New Mexico State Senator Dede Feldman's Blog

Sen. Feldman to Not Seek Re-Election but Will Write about Politics Here & Elsewhere

February 24, 2012  Dear Friends, Neighbors and Constituents,     Sixteen years ago I ran for the New Mexico Senate using a theme, “A Passion for the Possible.” I have worked hard to keep that passion alive and push the envelope when it comes to affordable health care, good government, consumer and environmental protection.  I’ve had my share of victories and defeats.  I count my successes by the scores—a Do-Not-Call bill, a Fund for People with Brain Injuries, a Nurse Advice Line, lower prescription drug prices, controls on health insurance companies, a statewide water plan, and several laws to control campaign spending and provide open government.      Now it is time for me to move on into new fields, and clear the way for someone new to carry the torch for Senate District 13 in Santa Fe. I have been honored and humbled to serve the people of the North Valley—and beyond.  Some of my most satisfying moments have come in partnership with my constituents, working on common problems and giving you an opportunity to participate in important decisions that should be decided by citizens, not just office holders.  In a democracy, after all, citizens are the highest office holders.  And so, I am not stepping down as much as branching out into the real world outside of the Roundhouse.      But don’t expect me to keep quiet or vanish from the scene.  Much has yet to be done.      I believe that every person has a project whether they are conscious of it or not.  It’s the thing that drives you, that defines you and gives your life meaning.  My project has been to give ordinary people a voice in what goes on in this country, to leave things a little better than I found them and to give back, to make available to others some of the economic opportunities, some of the educational benefits that this country has offered to me.         I have focused on what I considered to be the greatest injustice: Health Care.  Martin Luther King said it best: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”      I will continue this focus in writing and journalism projects, a renewal of my communications company, and support for the causes I hold dear. I will still be walking the streets and talking the talk for candidates I believe in, and who knows, someday I may become one again. But now I must move on.   I will be on the job throughout the remainder of my term, which ends in Jan. 2013.  You will hear from me regularly with updates about state and local issues, campaigns and opportunities for action.  I will step up myblog and continue my e-mail newsletter. And stay tuned.  I am working ona book, hopefully out next year, on how the New Mexico legislature reallyworks.                           After the Dust Has Settled Wrap-Up     It wasn’t just me who thought things were a bit slow.  Only 77 bills passed the legislature this time—the fewest for a short session since 1976.      Among the good ones were several Memorials that don’t require the Gov.’s signature. One to recommend that the US Constitution be amended to overturn Citizens’ United, another for a study of a basic health care plan for low-income folks.      Three constitutional amendments will be on the ballot to clean up the PRC by removing the insurance division and the corporations’ registry, and requiring commissioners to meet basic educational standards.      Two good bills are now on the Governor’s desk—call 505-476-2200 to urge her to sign them.      1) SB 9 closes tax loopholes enjoyed by out-of-state “big-box” stores and levels the playing field for small businesses. It also actually lowers the corporate income tax rate slightly.      2) HB 74 stops the Conservancy District from requiring absentee ballots to be notarized to be valid in their elections. The practice has discouraged voters and depressed turnout in elections that fly below the radar screen.       Good bills that died: Sen. Jennings’ compromise on Drivers’ Licenses; Sen. Wirth’s measure to require transparency for “Super Pac” contributions; my bill to ban fireworks in time of extreme fire danger; Sen. Bernadette Sanchez’ bill to stem the rising tide of heroin and prescription drug overdoses; a bill banning legislators from immediately becoming lobbyists; Sen. Michael Sanchez’ bill to make home foreclosures fairer, and Rep. Brian Egoff’s tax credit for energy efficient home purchases and green renovations of foreclosed properties.      Thank you once again for the opportunity to serve you.  It has been a high point of my life.      With a heavy heart—but confidence in our community,        Sen. Dede Feldman

 

Happy Thanksgiving: Update

Let Them Eat…. Pizza and Fries—Really?      Just when you thought Congress had hit rock bottom, came news last week that US School Lunch guidelines willcontinue to feature French fries and pizza (with the tomato paste counting as a vegetable). Congress caved to the frozen pizza and French fries lobbyists—a weighty force in DC. Click here for details.  The news came as I attended a national legislative conference held last week in the Duke City about the epidemic of obesity among school children and the coming diabetes epidemic that the Institute for Medicine now says will hit 2 out of 10 Americans by 2030.       Here in New Mexico we’re already on the front lines, with 33% of our children obese or overweight.  Among Albuquerque public school students, the rate is 34%, or 22,000 children in grades K through 8. Here are two maps of Senate District 13 showing that 19-25% of local 8th graders are extremely obese, and that 35% or more 5th graders are overweight and obese.           Obesity is currently costing New Mexico $329 million in medical costs each year, but the good news is that the National Conference of State Legislators brought their conference here, because we are beginning something about it.  Schools like Griegos Elementary are holding fun runs, and trying to integrate more physical activity into each day, despite the lack of funding for PE. Students and teachers are planting community gardens at Alvarado and Kirtland elementary schools and students in the Valley cluster enjoy fresh fruit and vegetable snacks from New Mexico several times a week, thanks to a pilot program I started a few years ago.  But there’s much more to be done.   Republican Party Seeks to Overturn State’s Campaign Contribution Limits—Groups Fight Back      New Mexico’s hard-fought measure to limit campaign contributions and the influence of big money on politics, which I co-sponsored in 2009, is the target of a lawsuit brought by the Republican Party, the oil and gas industry and Sen. Rod Adair.  The lawsuit is part of a nationwide effort spearheaded by Indiana lawyer James Bobb in advance of next fall’s elections.  The suit is aimed at the contribution limit of $5,000 to parties and political action committees—both the source of big money in campaigns.  Bobb was the lawyer in Citizens United, which determined that individuals and corporations could make unlimited contributions to support or oppose candidates as long as they don’t contribute directly to them.        Sen. Adair was the lone vote against the 2009 bill in the Senate, which brought reform to one of the last states to allow unlimited contributions.  I read the brief and was amazed at its audacity.   It repeatedly states that the reason for the suit is because the Republican Party, Adair, Harvey Yates (head of the oil and gas association) “are ready, willing and able” and want to make and accept contributions greater than $5,000 RIGHT NOW.        So much for one person, one vote.      Meanwhile, there’s action on a national level to halt the systematic effort to dismantle campaign finance reform and prevent big donors from crowding out the rights of ordinary folks who cannot make huge contributions.      Citizens are beginning to fight back against the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens’ United which removes controls on special interest spending and gives corporations the same rights as individuals. A recent public opinion survey by Hart Research found that 57% were dissatisfied with our political system, and 79% favor a constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling and make clear that corporations are not people, and Congress has the authority to limit corporate spending on elections.      Amending the US Constitution is a long process but it has been done many times.  Sens. Tom Udall, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Chuck Schumer and Sheldon Whitehouse are starting the process by collecting petition signatures.    Sign here to allow Congress to regulate the big money.  Another organization in town recently is pushing for a broader amendment to ensure corporations are not considered people. For more information go towww.freespeechforpeople.org.   The Health and Human Services Interim Committee, which I chair, has heard a season’s worth of testimony about the alarming increase in drug overdoses, (New Mexico is now number one) prescription drug and teenage heroin addiction, Native American suicides, and more.  We’ve heard about health insurance rates, “medical homes,” and other ways to bend the rising curve of health care costs. We have followed the new administration’s approach to health care reform (an Office of Health Care Reform has now been set up and New Mexico is applying for a $34 million grant to set up a health care exchange).  We continue to wait for even a barebones plan to “modernize” the Medicaid program, as promised by the Human Services Department in June.      The final meeting of the committee will be held Nov. 30-Dec. 1. Still hanging in the balance is how to structure a Health Care Exchange, a marketplace for health insurance policies that is a major component of health care reform.  The Governor vetoed my exchange bill in March. Stay tuned for action on this item during the upcoming session.   Neighborhood News: Local Heroes       I continue to be so proud of Griegos Elementary.  They are the only school in New Mexico to receive the US Dept. of Education’s Blue Ribbon Award for the 2011 school year.  It’s a tribute to several years of hard work by the students, teachers, family and staff.  Principal Tom Graham deserves extra credit, too.      I am likewise proud of the Alvarado Neighborhood’s Joining Hands project, now on display in the new education building at the Rio Grande Nature Center where Candelaria dead ends into the river.  Kathy Chilton and Lauri Dickenson know how to make beautiful lemonade out of lemons.  The lemons here were the contentious feelings about the state construction project—and the lemonade consists of the beautiful montage of hands attached to neighbors of all sizes and stripes.  No two are alike!  The exhibit will be on view until Dec. 18, Saturdays and Sundays 2-4 p.m. Free!  Visit this web page for more info.

Redistricting Special Session Starts Sept. 6

 The regional hearings are complete and the pencils are sharpened, ready to redraw the district lines for 42 Senate and 70 House seats, along with three congressional and five PRC (remember them?) seats.  Well, almost ready.  This is tricky business.

    The history of redistricting in New Mexico is not a pretty one, although it is softball compared to Texas.  Still, lawsuits abound.  Before 1963, the NM Senate had one Senator for every county, giving tiny Harding County  the same representation as bustling  Bernalillo.  From 1970- 2001 a series of lawsuits seeking to uphold the one person one vote  guarantee in the constitution – and protect the rights of the state’s minority groups-- have  been filed, sometimes with the court drawing the lines, sometimes triggering special sessions and special elections.

     This time, we hope to avoid the expense and acrimony of these once-every-ten-year law suits, uphold the Voting Rights Act and honor the population shifts that have occurred since 2000.    That’s our task—a tall order, not even counting the partisan element…or the Governor’s veto pen.

 Here’s the bottom line (s):

*The population of the state has grown by 13% in the past ten years.  But it has grown unevenly, with some areas of the state exploding and others not keeping pace. The North east and East side of the state, especially, has declined in population, while Rio Rancho and the West Side of Albuquerque has exploded.  And while the West Side grew (accounting for 40% of all the growth in NM) the center of the city and the Heights did not.   

 *The Hispanic population of the state has grown more than other groups during the past ten years.  Hispanics now make up 46% of the population, up 5% from ten years ago.

 *At first blush the population shifts should mean the loss of legislative seats on the east side, and in the center of Albuquerque, with new seats emerging on the West Side and Rio Rancho

 *But, speaking of blushing, partisan advantage—and incumbent protection-- are legitimate parts of the game.   The majority party will want to maintain its seats, and the minority will want more competitive districts so it can achieve parity.   

     Ten years ago, the population dynamics were basically the same.  In the Senate, former President Pro-Temp Richard Romero engineered a compromise between Democrats and Republicans that did not eliminate seats in the East and essentially stretched districts toward the population growth—on the West Side of Albuquerque.  It preserved incumbents, and essentially maintained the status quo. 

     The Senate passed it in the regular session in 2002, and Gov. Johnson signed it. It was the only legislative or congressional plan not to go to court in 2001.

     Our failure to accommodate population changes in 2001, makes the imbalance of situation more flagrant  today.   There’s enough population now on the West Side of Albuquerque to create two new Senate districts  (ideal population of each senate district about 49,000) and on the East Side they are short almost  a third of a Senate seat.  Albuquerque’s Heights also is short population—over a half of a Senate district.

     Redistricting is a world unto itself which is why many are concerned about the Governor’s move to include a dozen other items on the short, special session’s agenda. A ban on fireworks during extreme drought  seems important to me, but the Gov. also wants to revisit some of her educational reforms, drivers licenses, and the capital outlay that was bill killed in the final Senate Filibuster by Sen. John Ryan.  There are other items as well., prompting the Las Cruces Sun News and others to call for a single issue session.

     This time it’s much easier for the public to get involved with redistricting through the legislative web site at www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/redcensus/ There you can access maps, census data, various proposals and even see videocasts of the meetings the redistricting committee held around the state.   You can even design your own map!

    I’ll be keeping you up to date on how the redistricting proposals affect Sen District 13 as the process unfolds.  For now, the short story is that – due to infill—we have kept pace with growth in other parts of the state so we may not need to change drastically. 

 

This Week--and Next-- in the NM Legislature

Joint Sessions Mark First Weeks of Legislature

The first two weeks of the legislature were marked by huge joint sessions featuring speeches from our Senators and Congressmen, and on Friday, from tribal officials. The speeches ranged from a Ross Perot-like lecture from Rep. Steve Pearce, complete with white board and magic markers, to Navajo Tribal Chairman Ben Shelly delivering his remarks off of an I-Pad.  All most all of the speeches focused on jobs.  The “Dems” were largely on message, showcasing the federal investments they’ve brought to the state, and the thousands of jobs that they created-- and saved.    Pearce, the lone Republican, attributed the loss of jobs to the Spotted Owl.  I guess, by this he meant environmental regulations, since the last time I looked spotted owls don’t live in New Mexico.   Anti-regulation fever has hit the Roundhouse this year, with many singing Pearce’s tune.  I don’t hear much mention of how the lack of financial regulation is what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

 
Native American leaders pledging alliegance to the US as Miss Navajo sings the National Anthem in Navajo.  Only in New Mexico.

Two Important Health Care Bills up in Senate Public Affairs This Week

            The two most important pieces of the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are insurance regulation and the establishment of state exchanges.  I have bills on both, and they will be heard this week in the Senate Public Affairs Committee.  If you’re supportive (and according to the recent district survey, you are) please contact members to support SB 208, an insurance measure that provides transparency, public hearings and a more robust rate review process in the Department of Insurance. According to the bill, proposed rates must be “reasonable, not excessive or inadequate, and not unfairly discriminatory” and the companies must prove that they are based on reasonable administrative expenses and medical cost increases.   The hearing will be on Tuesday Feb. 8 in Room 321.  For more information on the bill go to http://senatorfeldman.typepad.com.

The other bill, SB 38 establishes a state health insurance exchange as a non-profit governmental group to act as a clearinghouse for the sale of insurance policies.  The exchange will be more transparent and consumer-friendly than the current system, which is a nightmare for small businesses and individuals.  And it will pool purchasers together to buy policies, which can mean lower prices. The exchange must be up and running by 2014, and it is fully funded through the new act through 2015, when it must become self-sufficient. Failure to set up a state exchange will result in the federal government doing it for us. This bill will be heard on Thursday Feb. 10.

Contact Senators on both bills by calling 505-986-4300 and asking for their office; then leave a message. Or you can e-mail them at the addresses below

Sen. Tim Eichenberg (tim@eichenbergfornewmexico.com)

Sen. Mary Jane Garcia (maryjane.garcia@nmlegis.gov)

Sen. Cynthia Nava (cnava@gisd.K12.nm.us)

Sen. Eric Griego (egriego@yahoo.com)

Sen. Mark Boitano (boitanom@aol.com)

Sen. Vernon Asbill (vernon@asbillforsenate.com)

Sen. Bill Burt (bill.burt@nmlegis.gov)

 

Conservancy District Elections

The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District elections were the subject of a Task Force this interim, charged with increasing participation in district elections, which currently garner about 5% of small universe eligible to vote (property owners in the valley areas of Bernalillo, Sandoval, Valencia and Socorro Counties). Trouble is, the Task Force didn’t recommend any major moves toward more voter participation, as I had hoped.  They did recommend that candidates publicly report their contributions and expenditures, which I have proposed in Senate Bill 312, now before the Senate Rules Committee. Also included in the bill is a requirement that candidates be subject to the same contribution limits that all other state elected officials are-- $2,300 from an individual or organization. 

But the real news here is that Rep. Miguel Garcia from the South Valley has proposed that the District use mail-in ballots, which would vastly improve turnout.  His HB 260 will be presented Tuesday Feb. 8 in the House Voters and Elections Committee in Room 305, the State Capitol Building and he is asking for you presence or your emails to committee members. They include:  Rep. Mary Helen Garcia, Rep. Danice Picraux, Rep.Tom Anderson, Rep. Nate Gentry, Rep. Conrad James, Rep. Ben Lujan, Rep. Roger Madalena, Rep. Ken Martinez, Rep. Bill Rehm, Rep. Debbie Rodella, Rep. Ed Sandoval, Rep. James Smith and Rep. Shirley Tyler. You can call their offices through the main switchboard at 505-986-4300.

 

            Transparency:  Is the Shoe Now on the Other Foot?

            I was surprised last week when the Republicans on the Senate Rules Committee opposed a transparency bill I sponsored (SB 31) that would require contractors with the state to disclose contributions over $250 made to the elected officials who can influence the selection process in the two years prior to the procurement period, and ban them altogether while the state is deciding which contractor to pick. This “Pay-to-Play” bill got widespread support last year, but it may be different now.  The Republicans felt this would discourage contractors from bidding at all, and be too much paperwork. Another committee member said this was “a boondoggle.” Still others feared that it would apply to the community boards upon which they sit.  In spite of the objections, the measure received a do pass.  Last year, the very same bill was handily passed by both the Senate and the House, but got caught up in a delay on the last day of the session.  The bill, supported by the both AG and the Courts and Corrections Committee, next goes to the Senate Judiciary committee, which its fate will be determined.

 

 

2011 Session Opening, Feldman's Constituent Survey Results

    Emotions ran high on opening day of the 2011 legislature, with a new Governor delivering a state-of-the-state address that proposed continued cuts in state programs, rejection of any tax increases, a repeal of the death penalty ban, more DNA testing and a rollback of credits to the film industry.  It was hard not to see the address as a line drawn in the sand rather than a call for bipartisan cooperation with the Democratically controlled legislature.  But of course, elections do have consequences.    

     A record response to my constituent survey will help me make some hard choices at a time when the state’s revenue falls about $400 million short of what’s necessary to balance the state budget.  In the past few weeks, over 800 responses have come pouring in, over the Internet as well as through the mail. You can still respond, here.  

    Thanks again for your input.  It’s important to me! I’ll be chairing the Public Affairs Committee again where many of the health, pension and restructuring bills will be heard.  Contact me while I’m in Santa Fe at 1-505-986-4482, e-mail me at dede.feldman@nmlegis.gov or drop by my office in Room 300.  Information on bills, schedules and committees is available at www.nmlegis.gov. Senate floor sessions are now broadcast there as well.  I’ll be sending out periodic e-newsletters and encourage you to sign up if you're not on the list.

     Here's the news release that I sent out when a team of great volunteers finished compiling most of  the returns(no small task). 

     Constituents to Feldman: Don’t Cut Medicaid and Education Further; Close Tax Loopholes and Review Rates

             Sen. Dede Feldman (D-Bernalillo) today released the results of her annual constituent survey, which was sent in late December to 6,500 of her voting constituents.  Also, for the second time, the survey was sent via e-mail to an additional 1000 constituents.  Feldman represents District 13, which covers the North Valley of Albuquerque from Old Town to Los Ranchos, parts of the West Side and near-Heights.  

 

            As of Sunday Jan. 16^th,  462 constituents responded to the hard copy survey and 328 responded on line for a total of 790 responses.  Results are still coming in. 

            “This is not a scientific survey,” says Feldman, “ but it gives me a good idea of what people are thinking and it gives them a good picture of the hard choices that we are facing this session.”

            “This is the biggest response I’ve had in a long time.” she added

            Facing a budget shortfall for the third time in three years, constituents were asked whether to continue cutting programs or consider tax increases.  78% favored maintaining current benefits and eligibility for Medicaid and 56% did not want to cut education further.  However, 94% want to review tax incentives to see whether they are working to create jobs and economic activity, and 94% want to close tax  loopholes like the “combined reporting” provisions which allow out-of-state corporations to avoid full state taxes.

            Asked about specific cuts on the table at the upcoming session, 97% wanted to reduce the number of governor-appointed state employees, 73% wanted to eliminate funding for the spaceport and 74% wanted to close selected higher educational institutions and branch colleges.  On the other hand, constituents did not want to shorten the school year (82% said no), enlarge class sizes (72% said no) or raise tuition at colleges and universities (62% said no).  79.5% did not want to eliminate the Rail Runner.

                     On other tax matters, 88% said they wanted to increase taxes on smokeless tobacco products, 85% wanted to increase alcohol taxes, 77% wanted taxes on soda and soft drinks and 80% said they wanted to eliminate the 2003 income tax cuts for top earners. 53% favored a reduction in tax credits for the film industry. 

 

Among other results:

 •56.7% do not want the state to borrow against our permanent funds

 •52.4% favor repeal of drivers’ licenses for undocumented residents

•61% support a constitutional amendment that would abolish the PRC and replace

it with another entity that 43% say should be a combination of appointed and elected

•58% feel environmental regulations on oil, gas and mining are too lax

 

Regarding Education:

•77% believe that charter school offer a needed alternative to public school

•82% want them evaluated for effectiveness

•53% favor a moratorium on the construction of charters

•92% want to limit charter school principals’ salaries

•64% want to eliminate less popular academic programs at universities

•62% support continued increased contributions from teachers and staff for benefits

•49.9% want a temporary elimination of college athletics

•49% favor hiring freezes

 

Regarding Health Care

•90% favor taking advantage of grants through the federal health care bill

•84% a state-run health insurance exchange

•93% want a more stringent process for reviewing health insurance rate increases

•91% want strict enforcement of new federal insurance requirements on preexisting conditions and coverage limitations

•63% support a mandate that everyone carry health insurance

•52% support a Medicare-for-All approach

•83 % favor a program to allow donation of unused prescription drugs

 

       Let the Games Begin! Sen.Feldman signs in for the session, with Senate Chief Clerk (and Wonder Woman) Lenore Naranjo.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change Takes Time

 

 

    Nov. 4, the day after the day after.....Earlier this week, walking the North Valley for Rep. Martin Heinrich, I came across this sign.  It reminded me that we are all on a windy path, with fits and starts, reversals, then sudden accelerations. And we can’t give up hope just because it’s taking a long time.

 

One reason I supported Martin Heinrich was that he didn’t back down from the sudden accelerations that the Obama administration started in the past two years.  These are not just the big-ticket items like health care and financial reform.  They are long-delayed items like the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which makes it harder to discriminate against women in the workplace, and a law making it harder for credit card companies to surprise you with sudden interest rate increases.  They are laws that give our college students hope and opportunities like the revamp of the student loan program and the increase in size of AmeriCorps and other service projects.  

Rachel Maddow mentioned these on her TV program the night before the election and I agree.  The Democrats could easily have kept their power dry, hoping not to offend anyone, but instead they chose to go for it. They used the political opening created by the 2006 & 2008 elections to enact some truly landmark legislation.  The impact of that legislation will not be felt for years from now—but if we can hold the line—there will be a tremendous benefit.

The same is true at the state level.  I’ve often fought official opponents to children’s’ and public health protection who say that state regulation won’t do anything but enlarge government and impede individual freedom.  That was the argument against changing the system of licensing young drivers back in 1999, when I and a number of traffic safety advocates (including the Automobile Association) said that the way to bring down the high crash rate for teens was to make them spend more time behind the wheel –practicing with an adult-- before giving them a full license.  With much difficulty, we prevailed, and even got then Gov. Garry Johnson to sign the bill.   

And now it’s beginning to pay off, eleven years later. Even the SF New Mexican, which railed against the “Nanny State" (I was the chief Nanny), now admits it was wrong in this article from a few days ago. Here’s the article…

 Graduated-license laws help cut teen driving fatalities

The New Mexican

Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 10/28/10

   
We're not major proponents of nanny government — and we're longtime supporters of teenagers' rights and responsibilities. But turn-of-the-century proposals to make teens work their way into adult driving privileges had plenty of appeal — the biggest being the chance that such an approach would save lives.

And it has: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the people who keep all kinds of grim statistics, reported recently that fatalities among teen drivers are down by a long ways: Between 2004 and 2008, they had fallen by one-third.

There might be other reasons for that encouraging news: safer cars, maybe even sky-high gas prices. But the feds give most of the credit to what are now known as graduated-license laws.

New Mexico was among the earlier states to impose rules on under-18 drivers. We made licensing a three-stage process:

• Six-month instructional permits, for which youngsters 15 and older, and their parents, must apply, and which involve tests and state-approved driver instruction, as well as 50 hours of supervised driving practice, among other requirements — including driving only when there's someone 21 or older on board.
• Provisional licenses, which depend on compliance with the instruction-period rules and passing a road-skills exam. For the next year, unless there's someone 21 or older along for the ride, the holder can't have more than one other kid in the car who isn't an immediate family member. And, with few exceptions, no driving between midnight and 5 a.m.
• Full licenses come only after completion of the two earlier stages — with clean driving records.

That's a far cry from what middle-aged Americans had to do for a driver's license — and for the many super-responsible teens we know, the requirements might be onerous.

But they're working — in fact, in places like New York and New Jersey, where the rules are even stricter, the fatality rates are lower. And in Wyoming, where kids are behind the wheel earlier than nearly anywhere, the teen fatality rate is highest.

That makes graduated licenses look pretty good — and makes a strong argument for demanding 'em nationally.

Politically, they might not be popular — and who wants to be the spoil-sport who ramrods them through a legislature?...

 The moral of the story is —like the sign says—Don’t Give up….Change Takes Time in Santa Fe as in Washington.  We might look like “spoil sports” now, but give it a few years.

           And as the leadership changes in the Statehouse, we hope that some common sense will prevail and not all reforms will be thrown out the window.  Some of them might save lives and money in the long run.

 

 

 

Public Hearing on Conservancy Election Process Wednesday Sept. 22 6 p.m. at the Isleta Hard Rock Hotel

                Almost a dozen legislative measures have been introduced in the past few years to change the way that the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Board runs its elections.  To attack the problem of low voter turnout  (about 12% of eligible voters vote) for this specialized local government, legislators have sought to change the date of the election so that it conformed with the regular election cycle, use mail in ballots, or turn the process over to the county clerks, just to name a few of the proposals.  Each time, the Conservancy District has beaten back the reform efforts, contending that as a special water district they can restrict the franchise to property owners only, and can set their own rules for balloting and campaign finance reporting, even if they do not conform to state statues. 

                  On Wednesday Sept. 22 at 6pm the public will get a chance to weigh in on the election process used by the MRGCD in the Bosque-Manzano Room of the Isleta Hard Rock Hotel and Casino, 11000 Broadway SE.  The hearing is sponsored by an elections task force set up through a 2010 Senate Memorial sponsored by Sen. Dede Feldman and virtually all of the Senators who represent the areas included in the district from Socorro to Santo Domingo Pueblo. The Task Force has been meeting throughout the summer to examine:

• Whether it might be desirable to combine the elections with the general or primary elections in order to increase participation

•Whether affected non-property owners in the valley area should be able to vote since they are affected by the districts flood control, irrigation, recreation and water use policies

•Whether campaign contributions and expenditures should be publicly reported with the Secretary of State as they are in other state and county races

•Whether the process for absentee and early voting should be changed

•Whether paper ballots should replace voting machines now used by the district but outlawed for state and local races

•Whether a mail-in ballot might be a good option

• Whether to introduce a registration process to reduce fraud

 

The Task Force is required to report back and recommend any changes to the Legislature and the MRGCD Board later this year.  For more information and preliminary recommendations made by the MRGCD go to www.mrgcd.com or call Sen. Feldman at 220-5958. 

 

Stewart Udall: He was a Friend of Mine

    The folksong  "He was a Friend of Mine" sung by several Udall children and their friends, was a great theme for the moving celebration of the life of Stewart Udall, former Secretary of the Interior, defender of Navajo uranium miners, and father of the current environmental movement.  The three hour memorial Sunday June 20 was held at the Paolo Solari Amphitheatre under the blazing solstice sun. Friends from all stages of Udall's life, including Bruce Babbitt, Native Americans, two US Senators, renown authors, professors and environmental activists spoke from the heart.  

    As for so many others in the audience, Stewart was a friend of mine-- and a mentor.

    Most recently, during the meetings of the Governor's Ethics and Campaign Finance Task Force several years ago, he keep my spirits up with his steadfast advocacy of public financing of elections and his warnings about the corrosive impact of money on the political system.  Earlier, when I met him in 1988, during his son's  (unsuccessful) run for Congress in the Albuquerque area, his broader view brought me, the be-leagured press secretary for candidate Tom Udall, down to earth.   Amidst a barrage of negative advertising vs.Tom from opponent Steve Schiff, Stewart quoted Mark Twain....   "It takes  only a minute for a lie to go around the world, but it takes an hour for the truth to get its boots on." 

    I will not summarize Stewart's celebration here  (he planned it-- down to a four minute limit for each speaker)  but here are a few quotes from the occasion. 

    Advice from Stewart: • Don't let indecision and regret take away your life-- move on

•As you age, compare who you wanted to be with who you are now

•Consider how you are viewed by your family and friends

    Herbert Brown, long time advocacy partner:  " He was where power, advocacy and literature intersect."  A mountain climber, he was always reaching for a handhold a little higher.   

    Blogger's note: his results:  The Clean Air and Water Acts, The Wilderness Act, a expanded National Park System, the Endangered Species Act, the National Trail System, the Land and Water Conservation Funds, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program.   

    Robert Stanton,former director of National Parks and  now Deputy Secretary of the Interior Department l:  "I still have the letter in which Secretary Udall, my Secretary, appointed me as the first African American park ranger in Teton National Park.  This was at a time in the early sixties when I could not be served lunch at restaurants in my home state, on account of my race."  

    Patti Limerick, University of Colo. Western Historian, who visited Udall in his later days, for walks around Santa Fe,  recalled how he he would say,  "Now we can pick up the pace," just as she thought he was finishing. 
 

    Friends of Stewart's recounted his  advice and a posed a question left in his wake:  

    " Never Neglect the Mystery"   and Will You take care of the earth? 

    From James McGrath:  Stewart's memory will green the earth-- more than once." 

Blue Cross Rate Hike Approved in Settlement, but Questions Remain

 Individuals holding Blue Cross/ Blue Shield policies will get another rate hike, this one of 21.3% (retroactive to April 1), after a settlement was reached Monday between the company, the PRC’s insurance division, the Attorney General’s office and the lone plaintiff in the rate case. 

The settlement, was announced by Insurance Superintendent Mo Chavez, before I had a chance to request a delay until new federal regulations regarding state rate setting in conformance with the recently passed federal law came down.  The announcement also came in advance of a public hearing on the matter, which had been requested by the Public Regulation Commission.  Members of the public, doctors and policyholders, who came yesterday to give input on the rate hike had the rug swept out from under them, since the decision was already made. 

It was a strange turn of affairs. Representative Danice Picraux and I, who have been following these issues for over a decade as Chair and Vice Chair of the legislature’s Interim Health and Human Services Committee, had submitted at letter earlier (see below) in which we questioned the narrow criteria upon which the decision was made—i.e. the solvency of the company and the presumption that almost any rate increase is reasonable or else the company will leave rural New Mexico in need.   Even given these criteria, we wondered about the information provided by the company to make the rate decision.  Were profit margins, the level of reserves, the loss ratios independently confirmed?  Was any of that information claimed as proprietary? What cost containment efforts had been made?  What is the rate of increase in actual medical costs compared to the rate increase requested?

And most important, is all that information accessible and available to the affected public? In time for meaningful input?

We didn’t get the answers those questions or the many others raised by members of the public.  In fact, the audience was discouraged from asking questions, although Chavez said he would meet individually with questioners afterward to give specific answers.  

Too bad all the compelling testimony was for naught.  Dr. Christopher Fletcher, a family practice doctor from Santa Fe, and a self-styled loyal Blue Cross provider, spoke about his low reimbursement, “birthday surcharges” and his own experience with his BCBS policy.  He noted that medical costs had gone up only 5-6% in the past few years-- a far cry from the 21.3% rate increase this year, and the cumulative 72.4% Blue Cross rate increase in the last four years. 

A local business owner, Carl Rasik, asked just how he was supposed to stay in business with a $1450 monthly health insurance premium—now with a  $1,000 deductible.  And a representative from Consumers Union cited the $6.7 billion in surplus held by the company’s parent, HCSC, and questioned its policy of closing its less profitable insurance pools, and creating new ones for healthier customers, thus creating what she called “death spirals,” where rates skyrocketed.

The whole thing has convinced me that we need to broaden the criteria underlying rate setting as states like Pennsylvania have done and insure a more transparent process. That will take changes to state law. I’m going to be working on this in the coming months, hopefully with the help of the insurance commissioner and the attorney general.

After all, New Mexicans are spending a higher percentage of their income on health insurance premiums than almost any other Americans, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research’s Center for Financing, access and Cost Trends.

And yet we can’t act to control rate increases as we phase in the new federal health care reforms?  Whoa. There’s something wrong with this picture.

April 22, 2010

File No. 202.182475.1

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Morris J. Chavez, Superintendent of Insurance Division of Insurance Public Regulation Commission P.E.R.A. Building

P.O. Box 1269 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1269

Re: Rate Hearing for Blue Cross/Blue Shield Individual-Plan Rate Increase Request Dear Superintendent Chavez:

We are writing to request your urgent consideration of several important matters that have come to our attention regarding the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New Mexico's ("BCBSNM") request for an increase of 24.6 percent in individual-plan premium rates and the hearing you have scheduled on this matter for Monday, April 26, 2010.

Firstly, we request that you postpone the hearing on BCBSNM's rate increase until federal regulations pertinent to your decision on this rate increase request are issued. As you know, the recently passed federal health care reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"), Public Law, 111-148, contains provisions relating to federal review of rate making, including the issuance of regulations for the federal Department of Health and Human Services' annual review of rate increases in premiums.1                 These regulations are due to be issued by the end of this month, April 2010. It is only reasonable that your hearing be informed by federal law pertinent to your decision making process.

As a matter of due process and affording the public adequate opportunity to provide input through access to relevant materials, we further urge you to postpone this rate increase hearing. A visit to the Public Regulation Commission's ("PRC") web site has revealed that the PRC has not posted any information there regarding this hearing. The page titled "Insurance Hearing Calendar" was last updated in February 2009.2     No memoranda or other materials pertinent to this matter are readily available to the public on this site, either.

In the event that you decide to go forward with the hearing scheduled for Monday, April 26, we request that you postpone the issuance of your decision until the regulations issued pursuant to Section 1003 of PPACA have been released.

Once you hold the hearing, we ask that you consider several factors that our review of the New Mexico Statutes and relevant regulations. We understand that you have to determine whether the rate increase is necessary in terms of whether BCBSNM would remain solvent if it were denied. Yet we ask you to recognize the leeway, pursuant to state law and the regulations promulgated by the Division, that you have when considering whether BCBSNM's rate increase request. The rating standards contained in Subsection B of Section 59A-17-6 NMSA 1978 statethat "[i]n a competitive market, rates are presumed not to be excessive." We understand that, in New Mexico's rural areas, BCBSNM is the only insurer providing coverage in the individual market–that other insurers have very little presence in many areas. Have you examined the coverage of BCBSNM, versus other insurers, in the individual market throughout New Mexico? Is this a competitive market? On information and belief, we would argue that it is not. Hence, we argue that the presumption should not be that a proposed rate is reasonable and not excessive.

In determining whether rates are reasonable and whether a rate increase is necessary for solvency, do you have adequate information? Has BCBSNM accurately and transparently accounted for its current costs? When you request information as to its finances, does it claim that certain relevant information is proprietary? If so, then should not the presumption be that it has not complied with the disclosure requirements that would allow you to make an informed decision as to solvency?

What is BCBCN's administrative loss ratio for these individual plans? What costs can be cut before rates need be increased? What portion of administrative losses go to executive compensation? What amount of premiums goes out of state? We argue that excessive executive compensation and other cost containment measures should be addressed before any rate increase is improved.

Is BCBSNM using good assumptions to projected future costs? How much in premiums does BCBSNM hold in reserve? Two months' worth? Six months'? Twelve months'? Is the amount in reserve reasonable in terms of projected costs?

In considering reasonableness of proposed rates, what are the needs of New Mexicans when balanced against BCBSNM's? We argue that a rate is excessive in a noncompetitive market when large profits are maintained while many more New Mexicans go without insurance due to the increase.

We thank you for your consideration of these many points. In sum, we request that you postpone the April 26 hearing or, barring that, the issuance of your decision until federal regulations have been promulgated. We ask that you consider "competitiveness" in light of the lack of other insurers in rural New Mexico. Finally, we ask that any solvency review include factors such as BCBSNM's level of transparency and the interests of New Mexicans.

Sincerely,

Danice M. Picraux, New Mexico State Representative, District 25       

Dede Feldman, New Mexico State Senator, District 13

 

 

Long Live Granny D, and the Cause She Gave Herself to: Getting Big Money out of Politics

    100-year old Dorris Haddock, the grandmother who, at the age of 90, walked across the US in 2000 to promote campaign finance reform died last week.  She made a stop in New Mexico that year, visiting with me and helping to lobby for public financing of state campaigns( see photo, with Fred Harris, then chair of NM Common Cause, in the background).  True to form, she had a thing or two to say about the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance reform, which came down about two moths before her death.  It's people like Granny D who inspire advocates like me to go forward, and when you think about it, we've all come a piece since 2000-- passing public financing for the PRC and supreme and appellate court judges, and last year, limits on campaign contributions. To do so, we've been walking in her footsteps.  Thank you Granny D.  Here's her statement: 

 January 21, 2010 Ten years ago, I walked from California to Washington, D.C. to help gather support for campaign finance reform. I used the novelty of my age (I was 90), to garner attention to the fact that our democracy, for which so many people have given their lives, is being subverted to the needs of wealthy interests, and that we must do something about it. I talked to thousands of people and gave hundreds of speeches and interviews, and, in every section of the nation, I was deeply moved by how heartsick Americans are by the current state of our politics.

 Well, we got some reform bills passed, but things seem worse now than ever. Our good government reform groups are trying to staunch the flow of special-interest money into our political campaigns, but they are mostly whistling in a wind that has become a gale force of corrupting cash. Conditions are so bad that people now assume that nothing useful can pass Congress due to the vote-buying power of powerful financial interests. The health care reform debacle is but the most recent example.

 The Supreme Court, representing a radical fringe that does not share the despair of the grand majority of Americans, has today made things considerably worse by undoing the modest reforms I walked for and went to jail for, and that tens of thousands of other Americans fought very hard to see enacted. So now, thanks to this Court, corporations can fund their candidates without limits and they can run mudslinging campaigns against everyone else, right up to and including election day.

 The Supreme Court now opens the floodgates to usher in a new tsunami of corporate money into politics. If we are to retain our democracy, we must go a new direction until a more reasonable Supreme Court is in place. I would propose a one-two punch of the following nature:

 A few states have adopted programs where candidates who agree to not accept special-interest donations receive, instead, advertising funds from their state. The programs work, and I would guess that they save their states more money than they cost by reducing corruption. Moving these reforms in the states has been very slow and difficult, but we must keep at it.

 But we also need a new approach––something of a roundhouse punch. I would like to propose a flanking move that will help such reforms move faster: We need to dramatically expand the definition of what constitutes an illegal conflict of interest in politics.

 If your brother-in-law has a road paving company, it is clear that you, as an elected official, must not vote to give him a contract, as you have a conflict of interest. Do you have any less of an ethical conflict if you are voting for that contract not because he is a brother-in-law, but because he is a major donor to your campaign? Should you ethically vote on health issues if health companies fund a large chunk of your campaign? The success of your campaign, after all, determines your future career and financial condition. You have a conflict.

 Let us say, through the enactment of new laws, that a politician can no longer take any action, or arrange any action by another official, if the action, in the opinion of that legislative body’s civil service ethics officer, would cause special gain to a major donor of that official’s campaign. The details of such a program will be daunting, but we need to figure them out and get them into law.

 Remarkably, many better corporations have an ethical review process to prevent their executives from making political contributions to officials who decide issues critical to that corporation. Should corporations have a higher standard than the United States Congress? And many state governments have tighter standards, too. Should not Congress be the flagship of our ethical standards? Where is the leadership to make this happen this year?

 This kind of reform should also be pushed in the 14 states where citizens have full power to place proposed statutes on the ballot and enact them into law. About 70% of voters would go for a ballot measure to “toughen our conflict of interest law,” I estimate. In the scramble that would follow, either free campaign advertising would be required as a condition of every community’s contract with cable providers (long overdue), or else there would be a mad dash for public campaign financing programs on the model of Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut. Maybe both things would happen, which would be good.

 I urge the large reform organizations to consider this strategy. They have never listened to me in the past, but they also have not gotten the job done and need to come alive or now get out of the way.

 And to the Supreme Court, you force us to defend our democracy––a democracy of people and not corporations––by going in breathtaking new directions. And so we shall.

 Doris “Granny D” Haddock

Dublin, New Hampshire