a lot of reasons.

It is apparent that the Republican Party has become the Donald Trump Party.

The GOP is nothing but an empty shell of what it use to be with a warped Donald Trump brand of “conservatism” which is a form of Trump Fascism.

The Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln nor the Party of Reagan.

President Trump is no better than the dictators he praises and admires: Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean President Kim Jung Un and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia who the CIA say personally ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashogge.

If Trump were running against all the Democrats combined in a national election, he would win a plurality vote with his 43% approval rating and his 90% Republican support, but thankfully that is not how it works.

Notwithstanding, the Democrat Party is also breaking up along varying degrees of its core values ranging from democrat socialist, progressives, corporate or capitalist democrats and moderate democrats.

The 2020 Democrat Presidential Primary Campaign is gearing up and it will likely be a real slug fest by all the candidates seeking attention and press headlines on a national level.

With so many Democrats running, it is difficult to imagine that any one candidate will emerge from the primary without any battle scares, some self-inflicted, and a weakened candidate.

The Democrat nominee will have a difficult time reuniting the party much like Hubert H. Humphrey and Jimmy Carter who both went through a bruising primary season, one as an outgoing Vice President and one as a sitting President with both eventually losing.

Hillary Clinton was never fully accepted by the Bernie Sanders supporters and she was accused of being a “corporate democrat”.

Clinton also failed to unite the party with Sanders supporters saying the primary was rigged in her favor, when it was more like Sanders supporters not accepting defeat in a national party he has never been a part of and party that never fully accepted him.

If Bernie Sanders does not become the Democrat nominee, many suggest he will not give it up and just run as an Independent or form a Socialist Democratic Party thereby ensuring Trumps election.

To Sanders, and his life’s work, preserving his “movement” will be far more important for him to be remembered than beating Trump.

The ultimate Democrat nominee may be too weak to take on a populist such as Trump who still has a large base of support that could enable him to squeak out another electoral college victory but losing the popular vote as he did last time to Clinton.

Trump has always appealed to America’s darker angels and sinister instincts.

Trump is the “Chaos President” and he thrives on it with always lying to the American public and with his base believing everything he says and does.

Trump has a strangle hold over all congressional Republicans who are afraid to oppose him on any level fearing his rath and the revenge of his base.

Trump has gotten away with being a racist and immoral on many levels, and for so many years, including his business dealing and paying off porn stars and vilifying the press as enemy of the people.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/02/20/ignorant-uneducated-simple-minded-racists-trump-and-news-editor/

According to Trump’s former private attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, Trump is a racist, a conman and a cheat and from all the criminal indictments resulting from the Mueller investigation, Trump has surrounded himself with the same type of people, including his family members.

Notwithstanding all of Trump’s shortcomings, his racism and immoral conduct and the negative baggage he carries, the Republican Party will nominate him again and it will be very difficult at this point for any one of the Democrats running now to beat him.

Two major events that have the potential of forcing Trump from office more so than not being elected again are the Robert Mueller Report on his investigation of Russia influencing the 2016 election and the Democratic control of the House of Representatives.

The extent of Trumps treason and obstruction of justice is coming into focus with the indictment and conviction of so many of his close associates and it is likely to be revealed in full by the Robert Mueller Report once released.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/01/16/extent-of-trumps-treason-and-obstruction-of-justice-coming-into-focus/

As the 2020 election approaches, it is likely we have a President that will be facing impeachment and removal from office.

The country will know soon enough if impeachment, conviction and removal from office is justified and if so, the Democratic nominee just may face off with President Michael Pence or for that matter United State Senator Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee again.

With any luck, President Trump will resign or be forced from office.

Otherwise, the Democratic nomination may not be worth much to whoever is nominated.

Democrats have a bad habit of rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory.
_______________________________________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Following is a listing of announced and un announced candidates for President:

DEMOCRATS WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

Beto O’Rourke (D): On March 14, 2019, Former United States Representative Robert Francis“Beto” O’Rourke, 46, announced his candidacy for President. O’Rouke served in the United States House from Texas’ 16th Congressional District, which includes El Paso, for 3 terms before losing a close election to Republican incumbent Ted Cruz in a U.S. Senate race last year. O’ Rourke shocked the country with his ability to raise close to $80 million to run against Cruz as well as the crowds he was able to energize.

Bernie Sanders (D) – Declared: Bernie Sanders, age 77, of Vermont, is an Independent, he announced a second run for the Democrat nomination proclaiming he is a Democrat Socialist. Within 24 hours announcing his candidacy, Sanders raised $4 million.

John Hickenlooper (D) – Declared: Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, age 67, made the long-expected announcement he is running for president in a video titled “Standing Tall”. Hickenlooper’s video announcement traces his life from laid-off geologist, to owner of a brew pub, to mayor of Denver and to governor, and touts the Democrat’s experience in a variety of fields.

Jay Inslee (D) – Declared: Washington Governor Jay Inslee, age 68, announced for President mixing calls for combating climate change and highlights of his liberal record with an aggressive critique of President Donald Trump.

Cory Booker (D) – Declared: United States Senator Cory Booker, age 49, is in his first full term representing New Jersey after winning a special election in 2013. Booker previously served as the mayor of Newark, New Jersey from 2006-2013.

Pete Buttigieg (D) – Exploratory Committee Launched: On January 23, 2019 Pete Buttigieg, age 37, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and the former Indiana state treasurer announced that he has formed an exploratory committee in order to run for president. He is an Afghan war veteran and Rhodes scholar who was first elected mayor in 2011, at age 29.

Julián Castro (D) – Declared: Julian Castro, age 44, is a former U.S. Housing and Urban Development during the Barack Obama administration and former mayor of San Antonio, Texas.

John Delaney (D) – Declared: Former U.S. Rep. John Delaney, age 55, of Maryland became the first Democrat to formally declare a 2020 candidacy for president in July 2017. Delaney co-founded health care and financial companies and served in the U.S. House from 2013 until early January 2019.

Tulsi Gabbard (D) – Declared: U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, age 37, of Hawaii has served in the U.S. House since 2013. She made her candidacy official in an announcement in February. Gabbard is a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees.

Kirsten Gillibrand (D) – Exploratory Committee Launched: United States Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, age 52, announced on January 15 that she filed an exploratory committee. Gillibrand was appointed to the U.S. Senate in 2009 after Hillary Clinton resigned to become Secretary of State and was elected in 2010 and 2016.

Kamala Harris (D) – Declared: United Sates Senator Kamala Harris, age 54, of California, announced on January 21 she is running for president. Harris is a former California Attorney General and was elected the Senate in 2016.

Amy Klobuchar (D) – Declared: U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, age 58, of Minnesota, announced her candidacy and he is serving her third term and serves on the Senate Judiciary, Rules, Agriculture and Commerce committees.

Elizabeth Warren (D) – Declared: United States Senator Elizabeth Warren, age 69, of Massachusetts, announced on February 9, 2019 her candidacy. Warren lost credibility with her claim being Native American when she had a DNA testing done that revealed a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of Native American heritage, resulting in her issuing an apology to Native American activists.

Marianne Williamson (D) – Declared: Marianne Williamson, age 66, is an author and lecturer who is running for president. Considered a spiritual counselor for Oprah Winfrey, Williamson visited New Hampshire in early January.

Andrew Yang (D) – Declared: Andrew Yang, age 44, is an entrepreneur who announced his candidacy for president in the spring of 2018. He believes the federal government should provide everyone with a “Universal Basic Income.”

DEMOCRATS CONSIDERING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

Former Vice President Joe Biden (D): Former Vice President Joe Biden, age 76, has run for President twice before. If he announces another bid, he will likely be considered the front runner. Former President Barrack Obama would be hard press not to endorse him.

Michael Bennet (D): United Stated Senator Michael Bennet, age 54, serving second term representing Colorado, serves on the Senate Finance, Agriculture and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees.

Steve Bullock (D): Montana Governor Steve Bullock, age 52, is in his second term as Montana’s Governor after serving as his state’s attorney general. Bullock is currently chairman of the National Governors Association.

Bill DeBlasio (D): New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, age 57, is serving in his second term as Mayor the nation’s largest city. Before being elected mayor in 2013, DeBlasio was elected to three two-year terms on the New York City Council and a term as New York City Public Advocate.

John Kerry (D): John Kerry, age 75, is a former U.S. Secretary of State and former United States Senator. Kerry was the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee.

Mitch Landrieu (D): New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, age 58, was elected in 2006 and re-elected in 2010.

Terry McAuliffe (D): Former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, age 61, was chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005 and co-chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and was elected Virginia’s Governor in 2013.

Seth Moulton (D): United States Representative Seth Moulton, age 40, is in his second term representing the 6th Congressional District in Massachusetts.

Tim Ryan (D): United Sates Representative Tim Ryan, age 45, is serving in his ninth term in the U.S. House representing Northeastern Ohio. Ryan unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Nancy Pelosi for U.S. House Minority Leader in 2017.

Eric Swalwell (D): United Sates Representative Eric Swalwell, age 38, is in his fourth term representing California’s 15th Congressional District and a member of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

REPUBLICANS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

President Donald Trump (R) – Declared: Donald J. Trump, age 71, the 45th president of the United States, is running for re-election. Trump won the 2016 first-in-the-nation primary by a 35-percent to 16-percent margin over former Ohio Governor John Kasich, while other candidates trailed far behind.

William Weld (R) – Formed exploratory committee: Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, 73, was the vice-presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, running with presidential nominee former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

OTHER REPUBLICANS CONSIDERING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

John Kasich (R): Former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, age 66, finished second to President Donald Trump in the 2016 New Hampshire presidential primary and in the overall nomination race.

Larry Hogan (R): Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, age 62, a Republican, was elected to his second term in November and has not ruled out a run for president.

INDEPENDENTS CONSIDERING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

Mark Cuban (I): Mark Cuban, age 49, of Texas, is an investor, entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks National Basketball Association team. He has said if he runs, he would probably do so as an independent.

Howard Schultz (I): Howard Schultz, age 65, the former chief executive officer of Starbucks, is a self-described lifelong Democrat but has said he is strongly considering running for president as an independent.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, New Mexico is 1 of 6 states without a statewide ethics commission.

New Mexico has had more than its share of public corruption scandals over the years.

Public corruption scandals in New Mexico involving elected officials go back decades, with two state treasurers, two state senators, a secretary of state and a deputy insurance superintendent all going to prison on criminal charges.

On November 5, 2018, New Mexico voters overwhelmingly voted with a three-quarters majority for a constitutional amendment to establish an independent statewide ethics commission.

The commission as envisioned will be authorized to look at alleged misconduct by state officers as well as employees of the executive and legislative branches, plus candidates, lobbyists, government contractors and those seeking government contracts.

The new commission is to have broad powers, including the ability to subpoena witnesses.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-mexico-overwhelmingly-backs-ethics-commission/article_54cd9aca-e4c3-56c8-8bf0-6968fd5018ea.html

PENDING LEGISLATION

On Sunday March 3, 2019, HB 4, the house bill creating the voter-mandated ethics commission won bipartisan approval.

It passed with a 56-11 vote margin.

It will be a seven-member commission.

HB 4 has now been forwarded to the New Mexico Senate where a competing proposal outlining the powers and procedures for independent commission is under consideration.

Democrat State Representative Daymon Ely, D-Corrales, who is also a New Mexico licensed attorney, had this to say about the passage of HB 4:

“My hope is that if this bill becomes law, we have balanced two things: the public’s right to expect that we’re going to be held accountable for our actions … But also, and equally important, due process for those people accused of wrongful conduct.”

Executive Director of Common Cause New Mexico Heather Ferguson had this to say:

“[The House Bill incorporates] the best principles of what would make an effective ethics commission. … The whole goal of this commission is to rebuild public trust that has been so deeply eroded over time and high-profile, scandalous cases where our elected officials have gone to jail.”

For 40 years, Common Cause has worked on trying to get an ethics commission created by the legislature and campaign heavily for the constitutional amendment approved by voters.

POWER OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION

Under the approved house bill, complaints would be made public when commission officials find that “probable cause” exists to start an investigation.

“Probable cause” in a criminal setting is defined as evidence initially reflecting that it is more likely than not that something wrong has occurred.

Complaints that are found by the commission to be frivolous or unsubstantiated could be made public by the complainant or respondent which supporters argue will act as a check on the commission itself.

HB 4 gives the Ethics Commission subpoena power which is absolutely necessary to empower the commission with real authority to investigate.

HB 4 also gives the commission the authority to issue “advisory opinions” to help elected and government officials to avoid “accidental” violations of the campaign finance laws.

The biggest benefit to advisory opinions is that it will aide in avoiding or preventing mistakes by providing guidance and clear advice on what can and cannot be done under campaign finance laws.

A major area of concern and debate before the house vote was taken was the proper length for a “blackout period” before an election during which the commission would not adjudicate a complaint filed against a candidate except pursuant to the Campaign Reporting Act or Voter Action Act.

The House Bill approved a black out period of 60 days before an election.

An amendment proposing expanding the “blackout period” so that it would begin 60 days before the start of early voting was tabled and therefor failed.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1287813/house-gives-ok-to-ethics-commission.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

A rogues gallery of unethical conduct, fraud, theft and abuse of power and influence in New Mexico politics includes Former Democrat State Senator Manny Aragon, two former Democrat State Treasurers, Michael Montoya and Robert Vigil, former Republican Secretary of State Dianna Duran, former Democrat State Senator Phil Griego, former Republican State Senator Monica Youngblood and most recently former Republican New Mexico Taxation, and Revenue Secretary Demesia Padilla.

Unproven allegations of “pay to play” plagued the 8-year tenure of Democrat Governor Bill Richardson with a federal grand jury investigation resulting in no indictments and no finding of “pay to play”.

Former Republican United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico Gregg Forate, with an obvious strong Republican partisan bias, released a scathing letter of condemnation that accused the Richardson administration of “corrupting” the government contract award process.

Forate was later appointed Secretary of Public Safety by Richardson’s Republican successor and he now serves as a Federal Magistrate appointed by President Donald Trump.

During the 8-year tenure of former Republican Governor “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”, allegations of unethical conduct and undue influence with the award of the billion-dollar, 20-year Downs Race Track Lease, dubbed the “Dirty Downs Deal”, occurred.

What also occurred was a federal grand jury investigation of the Republican Governor’s number one political consultant and campaign manager relating to misuse of her inauguration funding.

A statewide ethics commission will help rebuild trust in a state government that has experienced way too much corruption through the years, but only if it is empowered with real authority and only if actually does something.

The final version of the legislation creating the ethics commission needs to include the ability to remove or take civil action to remove officials from their positions or suspend them to some extent for unethical or improper conduct and strip them of authority for their conduct and even impose fines.

There is less than two weeks and counting until the 2019 legislative session ends, and the last two weeks is always very hectic with the passage of bills by both legislative chambers.

The New Mexico State Senate needs to act quickly and complete all the work necessary to finally create a state-wide ethics commission and send it on to the Governor for her signature.

On March 1, 2019, on a 40-25 vote for passage, the New Mexico House of Representatives approved House Bill 6 raising taxes.

The 40-25 vote was along party lines with Democrat Representatives Patricio Ruiloba of Albuquerque and Candie Sweetser of Deming voting against the legislation.

The legislation if adopted as is by the New Mexico State Senate will raise $356 million a year in new state revenues that will be dedicated to public schools, government operations and roads.

$320 million of the new revenue will go to public schools and other government operations and $36 million will go for state and local road projects.

A $7 billion state budget is pending in the Senate and it boosts overall spending nearly 11% over current levels.

The Senate budget includes a $449 million increase in public school spending.

The HB 6 increases personal income taxes on some high-income earners.

It raises gross receipt taxes on purchases of cigarettes and car sales.

The House Bill imposes new taxes on charitable hospitals, online retailers and e-cigarettes.

Tax breaks include bigger tax credits for low and middle-income families and increased new deductions for children and dependents.

During the House floor debate, Republicans strongly criticized the tax increases as a “money grab”, the tax increase will “choke” economic growth and the tax increase is not needed because of the States $1.2 billion budget surplus this year from the oil boom.

According to House Democrats, the state budget is too heavily dependent on the volatile royalties paid by the oil and gas industry.

Two years ago, the state had a budget crisis leading to a reduction in the states credit rating.

The strongest argument made by Democrats is the tax increase is necessary to stabilize government revenue and ensure New Mexico can support the dramatic increase in continue spending on education mandated by a landmark state court ruling.

Education is the number one priority for Democratic Governor Lujan Grisham and the legislature because of the District Court ruling.

On July 20, 2018, Santa Fe District Court Judge Sarah Singleton ruled that the state of New Mexico is violating the constitutional rights of at-risk students by failing to provide them with a sufficient education mandating massive increases for public education.

DETAILED HIGHLIGHTS OF TAX REFORM BILL

The major highlights of the tax reform overhaul enacted by the House include:

1. The House approved bill revises the state’s income tax brackets to make the system more “progressive” rather than flat and repealing a 2003 personal income tax cut enacted.

The top tax bracket for the highest earners will increase from 4.9% now to 6.5%:

For a married couple filing jointly, the top tax bracket will start at $300,000 or more for families. The tax increase is expected to raise about $132 million.

A married couple making $400,000 a year will pay a little more than $3,000 in income taxes.

A married couple making $70,000 a year, by contrast will see a $4 decrease under the new taxation.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1287192/tax-package-wins-house-approval.html

2. The House bill doubles the “working families” tax credit allowed for low- and moderate-income workers. The credit is for people who are eligible for the federal earned income tax credit. Instead of being able to claim 10 percent of their federal credit, they could claim 20 percent. It’s expected to cost about $53 million in revenue.

3. The House bill establishes an income tax deduction for taxpayers who have more than one dependent as part of an effort to offset an unintended state tax increase caused by the 2017 federal tax overhaul. It’s expected to cost about $48 million in revenue.

4. The House Bill revises the tax systems for hospitals, with the goal of creating a level playing field for not-for-profit, government and for-profit hospitals. Not-for-profit hospitals currently are exempt from paying state taxes. It’s expected to raise $92 million in general fund revenue in the next fiscal year.

5. The House Bill imposes gross receipts taxes on sales made by online retailers to New Mexicans, including the imposition of the city and local parts of the tax. It’s expected to raise $42 million in general-fund revenue next fiscal year.

8. The House bill repeals parts of the capital gains deduction allowed for personal income taxes, which will raise about $62 million.

9. HB 6 increases the excise tax on motor vehicle purchases from 3 percent to 4.2 percent, which will raise about $65 million. The money would largely go to the general fund, though some lawmakers suggest the idea of changing the bill to mandate the revenues be used for road and highways.

10. HB 6 raise taxes on tobacco and impose taxes on vaping products, which would generate $20 million for the state general fund.

11. HB 6 changes how corporate income taxes are calculated as a way to keep multistate corporations from “shifting” their income to another state to avoid New Mexico taxes. It would help some companies and hurt others, legislative analysts said, so the overall impact on state revenue is unclear, but likely positive.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1285170/house-democrats-unveil-tax-proposal.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is less than two weeks left in the 2019 legislative session and the tax overhaul legislation now heads to the Senate for approval where it may be met with some resistance by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

It is not at all surprising that the New Mexico Legislature is considering tax reform legislation and increasing taxes to some extent.

Much of the increase in spending under consideration by the New Mexico Legislature will require recurring revenue sources, especially for public education and teacher salaries.

During the last 8 years, former Republican Governor “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” resisted and opposed any and all tax increases, no matter the need or justification, to avoid any and all tax increases at all costs, the result which is a major decline in the delivery of essential government services.

Instead of supporting tax increases former Republican Governor “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” was more concerned about following Republican dogma of “no tax increases” and “reducing the size of government” by ordering spending cuts, reduced take-home pay for state employees, budget-balancing maneuvers and a downsizing of state government.

There are some 3,000 positions that are vacant or that have been lost in state government with government employees required to do more work for the same pay to fill the void of lost personnel.

With the election of Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, it makes it more likely than not that tax code changes under HB 6 will be enacted with very few changes in the Senate and the Governor will sign it.

Calling for increasing taxes when the state is experiencing at least a $1.1 billion in additional revenues from the oil and gas production is a very difficult sell but it is necessary.

The $1.1 billion-dollar surplus is a one-shot infusion of funding, that once spent, it’s gone.

Historically, the oil and gas industry is way to volatile to presume that billion dollar surpluses will continue over a period of years that can fund recurring budget expenditures for education and essential government services

The highest and best use for the $1.1 billion is to spend it on major projects such as road and bridge construction and repairs or construction of new facilities such as replacing aging and deteriorating Tingly Coliseum with a state-of-the-art facility.

Less than two weeks and counting until the 2019 legislative session ends, and the last two weeks is always very hectic with the passage of bills by both chambers.

The February 27, 2019 congressional testimony of former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen for Trump was a sweeping and dramatic condemnation of the President.

After hours of questioning and testimony, the words in his opening statement were the most quoted and will be most remembered and include:

“I got to know [Trump] very well, working very closely with him for more than 10 years, as his Executive Vice President and Special Counsel and then personal attorney when he became President.”
…

“I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump’s illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience.
I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is.
He is a racist.
He is a conman.
He is a cheat.”

Below is the link to the full transcript of the opening statement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/politics/cohen-documents-testimony.html

After the opening statement, all hell broke loose with the committee’s Republicans repeatedly attacking Michael Cohen’s credibility accusing him of being a liar, a convicted felon and a disbarred attorney.

More than two-thirds of Republican questioning at the Cohen hearing was attacking Cohen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/28/more-than-two-thirds-republican-questioning-cohen-hearing-was-attacking-cohen/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5fa97536cc77

Congressman Jim Jordan (Ohio), the Ranking Republican Member of the House Oversight Committee, took the lead in attacking Cohen.

Jordan has been serving in the House since 2007 and he is a founding member of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus that is a staunch defender of all things Trump, including believing and then promoting all of Trump’s lies to the public, especially the declaration of a national emergency to build the wall on the boarder with Mexico.

Repeatedly the Republicans on the committee asked why they should believe what he was testifying to under oath seeing as he was convicted of lying to congress before.

The Republicans on the committee acted shocked and outrage as if they had never heard such accusation before, even though Cohen presented documented proof of what he said.

Absolutely no one should be surprised that no Republican on the committee wanted to believe what Cohen testified to under oath when the Republican Party did not believe what the 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney had to say just 3 years ago about Trump.

On March 3, 2016, Mitt Romney in a televised speech denouncing Trump had this to say:

“Here’s what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. … His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat. … dishonesty is Donald Trump’s hallmark … [his] bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics.”

For more see the below link:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/mitt-romney-presidential-race-speech/index.html

United Senator Mitt Romney needs to be reminded what he said about Trump and we all need to hope he will not hesitate to vote to convict Donald Trump of Obstruction of Justice charged in articles of impeachment to remove Trump from office.

KOAT Channel 7 did one of its so called “Investigative Reports” regarding the 15 year old 2003 gross receipts tax called the “public safety tax” and placed on the ballot and approved by voters.

The Channel 7 “Investigative Report” was more of a “City Hall” hit job that was false and misleading.

You can view the entire Channel 7 report here:

https://www.koat.com/article/where-did-dollar500-million-that-was-suppose-to-make-albuquerque-safer-go/26505435

Under state law, the Albuquerque City Council can enact increases in gross receipts tax on its own without any public vote.

In 2003, the tax was placed on the ballot because then Mayor Martin Chavez and others at the time had made the commitment not to raise taxes without a public vote to secure public opinion and backing, even though they had the authority to do it without a public vote.

According to the Channel 7 report, during the last 15 years, the tax raised $500 million and has cost the average Albuquerque household approximately $4,000.

The problem with the $4,000 figure is you must assume only households paid the tax, no one has moved, no one has left the city and the population remained the same during the last 15 years.

The truth is that the gross receipts tax generated 25 cents for every $100 purchased by virtually all consumers over the years.

Back in 2003, city leaders, including then Mayor Chavez, the City Council and the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) told the voting public all the money generated from the “public safety tax” would go to hire more police and make the streets safer.

A specific promise made was that APD sworn personnel would be increased to 1,100 officers.

Channel 7 went out of its way to find a small Albuquerque business owner for 30 years, who claimed they voted for the “Public Safety Tax” 15 years ago and the business owner had this to say in the report:

“Crime is ramped in this community and I have lived here my whole life and don’t see it getting any better right now. … I have iron bars on all of the windows and doors. I have video surveillance and I have security throughout the entire building.”

The four-month Target 7 investigation supposedly revealed that voters never got what was promised, but that part of the report is clearly false.

PUBLIC SAFETY TAX ADVISORY BOARD PROMISED, NOT CREATED

One accurate fact reported by the Channel 7 Investigative report related to the “Public Safety Tax Advisory Board”.

According to the Channel 7 report, four years after the 2003 vote, “a group of concerned citizens became suspicious” about how the tax money was spent and they approached then newly elected City Councilor Isaac Benton.

According to Benton:

“I was approached by people who had concerns about it. … Concerns about whether it was doing what it was intended. … We didn’t get a lot of applicants to create the board. It didn’t gather a lot of steam. … It kind of foundered and was forgotten honestly”

Instead of demanding an accounting from the Chavez Administration or requesting an audit by the City’s Independent Internal Audit Department, Benton sponsored an ordinance creating a “public safety tax advisory board” to watch over the spending of the tax.

In the 2009 annual city budget, the City Council reported that it actually established the board, even though it was never formed.

In 2010 the City’s Independent Internal Auditor’s office discovered the board had not been formed when it audited the revenue being generated by the 2003 tax.

In 2010, the Independent Internal Audit Department recommended that the council make more efforts to recruit members, but nothing happened.

Channel 7 reported that when it looked on the city’s website during its investigation, it listed all of the boards and commission but under the Public Safety Tax Advisory Board it said “more information coming.”

CHANNEL 7’s NEGATIVE SPIN REPORT

The Channel 7 Investigative report was false or misleading on many levels.

The report was a damaging and inflammatory “spin” on where the unspent 2003 public safety tax revenues went.

Following is an extended quotation and narrative made by Doug Fernandez in his report:

“According to the FBI uniformed crime report, the police department never hit 1,100 officers, which was promised by city leaders in 2003 when they were pushing for the tax.”

“Instead billions of pennies from your purchases were put into the city’s general fund. That fund is the city’s main checkbook.”

“For years the city budgeted for that many cops even though it never came close. The police department would revert money it hadn’t spent back into the general fund. In 2017, the city reported to the FBI it had 833 officers and its crime rate was the highest in 16 years.”

“The city would then use the general fund to pay for visitor centers, baseball fields, swimming pool renovations and the future home of Top Golf.”

“The general fund also paid millions in raises for city employees. Not just for cops and firefighters.”

“Garbage truck drivers, street workers, health inspectors and politically appointed executives all got double-digit raises.”

“The average city employee has received a 27-percent raise since the tax was passed.”
…

“Just last March, the city council passed another public safety tax even larger than before. This time it never went to voters nor was there any legislation requiring oversight such as board to make sure it was being spent correctly.

“The new tax hits you with another 38 cents per $100.”

“However, in December the council passed legislation requiring that the mayor report how the new tax is being spent.”

True to form, Channel 7 made sure they had someone vouch for their “reporting” by getting Paul Gessing, executive director of the ultra-conservative Rio Grande Foundation that condemns all taxation.

Paul Gessing took the Channel 7 bait to “pile on” to condemn the city taxation and make a statement that was misleading at best when he said:

“When the city of Albuquerque voters decided to raise taxes on themselves to pay for public safety, they didn’t get what they voted for … They got the opposite.”

The truth is the taxpayer did indeed get what they voted for as pointed out below.

When it comes to the tax being used for city hall employee salaries, the same small Albuquerque business owner Channel 7 interviewed expressed the following opinion:

“How nice for them. My salary hasn’t increased that much. … We weren’t told that. We weren’t told it would go to salaries. We were told it would go toward public safety, which means they lied to us and that’s not OK.”

The average city employee is paid $36,000 a year.

Albuquerque City Councilor Brad Winter, who is the only city councilor who was on the council when voters passed the tax, had this to say:

“I don’t know if you will ever be able to prove that it was spent for what it was supposed to be spent for … We got to be accountable for where that money is going, and the red flags show we are not as accountable as we should be.”

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

An outside observer no doubt would say the report reveals just how sinister and dishonest city hall is with taxpayer money, which was the obvious result Channel 7 wanted to get from its viewers.

In political circles, the Channel 7 News Report is defined as a “political hit” piece to inflame public opinion, this time against city hall and taxation.

It was Channel 7 News Anchor Doug Fernandez who appeared on air and reported the Channel 7 “Investigative Report”.

The station no doubt thought that Fernandez as the news anchor would give the report far more credibility, but it did not and he should have known the truth.

Doug Fernandez joined the Action 7 News team in August 2002, and as such should be familiar with the truth on how the 2003 Public Safety Tax was spent from 2003 to 2009 during the Mayor Chavez years.

FALSE OR MISLEADING REPORTING BY CHANNEL 7

The news report was represented as a “four-month Target 7 investigation” which is very embarrassing considering the serious false and misleading statements in the report.

The Channel 7 report was false when it reported:

“According to the FBI uniformed crime report, the police department never hit 1,100 officers, which was promised by city leaders in 2003 when they were pushing for the tax”.

The truth is that after the 2003 enactment of the tax, the Chavez Administration undertook an aggressive police recruitment program to grow the department that included billboards and other types of advertising and recruitment efforts and extensive hiring incentives such as sign on bonuses, college debt reduction payments and mortgage down payments.

The truth not reported by Channel 7 is that APD reached the 1,100 sworn police officer level in 2009 after struggling to grow the department and to keep up with retirements, adding new equipment, fleets of cars and training.

In 2009, all because of the 2003 tax, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was the best paid, best trained, best equipped, best funded department in its history.

In 2009, APD was fully staffed with 1,100 sworn police officers.

In 2009, APD response times had been brought down below the national average and violent and property crime rates in Albuquerque were hitting historical lows.

In other words, taxpayers were not lied to and got exactly what they paid for with the 2003 tax contrary to the opinions of Paul Gessing and contrary to the Channel 7 Investigative news report.

MAYOR BERRY’S APD

On December 1, 2009 Mayor Richard Berry became Mayor of Albuquerque and was elected again in 2013 serving two full terms and leaving office December 1, 2017.

It was in January, 2010 that number of police officers employed began to decrease for 8 consecutive years from 1,100 to 850 under the Mayor Richard Berry Administration.

In eight (8) years, under the public safety leadership of Mayor Berry and the likes of Darren White as Chief Public Safety Officer and Chiefs Ray Schultz and Gordon Eden and Assistant Chief Robert Huntsman and their appointed Deputy Police Chiefs, APD went from 1,100 sworn police all the way down to 853 sworn police.

In 2017 when Berry left office, APD response times and the city’s crime rates were at historical highs with calls to APD taking hours instead of minutes to respond to even violent crime calls for service.

The numbers of police dropped because of the Berry Administration failure to recruit new officers and failure to keep up with excessive retirements.

Contributing to APDs problems was that in 2013, a Department of Justice investigation resulted in a finding of excessive use of force and deadly force by APD which resulted in a federal consent decree against the city mandating numerous reforms.

Excessive use of force and deadly force cases by APD cost taxpayers $60 million in settlements all mostly paid during the Berry years.

It was in 2017 that the City Council reduced funding to APD from 1,100 sworn police to 1,000 because of the Berry Administration’s failure to keep up with retirements and grow the department.

The Channel 7 Investigative Report is at worse false or at best misleading when Doug Fernandez said:

“The police department would revert money it hadn’t spent back into the general fund. … The city would then use the general fund to pay for visitor centers, baseball fields, swimming pool renovations and the future home of Top Golf.”

IGNORANCE OF CITY FINANCES

The Channel 7 Investigative Report showed an obvious ignorance of city taxation and city finances and how they work.

Under the law, virtually every city department is required to revert back to the city general fund with no exceptions moneys that have been appropriated but not used by the department.

Under city financing policies, no department, including APD, is allowed to keep “unspent money” in any given year and it is mandated by law that it revert back to the general fund for the upcoming fiscal year budget.

No separate accounts akin to “savings accounts” can be set up for the city departments that allow them to spend remaining funds as they see fit at a later date.

All budgets and all appropriations must be approved by the elected City council.

The Channel 7 report is false when it reported that the public safety tax money was reverted by APD to the general fund to pay for “visitor centers, baseball fields, swimming pool renovations”.

The truth is that projects like “visitor centers, baseball fields, swimming pool renovations” are funded by “general obligation bonds” or “revenue bonds” passed by the voters or city council and not the general fund revenues from gross receipts tax.

With respect to the funding for “the future home of Top Golf”, that city financing came from an economic development incentive fund set up years ago within the City Economic Development Department.

It is likely that all of the 2003 tax revenues did go to public safety, police and fire, and that the money generated substituted or supplemented existing budget expenditures over the years, ebbing and flowing with the needs of the departments of police and fire.

The Channel 7 Report negatively embellished the facts when it reported:

“The average city employee has received a 27-percent raise since the tax was passed. … Garbage truck drivers, street workers, health inspectors and politically appointed executives all got double-digit raises.”

Saying that the average city employee “has received a 27% raise since the tax was imposed” during the last 15 years is false or misleading in that you must presume someone has stayed employed for the full 15 years.

People come and go with the city, positions are added or eliminated, and wages must be negotiated with the unions.

The truth is that garbage truck drivers, street workers, health inspectors received small 1% or 2% pay increases at the most over the years with no pay increases at all for a number of years, especially during the 8-year Berry Administration when it unilaterally suspended negotiated contracts.

However, during the 8 years of the Berry Administration, politically appointed executives did get double-digit raises with the most egregious raise being the salary of Berry’s Chief Administrative Officer Rob Perry who went from being paid $150,000 a year to almost $200,000 a year.

2018 GROSS RECEIPTS TAX INCREASE

The Channel 7 report contains the following statement:

“Just last March, the city council passed another public safety tax even larger than before. This time it never went to voters nor was there any legislation requiring oversight such as board to make sure it was being spent correctly.”

The truth is that the City Council has the exclusive authority to raise taxes without a vote as well as dedicate revenues as it sees fit, without any oversight board required.

The city council also has the authority, by virtue of its authority over the city budget, to re dedicate funding when not spent as the need presents itself.

Elected City Councilors have the duty and responsibility to exercise oversight authority over all city funding and that is what they are elected and paid to do.

There is absolutely no need for an “oversight” board like a “public safety tax advisory board” if the City Council does its job. .

The City also has an Independent Audit Department that can be called upon to review and trace expenditures.

In the Channel 7 report, City Councilors Brad Winter and Issac Benton essentially admitted that the City Council failed in its oversight of the 2003 tax revenues, which is what the yearly budget process is all about.

City Councilors Brad Winter and Issac Benton revealed their incompetence as elected officials with their comments to Channel 7 when they said there is a need for a “Public Safety Tax Advisory Board” and saying they do not know where money they have voted to appropriate has been going.

In March, 2018 the City Council approved raising the gross receipts tax by three-eighths of a percentage point in order to deal with a $40 million shortfall as a result of 8 years of spending cuts and downsizing city government in order to avoid any and all tax increases.

The gross receipts tax increase bolstered the city’s income by an estimated $50.3 million in 2019 and $57.3 million in 2020.

Mayor Tim Keller signed the tax increase going against a campaign promise he made to get elected of putting any tax increase on the ballot for voter approval.

When the City Council enacted of the gross receipts tax in March of 2018, it dedicated 70% of the revenues for public safety needs.

What Channel 7 did not report is the Keller administration is spending $88 million dollars, over a four-year period, with 32 million dollars of recurring expenditures to hire 350 officers and expand APD from 878 sworn police officers to 1,200 officers in order to return to community-based policing.

With the 2018 tax increase, the Keller Admiration has negotiated with the police union significant APD pay raises and bonuses and an aggressive hiring and recruitment program offering incentives to join or return to APD.

APD is projected to have 980 sworn police by July of this year having added approximately 100 sworn to the force.

Repealing either the 2003 or the 2018 tax increases as some suggest would have a disastrous effect on public safety, APD and Fire especially, the $88 million APD expansion program, the $35 million in nonrecurring expenses, not to mention equipment needs for both departments and the longevity pay bonuses for APD and the very generous pay increases.

CHANNEL 7 INVESTIGATIVE PRODUCER WAS CITY EMPLOYEE

When you review the online version of the Chanel 7 report on the TV web site, it reveals T.J. Wilham was the “Investigative Producer” for the report, meaning he is the person that did the research for the report and perhaps even wrote it to be parroted by Doug Fernandez.

https://www.koat.com/article/where-did-dollar500-million-that-was-suppose-to-make-albuquerque-safer-go/26505435

Nine years ago, T.J. Wilham was a reporter for the Albuquerque Journal.

Channel 7 frequently refers to “our partners at the Albuquerque Journal” in reporting the news.

It is more likely than not that Fernandez and Wilham have known each other for some time.

Nine years ago, T.J. Wilham, after being the Albuquerque Journal city hall reporter for a number of years, was hired by Mayor Richard Berry as his “Public Information Officer” and his pay in all likelihood more than doubled.

Wilham was employed by Berry Administration for a full 8 years, being paid at least $75,000 a year or more from 2009 to 2017.

When Doug Fernandez reported that “ … politically appointed executives all got double-digit raises” he failed to report that his coworker T.J. Wilham was one of those politically appointed executives who was not only given a significant raise but a nice promotion.

Early in 2017, Wilham was appointed by Mayor Richard Berry as the APD Real Time Crime Center Director despite having no law enforcement background and was given an increase in salary.

Soon after the election of Mayor Tim Keller in 2017, T.J. Wilham left city hall and went to work for Channel 7 in mid-2018, but the reason for his departure from City Hall was never reported upon by any news agency resulting in speculation that he did not leave voluntarily.

CONCLUSION

For many years, the “Investigative Report” has been very popular method with Channel 7 to try find and report on government corruption.

It is all too common for “Investigative reports” such as this one to take things out of context, mislead the public, and not disclose relevant facts nor report accurately all the facts, and overtime the TV news agency loses credibility with its viewers and their ratings drop.

None of the Albuquerque News stations is immune from using the same tactics of investigative reporting with the other stations essentially adopting the tactics of Channel 7.

No person and no government has the authority to tell any news agency who to report on, what to report on, when to report, how to report, what methods to use to get a story or to disclose news sources, unless they break the law, which is what the first amendment to the constitution guaranteeing freedom of the press and speech is all about.

The Channel 7 Investigative Report without any doubt is protected free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The first amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press and of free speech are the most critical freedoms needed to keep this great country great.

This country has always been great because our freedoms and those freedoms have always protected us from tyranny.

However, the general public and viewers have the right to demand accuracy and full disclosure.

The Channel 7 Investigative Report on the tax increases was not “fake news” at all but it was negligent and misleading news reporting.

A comprehensive tax bill to make major changes to New Mexico’s tax code is moving forward in New Mexico House of Representatives with hearings being held in the House Taxation and Revenue Committee.

House Bill 6 (HB6), if approved by both the House and Senate, will overhaul New Mexico’s tax system.

Hearings on the bill are currently be conducted by the House Taxation and Revenue Committee, the likely last stop before moving to the House floor for a full vote of the House Chamber and then sent to the Senate.

The Bill as is will raise about $323 million a year for government operations and road projects.

According to a legislative analysis of HB 6, it will have the net effect of generating $286 million in new revenue for the state’s general fund with $37 million generated for state and local roads.

Albuquerque Democrat House Representative Javier Martínez, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the goal is to modernize New Mexico’s tax system and create a sustainable source of new funding for all public schools.

In defending HB 6, Representative Martinez had this to say:

“This is the first step of a process that’s going to take several years, I believe, to get there, but this is a very important first step. … For far too long, New Mexico has been way too dependent on the volatility of oil and gas. HB 6 broadens our tax base. It creates a sustainable revenue source for the state for years to come. We are looking at the wealthiest paying their fair share, we’re looking at income tax rates for the highest earners and bring them up to par . … Right now, the secretary and the doctor pay the same tax rate. That’s just inherently unfair.”

https://www.kob.com/politics-news/tax-reform-bill-draws-debate-at-the-roundhouse/5260192/?cat=500

In a nutshell, HB 6 would:

1 Raise taxes on cigarettes sales.
2. Raise taxes on motor vehicle sales.
3. Reshape the personal income tax system so higher earners would pay more.
4. Impose taxes on all online retailers that sell to New Mexico residents.

DETAILED HIGHLIGHTS OF HOUSE BILL 6

The major highlights of the tax reform quoting an Albuquerque Journal report (link below) include:

“• Revise the tax systems for hospitals, with the goal of creating a level playing field for not-for-profit, government and for-profit hospitals. Not-for-profit hospitals currently are exempt from paying state taxes. It’s expected to raise $92 million in general fund revenue in the next fiscal year.”

“• Impose gross receipts taxes on sales made by online retailers to New Mexicans, including the imposition of the city and local parts of the tax. It’s expected to raise $42 million in general-fund revenue next fiscal year.”

“• Overhaul the state’s income tax brackets to make the system more “progressive” rather than flat. People would face a higher tax rate … as their income climbs [as follows]:

The top tax bracket for the highest earners … would climb from 4.9 percent now to 6.5 percent under the proposal. For a married couple filing jointly, the top tax bracket would kick in for families with income of $300,000 or more. It’s expected to raise about $132 million.”

“[This] proposal would partly undo a 2003 personal income tax cut that was pushed by then-Gov. Bill Richardson and delivered the largest reductions to high-income state residents.”

“• Double the “working families” tax credit allowed for low- and moderate-income workers. The credit is for people who are eligible for the federal earned income tax credit. Instead of being able to claim 10 percent of their federal credit, they could claim 20 percent. It’s expected to cost about $53 million in revenue.”

“• Establish an income tax deduction for taxpayers who have more than one dependent as part of an effort to offset an unintended state tax increase caused by the 2017 federal tax overhaul. It’s expected to cost about $48 million in revenue.”

“• Repeal parts of the capital gains deduction allowed for personal income taxes, which would raise about $62 million.”

“• Increase the excise tax on motor vehicle purchases from 3 percent to 4.2 percent, which would raise about $65 million. The money would largely go to the general fund, though some lawmakers broached the idea of changing the bill to send the revenue to the road fund instead.”

“• Raise taxes on tobacco and impose taxes on vaping products, which would generate $20 million for the state general fund.”

“• Change how corporate income taxes are calculated as a way to keep multistate corporations from “shifting” their income to another state to avoid New Mexico taxes. It would help some companies and hurt others, legislative analysts said, so the overall impact on state revenue is unclear, but likely positive.
…
Supporters said the proposal would help ensure the state could cover increased education spending in coming years, even if the oil boom doesn’t last.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1285170/house-democrats-unveil-tax-proposal.html

REFORMS NOT ADDRESSED BY HOUSE BILL 6

Three major reform areas not reported upon and ostensibly absent from House Bill 6 are:

1. Imposing the state’s gross receipts tax a food and medicine.

Gross receipts on food and medication was eliminated a number a years ago as way too regressive on low income and the poor.

However, the state lost millions in revenue as a result and the legislature failed to come up with as satisfactory revenue source to replace the lost revenues.

The elimination did impact the amount of gross receipts revenue to the cities and counties.

2. Hold harmless Provision:

In 2004, the Legislature decided to remove gross receipts taxes from food and medicine resulting in a reduction in the amount of tax revenue raised.

Cities and counties are given a share of state gross receipts tax revenues so, to “hold harmless” local governments, the Legislature approved payments or subsidies to the counties to make up for the lost revenue to them.

In 2013, a last-minute tax deal between the Democratic Legislature and former Republican Governor ““She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” resulted in a plan to eliminate the hold-harmless payments in a phase-out with 6% or 7% cuts annually over 15 years.

To make up for the phase-out, cities and counties were granted authority, on their own and without approval by voters, to increase the gross receipts tax in their jurisdictions by up to three-eighths of 1% which translates to about 38 additional cents on a $100 purchase.

https://www.abqjournal.com/554639/holdharmless-replacement-tax-would-mean-revenue-boost.html

3. Gross receipts taxing authority given to cities and counties.

The state’s base gross receipts tax rate is 5.125%.

Cities and counties are granted taxing authority by the legislature.

Despite the states base rate being 5.125%, there are numerous varying tax rates in cities and counties throughout New Mexico because of gross receipts tax “local add on” such as the “hold harmless” taxation.

Some gross receipts tax rates surpass 8% in some cities, such as Las Cruces (8.3125%), Santa Fe (8.4375%), Clovis (8.1875%), Gallup (8.3125%), Portales (8.1875%).

There have been not reports of the legislature attempting to take away the taxing authority from the cities and counties.

GOVERNOR’S SUPPORT FOR THE MEASURE

HB 6 has drawn support from Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration.

Lujan Grisham’s own budget plan submitted to the legislature last month called for several tax-related changes including tax collection on internet sales, imposing the state gross receipts tax on not-for-profit hospital services and imposing a state tax on electronic cigarettes, all of which appear to be in HB 6 in one form or another.

Lujan-Grisham also proposed reinstating an expired solar tax credit and expanding an existing tax break for working families.

Stephanie Schardin Clarke, the Secretary of the State Taxation and Revenue Department had this to say about HB 6:

“The bill goes a long way to diversify our revenue sources in a way that will provide stability to the general fund” said the Administration described it as a sensible way to stabilize government revenue and reduce New Mexico’s dependence on the oil and gas industry.”

THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN OPPOSITION

Not at all surprising, many in the private sector and within the Republican Party are voicing severe reservations saying HB 6 goes too far and does not make sense.

Business groups and energy companies make the usual arguments against HB 6:

1. It will damage the state economy

2. It will discourage investment in New Mexico and exacerbate the challenge of recruiting high wage earners to the state

3. The timing doesn’t make sense because of historical revenues being produced as a result of the oil and gas boom in the southeastern part of the state. State economists warn that oil and gas revenue are likely to fluctuate substantially in future years

Jack Bent of the very conservative and very Republican New Mexico Business Coalition told lawmakers: “It’s very concerning. … In talking with our neighbors and fellow taxpayers, how do we explain when we have a tax surplus that we’re going to actually raise taxes?”

Rio Rancho Republican Rep. Jason Harper, who wants tax reform without raising any taxes, said the bill’s provisions appear to raise income taxes on families, while other parts would give them a break, making it difficult to project what the net change would be.

Harper proclaimed that House Bill 6 is a tax increase bill, not a tax reform bill, when he said.

“In addition to the $323 million at the state level, there’s another $170 million that are going to cities and counties as part of this tax increase. You add that together, that’s half a billion dollar tax increase on New Mexico families, the biggest tax increase in the state’s history. … We have a billion dollar surplus now and a billion dollar surplus for next year, so two billion extra dollars and we’re talking about a half billion dollar tax increase. … That just blows my mind.”

https://www.kob.com/politics-news/tax-reform-bill-draws-debate-at-the-roundhouse/5260192/?cat=500

Critics also argue that HB 6 fails to call for a reduction of New Mexico’s gross receipts tax rate which has always been a longtime goal of efforts to overhaul the state tax code.

GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURES RESPONSE TO DISTRICT COURT RULING

Education is the number one priority for Democratic Governor Lujan Grisham and the legislature because of a District Court ruling that New Mexico was failing to meet its constitutional requirement to provide sufficient schooling to all students.

On July 20, 2018, Santa Fe District Court Judge Sarah Singleton, in a landmark case, ruled that the state of New Mexico is violating the constitutional rights of at-risk students by failing to provide them with a sufficient education mandating massive increases for public education.

The Governor’s proposed total budget for New Mexico is $7.1 billion.

The $7.1 billion budget increases state spending by $806 million.

More than 50% of the Governor’s proposed $806 million budget increase will go to the public education system.

Lujan Grisham’s budget plan calls for a more than a $500 million increase in public school spending.

The Lujan-Grisham 2019-2020 proposed budget includes increasing spending levels in the following areas:

Public schools: $3.2 billion, a 18% increase.
Higher education: $830.2 million, a 3.3% increase.
Medicaid: $1.01 billion a 6.7% increase.
Courts, district attorneys and public defenders: $306.3 million, a 3.5% increase.
Prisons: $321.4 million a 5.2 percent increase.

A detailed analysis of the Governor’s proposed budget can be viewed here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/01/14/gov-michelle-lujan-grishams-budget-a-dawn-of-a-new-day/

If all the tax code changes suggested by the Governor were enacted, they would represent a net tax increase of $35 million in the coming year.

On January 14, 2019, the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) released its budget plan.

The LFC budget plan increases year-over-year state spending by $670.8 million, or by 10.6%, as opposed to the Governor’s $806 million, or 12.7% increase or a 2.1% difference between the plans.

The LFC’s budget earmarks more than three-fifths of the additional spending toward public schools statewide.

State prekindergarten programs would get about $25 million more under Lujan Grisham’s plan than under the LFC proposal.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1268316/nm-legislative-panel-rolls-out-7-billion-spending-package.html

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

It is not at all surprising that the New Mexico Legislature is considering tax reform legislation and increasing taxes to some extent.

Much of the increase in spending under consideration by the New Mexico Legislature will require recurring revenue sources, especially for public education and teacher salaries.

Both New Mexico Senate and House legislative leadership have said for some time there is a need to overhauling New Mexico’s tax code.

During the last 8 years, former Republican Governor “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” resisted and opposed any and all tax increases, no matter the need or justification, to avoid any and all tax increases at all costs, the result which is a major decline in the delivery of essential government services.

Instead of supporting tax increases former Republican Governor “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” was more concerned about following Republican dogma of “no tax increases” and “reducing the size of government” by ordering spending cuts, reduced take-home pay for state employees, budget-balancing maneuvers and a downsizing of state government.

There are some 3,000 positions that are vacant or that have been lost in state government with government employees required to do more work for the same pay to fill the void of lost personnel.

The proposed changes to the tax code without a doubt will be strongly opposed by numerous business organizations, chambers of commerce throughout the state, especially the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, airline companies, health insurance providers, car dealers and gas production companies.

House Republicans are already severely criticizing the Democrat proposed tax code changes in essence saying “I told you so” and that this would happen with the election of Democrats controlling both the House and Senate.

With the election of Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, it makes it more likely than not that tax code changes under HB 6 will be enacted with a few changes in the Senate and the Governor will sign it.

The biggest problem confronting Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the Democratic Controlled legislature is knocking down the argument that they are “overreaching”.

Calling for increasing taxes when the state is experiencing at least a $1.1 billion in additional revenues from the oil and gas production is a very difficult sell but may be necessary.

The $1.1 billion-dollar surplus at this point is a one-shot infusion, that once spent, it’s gone.

The $1.1 surplus probably would better used for major projects such as road and bridge repairs.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in her inaugural address is that she wants the state to think big.

A major construction project that immediately comes to mind as “thinking big” is to use a good percentage of the onetime $1.1 Billion surplus to raze the aging and deteriorating 62-year-old Tingly Coliseum and build a state of the art 25,000 seat capacity arena on the fairgrounds.

For over a year and a half, the New Mexico State Fair commission has been working on a study to bring a 15,000- seat, state-of-the-art arena to the fairgrounds and the study will soon be released.

https://www.koat.com/article/plans-to-bring-arena-to-state-fairgrounds-move-forward/26523604

According to the State Fair Commission, Tingly Coliseum is not big enough and not modern enough to attract major concerts or events and to accommodate major national conventions.

Tingly Coliseum holds 11,000 people, it opened in 1957, and the facility is seriously inadequate to accommodate major venue events and concerts such as Justin Timberlake and Lady Gaga who by pass Albuquerque and go to Denver of Phoenix instead.

Albuquerque is one of the very few if not the only major city of its size that does not have such a venue.

Such a facility could be built with the City and the State entering into a joint power’s agreement for construction and management of the facility.

The bottom line is that tax increases may be necessary because the $1.1 billion surplus is not the guaranteed continuing revenue flow source needed to support our public education system and the massive amount of education funding being mandated by the state court ruling on the prior Republican Administration failures in our Public Education System over the last 8 years.

For more article on the state tax code and proposed budgets, see:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/01/25/tackling-the-nm-tax-code/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/01/14/gov-michelle-lujan-grishams-budget-a-dawn-of-a-new-day/

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/01/15/governor-mlgs-budget-plan-vs-lfc-budget-plan/