McCamley on Policy

2007-03-01T12:11:00.000-08:00

My father retired from the U.S. Army after serving for 25 years that included two tours of duty in Vietnam. There is one topic that always gets him frustrated and angry: the situation our soldiers face when they return from serving overseas, from Vietnam then or Iraq-Afghanistan now.

The truth is that we are failing those who have served America. It is utterly shameful, and we must demand that the federal government take action.

Health care is the most pressing problem for veterans. Recently, the Washington Post reported on the living conditions of disabled veterans housed at Walter Reed Medical Center. Some have been living in rooms infested by mice, cockroaches and mold.

What does it say about our government that those who were seriously injured while fighting under the U.S. flag overseas return only to be placed in dirty, contaminated hospital rooms? It says either that the administration is incompetent or that its priorities are elsewhere. History can decide which is the case, but a solution must be immediately found.

Furthermore, better medical technology has saved more soldiers than ever from wartime injuries – a fantastic change for which we are all grateful. However, this has increased the numbers of troops surviving with major head and spinal injuries, amputations, nerve damage and burns. Mental health issues have increased, too, with roughly 30 percent of veterans reporting problems with their mental health within 3-4 months of returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Harvard University study recently estimated that the long-term costs of taking care of Iraq war veterans will be somewhere between $300 billion and $700 billion, with 263,000 troops projected to need treatment next year alone. We have promised these services to our veterans, and leaders in Washington had better be prepared to pay when the bill comes due.

Unemployment is also problem for returning soldiers. Veterans 20 to 24 years old are unemployed at a rate of over 10 percent. While this number has thankfully declined in recent months, it is still more than twice that of the overall national unemployment rate of 4.6 percent. A main reason for this problem is that service members injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the early stages of their careers and have not gained the opportunity to learn job skills or gain civilian work experience. We need to provide these men and women opportunities to find well-paying jobs.

While homelessness is a known issue, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates a total of 400,000 military veterans were homeless over the course of 2006. In addition, a new issue has emerged: The Pentagon estimates that more than 16,000 single mothers have been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. The provision of care and support for these mothers and their children becomes a difficult problem to solve, since parental status does not give special dispensation for being deployed.

Given all of these issues, how is our government reacting? The answer is frightening: budget cuts. After an increase for the next fiscal year, the Bush Administration plans on cutting the Veterans Administration budget in 2009 and 2010 and freezing it thereafter. Whether this is serious or merely smoke and mirrors masking a deficit-ridden budget, the message is clear. Funding for the Veterans Administration is on the chopping block, highlighting the enormous gap between this administration’s rhetoric about supporting those who serve and its actions.

Here, the situation is already difficult for those wishing to use VA services. Though there are regional clinics, New Mexico has just one VA hospital. Located in Albuquerque, it has only 217 beds. VA waiting lists are becoming normal. If funding is cut further, will New Mexico’s disabled veterans have to travel further and wait longer to get the services they need?

But budget cuts for the VA are not the only assault being made on veterans. Last year, the Bush Administration tried to raise fees and co-payments for Tri-Care, the program that military retirees rely on until they become Medicare-eligible at 65. The proposal failed, but it showed again problems associated with rising health care costs for our nation’s uniformed services.

Though there are many similarities between the Vietnam conflict and our current war, there is one positive difference. In spite of the vast difference in public opinion about this war itself, our men and women in uniform have been embraced by everyone in America. This is commendable, but praise and respect only go so far. When our veterans sacrifice their time, their families and their lives to protect us, we need to take care of them when they return. Not doing so is dishonorable and morally weak.

Our legislators and the president need to shoulder the burden of providing for our veterans and military retirees. It is our duty to remind them not to forget this responsibility.

2007-01-27T18:52:00.000-08:00

If you ask residents what their biggest local concern is, they would likely reply with the issue of growth management. More people are moving here as word of our great weather, wonderful food, friendly people, and low cost of living spread across the country. But as growth happens, how can we ensure that it affects our community positively?

A moratorium on growth is not a compelling option from either an economic standpoint or a philosophical one. A moratorium would hurt many working people who rely on construction, real-estate, or other related businesses for their livelihood. This would in turn hurt the economy as a whole. Second, it makes no logical sense for people to move in and then advocate that the highway be rolled up for future immigrants. If that were the case, people whose families have lived here for a long time could logically advocate that everyone who moved in after, say, 1970 should be forced to leave so that the County could go back to the way it was then.

So if we have to grow, how do we go about doing it right? The first part of the answer must be to define where we should and should not grow. There are many important pieces of land that almost everyone can agree should be protected. Mountain areas and environmentally critical regions by the river need to remain undeveloped to retain their beauty. Once these districts are defined, we need to figure out how to grow on the areas we think are appropriate for it. The process for figuring this out must have several characteristics. It must be open and fair; it must be civil; and all parties must come in willing to make some compromises.

The words “smart growth” have been used by everyone from developers to advocates for a moratorium. What should it mean? First, smarter growth means denser growth. Smaller tracts of land allow for more people to live more affordably in a smaller space, reducing sprawl. It also means developing up. Right now, Las Cruces has a limit on how high a building can go (the bank tower was built before this limit was imposed). This needs to change. Yes, it will impede some people’s view of the mountains. But the view will also be spoiled if the mountains are crawling with houses. If the choice is between spreading up and spreading out, the effects of the former are not nearly as large as the effects of the latter.

These two policies, growing denser and higher, increase the need for public infrastructure like wider roads, sewer systems, flood control levees, and bigger schools because more people would be operating in a smaller environment. At least part of the costs to build these necessities should be passed on to developers in the form of “impact fees,” which can help to build them in the areas surrounding new subdivisions. Additionally, some costs can be alleviated if infill development is encouraged in areas that already have infrastructure. Look at downtown Las Cruces and you will see many lots that stand empty. The same can be said for Doña Ana, San Miguel, Las Mesa, and other valley communities. Building in or near these areas, rather than on farmland or remote desert, keeps costs down and decreases sprawl.

Growing denser also helps maintain the historic nature of our community. When the Spanish first settled here, they built plazas where churches and shops were found. Located around the plazas were dense clusters of houses. Outside of this residential ring was open farm space. Mesilla remains an excellent example of these policies.

Furthermore, smart growth means cooperation amongst all entities involved in the future of our community. The City, County, and University are all currently working on a comprehensive growth plan because growth in the County directly affects city residents and vice-versa. School districts, farmers, developers, and neighborhood associations will also be directly involved in the process of developing it, for multiple points of view and buy-in from involved citizens are necessary for such a plan’s success. Our goal is to have a plan in place by the spring of 2008 at the latest, with community discussions to tart later this year.

Finally, once a plan is put into place, policymakers must have the courage to follow it consistently. Frequently allowing variances will not only lead to continued disorganized development, it will mean that the time and effort spent developing the plan was wasted.

Time should be taken to produce a quality plan. However, we policymakers should push to get it done as soon as possible, because pressure to develop is not going to stop. Getting this done will have the benefit of assisting the community to advance both in the near future and far down the road.

2007-01-03T10:41:00.000-08:00

The recent passing of President Gerald Ford reminds many of a time when partisanship was not the all-encompassing force that it is today. He described an era when, as Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, he could have intense discussions with his counterpart from across the aisle while maintaining a relationship when those discussions were over. This allowed them to work on the things that they did agree on to make progress for the American people.

Why is partisanship so damaging? As George Washington put it, it is harmful because of “the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” Today, it is political strategy rather than pure revenge that drives most partisanship. The extremes of both parties gain from pushing issues that appeal to their bases, because that turns out those most likely to vote for them. Because partisan bickering disgusts many people in the middle, they are then less likely to vote which increases the power of the extremes even more.

Whether caused by revenge or strategy, partisanship is extremely damaging to the nation. It makes compromise and progress harder in the short run, and it weakens our democracy in the long run.

As we enter a new year, every one of us in government at all levels should redouble our efforts to work with those on the other side of the aisle and focus on things that can be solved rather than only targeting issues that accentuate the red-blue split in our nation. Examples can be found at the local, state, and national level.

Here in Doña Ana County, one of the topics that officials from all backgrounds and philosophies should be concerned with is the establishment of a growth plan that will allow development in a smart, organized manner. Every day there are stories about the constant housing construction and new retail centers moving in. This growth is good, and contributes to the economic health of our region. But it also strains our resources, threatens our beautiful environment, and is forcing us to re-examine our agricultural heritage. Local representatives will be dealing with this issue in detail during the upcoming year, but it is one where people from all walks of life must come together to form a solution.

At the state level, the establishment of a comprehensive health insurance program should be a priority. Without insurance many New Mexicans are terrified of visiting a doctor for their own problems or those of their family and business owners are having problems paying to insure their employees. The result is an ailing public and a health industry that must take care of problems in emergency rooms, after health problems that could have been prevented at an earlier stage have grown into critical (and critically expensive) problems. Last year, the Republican governor of Massachusetts worked with a state legislature that is 85% Democrats to create a program that insures all state residents. Their model may not work for New Mexico, but the lesson is clear: Partisanship was put aside to develop a plan that will work to solve the problem.

For the nation, the most pressing issue is one that both Democrats and Republicans have emphasized: the controlling of our national debt. In the Republicans’ 1994 “Contract with America” they promised to pass a balanced budget amendment. In his second term, President Clinton actually delivered a balanced budget several times. Now that the Democrats have recaptured control of the House and Senate, current party leaders are saying very similar things. However, the question remains: Can members of both parties follow up on their rhetoric and pass a responsible, fair tax policy while reigning in government spending? The results will help to determine the future of our nation’s economy for generations.

There are many other examples of projects that can be worked on if government members work to solve problems that affect us all. It has happened before, and it can happen again. The responsibility for success in the New Year will depend on officials who can compromise to move issues forward and a public that will support those officials who reject blind partisanship.

2007-01-03T10:39:00.000-08:00

The holiday season is a period to reflect and to enjoy some time with our families and friends. So it’s good time to talk a little bit about family values. What do you think of when you hear that term? All too often, it has been defined by a very narrow set of issues and by one political party.

Whatever your political leanings, when you’re sitting down with your family members for a holiday meal after church, or synagogue, or mosque, take a look at them and ask yourself whether you’ve ever worried about what would happen if someone you love got really sick. Would they get the health care they need? Would you able to pay for it? What would you have to sacrifice to afford it? How much stress would it cause for your family?

Although people don’t often think about it this way, taking care of a loved one’s wellbeing is a family value, because when someone has a serious physical problem, it affects the whole family. When that problem destroys a family’s finances, it affects the whole family. When someone doesn’t get the mental health care he or she needs, it affects the whole family. If these things don’t make health care a family value, I don’t know what would. So when politicians talk about family values, don’t you think they should be doing something to make sure people can get the health care they need?

You know what else is a family value? Education. Without a good education, it is difficult to get a job with a high enough salary to pay the bills and support a family. Education is the ability to take care of our future. In our nation, we are falling behind other industrialized countries in the areas of math and science. Furthermore, in our zeal for providing basic skills, we also sometimes leave out important lessons in the arts, history and civics.

The best holiday gift we can give to our children is the ability to learn what they need to compete for a good job, as well as the ability to appreciate the beauty of their surroundings. So when people in government talk about family values, don’t you think they should be doing something to make sure our children can compete in the world around them?

Here is another family value that often gets left out of the discussion: fiscal responsibility. Surprised? Don’t believe that government debt and deficits are a family value? Think about it this way: You overdo it on your credit card year after year. Eventually, there is no way you can pay it back. When you die, your children have the responsibility to pay off that debt, or else they can’t get the services they need to live a meaningful, comfortable life. You would never do that your children, right?

That is what the U.S. government is doing. Our current debt is over $9 trillion, or approximately $29,000 for each U.S. citizen. Eventually, taxpayers are going to bear the responsibility of paying that off, and those taxpayers will be your children and grandchildren. As individual Americans, we aren’t deadbeats. We are proud to pay our debts. We should remember that we, as a country, share that same responsibility to our children. So when people in government talk about family values, shouldn’t they include a commitment to not spend away the future well-being of our own families?

Politicians try, sometimes, to use the term “family values” simply to get your vote. After all, who could possibly be against “family values?” Well, I ask that you think about some of the values about which they refer, and consider whether they actually affect you and your family members in your everyday lives. I ask you to think about the values I’ve just mentioned and how they affect your family. Let’s all take a little time this holiday season to reflect on what’s really important for our families, and how we can work together to make our lives better in the new year.

2006-10-14T09:18:00.000-07:00

Everyone should read Republican Chair Sid Goddard’s piece in last Sunday’s Sun-News (http://www.lcsun-news.com/fastsearchresults/ci_4453558) because it clearly highlights the difference between partisan campaigning and actual governing. If you haven’t got time to go back, it basically said this: “The Democratic Chair, Melinda Whitley, wrote some biased comments in an email to supporters. New Mexico’s economic indicators aren’t good. Therefore Democrats are all failed leaders.” Somehow, this wacky logic becomes a good reason to repeat the line “It has everything to do with fear!” over and over.

Because election time is near and he is head of a party, Mr. Goddard can be forgiven for engaging in the very same tactics (trying to stir up rage at Democrats by using a few carefully chosen examples to smear an entire group) that he accuses Ms. Whitley of using. After all, it’s their job to lead partisan attacks. But while Ms. Whitley’s comments were kept to a closed list of Democratic Party supporters, Mr. Goddard insisted on dragging these disputes to the public.

Furthermore, there are two other problems with Mr. Goddard’s piece that need to be addressed. First, over the last few years the County Commission (consisting of three Democrats and two Republicans) has worked extremely hard to cooperate and compromise. In fact, although you’d never know it from reading Mr. Goddard’s rant, the vast majority of votes that we take are unanimous and we have only had one 3-2 partisan vote since I joined the Commission in January of 2005. We fear-mongering Democrats even decided to ignore our majority and create an equally balanced, bi-partisan commission to examine the problems with the county Bureau of Elections. But presumably Mr. Goddard knows that, since we put him on it.

These efforts and others like it, however, are often overlooked in a politically charged environment. Our job as policymakers, which requires work with everyone in the decision-making process, is made exceedingly difficult when we are consistently told why it is evil to work with other politicians purely because they belong to a different party.

Second, New Mexico has actually improved a great deal under Democratic leadership. Under Bill Richardson, job growth has increased, teachers are being paid more, and healthcare coverage has been expanded. Our legislative delegation, almost all members of the Democratic Party, has worked together to bring numerous improvements to the community, the most recent examples being the renovation of the Rio Grande Theatre and the soon-to-be constructed aquatic center. The County has labored tirelessly to create jobs (on the border and through the spaceport), make healthcare provision more efficient and widespread, increase housing availability for the lower and middle classes, reform our election process, and come up with a strategy for smart growth without a moratorium on building. These are facts, not fantasies. And to be fair most of these efforts have had the support of minority Republicans who also realize that cooperation is necessary to improve the lives of our constituents.

Of course we have lots of work to do for New Mexico, but I’m proud of the progress our state and community have made recently. Mr. Goddard should be too. He, however, does not have to make policy, so it’s easy for him to draw his guns and publicly blast away at those who do. But like so many others in our increasingly negative society, he offers no concrete options on how to make things better.

The fact is tearing things down is easy; the real effort is in construction. There are good people from both parties with quality ideas. When the smoke clears and the elections are done, those of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, who care about policy and governing more than political mudslinging will continue as we were before: working to help our community grow.

In the meantime, please read Mr. Goddard’s piece from last Sunday to hear why he thinks everyone is so afraid. Here’s a hint: It has everything to do with blind partisanship.

2006-09-26T21:38:00.000-07:00

Sometime in the next few months, a member of the Las Cruces Islamic Society will give the invocation at the beginning of our Doña Ana County Commission meeting. What will be significant about this event? Nothing. And that is the way it should be.

A couple of weeks ago, someone on a local radio show commented that because of a quote in the Koran (the religious text of Islam) talking about holy war by the sword against infidels, all true Muslims wish to kill all non-Muslims. This type of blanket statement is not only disputed by facts but leads to much of the anti-American sentiment running through the Islamic world. Let us take a brief look at the facts.

What is the nation with the largest Islamic population? Indonesia, with over 200 million Muslims, is a republican-style democracy with a secular government consisting of executive, judicial, and legislative branches. Sound familiar?

Are there majority Muslim countries allied with the United States? Yes, quite a few. For example, Turkey (a nation of roughly 23 million people, 99% of whom are Muslim) has been a member of NATO since 1952. Turkey is a secular democracy. It should also be noted that we are working closely with such nations as Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Jordan, and recently even Libya to pursue a peaceful future for the Middle East.

How many US Citizens are Muslim? While the total is a matter of debate, estimates range from 1.1 million to 7 million, depending on the study. For comparison, the population of New Mexico is just under 2 million.

Have there been Muslims elected to national office in the US? There will be very soon. A candidate, Keith Ellison, is very close to becoming the first Muslim elected to the US Congress this November—representing a district in Minnesota.

Even with only these brief statistics it can be seen that, with the exception of a very small number of Islamic terrorists, the United States and the Islamic faith share a peaceful, mutually-beneficial relationship. However, many in our society believe that we should be at war with all Muslims in a pure “us-against-them” battle.

Frankly, it is an us-against-them battle. But the “us” and “them” are not what anti-Muslim extremists would have us believe. The “us” is moderate forces, both non-Muslim and Muslim, who wish to see freedom, the protection of basic rights, and democracy flourish throughout the world.

The “them”? They are extremist Muslims who seek to destroy western society and force a religiously dominated culture on all people. They include members of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian Ayatollas, and various other similar groups throughout the world. The words and actions of these groups (calling for the extermination of Israel, grouping western civilization as the collective great Satan, carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks, etc.) make them the enemies of not just the United States, but of the entire modern world. Because of their actions, we must seek their total destruction.

In case this point hasn’t been clearly, let it be said one more time: Separating moderates from extremists in this way does not make you an apologist for the actions that have been taken against this country. We need to defend our people. Acts taken against us should be met with the full measure of American military, economic, and diplomatic power while those threatening future attacks must be stopped.

However, once we recognize that the battle is between moderates and extremists, there is a great deal of work that we moderates must do. It begins with standing up to those who make the mistake of stereotyping all Muslim people as terrorists who wish to kill us. The people who do that use the same argument that Muslim extremists use when calling for the destruction of the Western World, even though we are obviously not all out to corrupt the Islamic religion. Muslim extremists want nothing more than to start a war between Islam and the West. Anti-Islamic extremists are unintentionally helping them do just that.

Additionally, the many more moderate Muslims need to stand up in a straightforward and unified way to distance themselves from the extremists in their midst. They must do more to prevent the religion that they hold dear from being perverted by extremists.

When we begin to stereotype all Muslims as dangerous extremists, as I heard expressed on local talk radio recently, it means that our fears have defeated our reason. We are stronger than that. As FDR, who faced down two of the greatest threats in America’s history (fascism and economic depression) put it, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” As long as we do not give in to our fears, we moderates (both non-Muslim and Muslim alike) will always prevail.

2006-08-21T07:56:00.000-07:00

Until recently in Doña Ana County, certain property-related public records were published online to assist mortgage companies, real estate brokers, and title agencies with their transactions. Unfortunately, social security numbers were included on some of those documents—a fact that was brought to the attention of the County Commission. With someone’s social security number, a skilled hacker can acquire a vast amount of information about an individual, allowing for rampant identity theft.

When the site was taken down to protect the public, there was grave concern among the industries mentioned, because internet access to these documents made it easier and faster to conduct business. Though the issue was quickly resolved, it highlights a public policy question that will only become more important as technology advances. When and how should privacy be sacrificed?

Few issues in the political sphere these days receive wide support from both the left and the right. However, Americans from across the political spectrum have been sounding the alarm that privacy is under serious threat.

Our privacy is important for many reasons. It protects us against the power of health insurance companies who might use information about us to deny access to insurance. It protects us against the enormous financial and psychological costs of identity theft. It protects us against dishonest individuals within governments or corporations who would use it to harass or take advantage of us. Yet even more fundamentally than the protections it provides, privacy is important for its own sake. As citizens of a nation raised on frontier values, Americans have grown up with the idea that you should stick to your business and I should stick to mine.

Most of us have bits of information that we do not want everyone to know about. For some people it might be what they buy, for others whom they date, for still others where they worship. These are all things that a citizen usually has the option of keeping private. They are sensitive and can cause personal embarrassment, or even harm, to reputations if they became known. This is even truer in small towns, like the ones in Southern New Mexico, where everybody knows everybody.

Businesses, on the other hand, love to know personal information because they can use it in the design and marketing or their products. Telephone polls, volunteer surveys, and the like have been used since the dawn of capitalism. But they were always filled out on a volunteer basis. With the explosion of the internet and other electronic means of storing and transferring data, all sorts of companies have begun to exploit new technologies for obtaining massive amounts of information very quickly.

In the new world of terrorist threats, government, too, has become increasingly hungry for gathering individuals’ personal information. Though practices like keeping records of offenders’ fingerprints are widely established, strategies like warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of library records have started being used. This has allowed government intelligence agencies to stockpile intimate information in the hope of capturing criminals.

In a dictatorship or society with totally unregulated capitalism, these approaches are vital. But are they good for the individual living in a democracy?

In America, we let embrace capitalism because it generates the most wealth for the most people. We also let our government know some personal facts because it is helpful in protecting us from threats. These are good approaches. They work. But both government and corporations have been known to cross the line into places that should only belong an individual. This must not be allowed to happen.

What it comes down to is this: New technologies and increased globalization are going to increase both the amount of information that governments and corporations can obtain about you, and the speed at which they can get it. Citizens need to press public officials into monitoring and (when necessary) regulating these new practices so that in our quest for money and safety we do not infringe on a value that is just as sacred; the ability to say, “That’s none of your business.”

2006-07-24T12:33:00.000-07:00

The sadness of Len Sugarman’s recent passing got me thinking about why he was so important to our community. Sugarman was a community activist, contributing in numerous ways to educational organizations and shepherding the idea of a local spaceport when many others would not. He had vision and drive that allowed him to obtain a quality that many of us in public positions strive for: true leadership.

When I was getting my masters degree, a class on leadership was required. The concept of the class was simple. There are two types of people who hold power: authority figures and leaders.

An authority figure makes decisions with the goal of keeping power, but not with the benefit of the community in mind. Many times, authority figures who hold public office refuse to get involved in contentious issues because whatever decision made will make someone angry. If no one becomes angry, they have a good chance of winning re-election. Though politically safe, this strategy leads to a stagnant society.

A leader, though, has the best interests of the community at heart and will make decisions that cause controversy when he or she believes that the community will benefit. Leaders possess vision—the ability to see beyond the present and to follow policies that allow for progress even when they are not obvious to others. Successful leaders also have the ability to accumulate allies to achieve success.

Leaders do what they believe is right, even if it risks their careers, their reputations, or even their lives because, as it is so often said, “You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.” Abraham Lincoln paid for his leadership with his life. His actions, though right and necessary, did not please John Wilkes Booth all of the time. The same price has been paid by John F Kennedy, his brother Bobby, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin, and Anwar Sadat.

Leaders always go through times of difficulty, whether it be Susan B Anthony in her quest to assure the ability of women to vote, or Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan who both used controversial spending policies to end the Great Depression and Cold War.

Locally, J Paul Taylor has spent his life fighting for the causes of the poor and disadvantaged. His accomplishments include assisting in the foundation of First Step Center, where children of low-income families can be born in a safe and nurturing environment. Rito Medina is another example. Starting as a farm and construction worker, he founded and chaired Tierra del Sol Housing Corporation for 31 years giving uncounted families quality places to live.

That leads us back to Len Sugarman. He went through many trials during his numerous years developing the space industry in southern New Mexico. He was surely told that his ideas were crazy, space exploration was a stupid idea, and funding should be spent on other things. But he believed in the issue, stuck with it, and timed his efforts correctly. It is a pity that only after his death does the space industry in New Mexico start to truly live.

Teddy Roosevelt once said, “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

Len Sugarman died knowing what it was like to be in the arena, to strive valiantly, and to spend himself for a worthy cause. May we all be so lucky.

2006-06-21T08:32:00.000-07:00

The Fourth of July is a special day. It reflects what we hold dear about our nation. Freedom, patriotism, and independence define it, and flags, fireworks, parades, and barbeques celebrate it. But as the Fourth approaches and we look forward to the celebration, our community should reflect upon the reason it exists and our responsibilities as American citizens. The greatest of those responsibilities is to participate in our democratic system and vote.

When it was born, the United States was so different than other Western nations because it was formed on the basis that people should hold the key to their own destiny, and therefore ultimately control the government that makes society’s rules. The Revolutionary War was fought because Americans did not feel that it was right to be told what to do without any say in the process. Since then, when men and women wearing the uniform of the United States fight, the underlying reason has been to defend the right of our citizens to participate in our own government. The quest for freedom is, at heart, the struggle to defend the right for everyone to vote.

The low voter turnout statewide in the last primary, particularly in Doña Ana County, is worrying for a number of reasons. Why do so patriotic a people refuse to take the small amount of time to vote and make their opinions about their society count? We hear reason after reason: I don’t trust the system; there aren’t any interesting races; it takes too much time. None of these excuses is good enough.

There is a growing number of Americans who do not trust their government. They call politicians crooks and liars (in a few cases they are right), and boycott the system by not voting. This reasoning makes no sense. The beauty of our democracy is that you can change it if you do not like it. If you are that disgusted with the system, vote for people who want to change it and make them stick to their promises. Or run for office yourself and change what you don’t like.

For those who think that there are no interesting races to vote on, think again. Local offices (city, county, school board, etc.) have a huge amount of power over our everyday lives. Examples include road maintenance, clean water, and the education of our children. And in New Mexico all of our judges are elected, making it imperative that people choose knowledgeable, honorable individuals to see over the most important criminal and civil decisions made in our society.

The most common reason not to vote this year was that people did not know or care about the election. To read about the candidates in the paper, make an informed decision about who you want, and then go and fill in a box at a polling place does not take a great deal of time. It is a small price to pay for the reward received—a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It is massively important to understand that when citizens do not vote, a very small group of people control the governmental process. If politicians are not held accountable by the people, it becomes easy for them to fall under the influence of special interests that do not have the best interests of everybody at heart.

As the Fourth of July approaches, and an important November election draws near, please remember what it means to be an American citizen. Don’t let the sacrifices of so many go to waste. Do your duty and vote. For, as Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people. We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.”

2006-06-06T14:59:00.000-07:00

What are we doing about H2O?

Water. We drink it, bathe in it, and grow our crops with it. It is the basis of life on our planet. In some places it comes in abundance, but here in the desert we recognize that water is a limited resource. It must be used carefully. As we enter yet another season of drought, it is the responsibility of the government to regulate the use of our community’s water resources so that future generations will enough to live on.

There are many small things that can be accomplished on a local level to assist with water conservation. First, we can regulate building codes so that all new buildings are required to have low-flow shower heads and toilets, and that xeroscaping is used on a majority of land so that watering of landscaping can be reduced. New developments and golf courses can be required to use gray water for irrigation of public green areas.

Furthermore, government agencies (like cities, counties, and universities) should look to this technology, and should not water their areas in the middle of the day when water is most likely to evaporate. We can also seriously enforce existing rationing codes so that people will be encouraged to only water their lawns and wash their cars on designated days and at night.

On a state and national level there can be much done as well. First, most of the water on our planet cannot be used by humans because it contains too much salt or other minerals. Research funding for better desalination techniques can allow prices to drop and more local governments to utilize this technology.

El Paso has developed a desalination plant, and Alamogordo has looked at building one for a decade as much of the water beneath our feet is unusable because of high mineral content.

Second, more research can be done to increase the efficiency of drip irrigation systems used in our desert environment. Though traditional and relatively easy, flood irrigation using arroyos in the desert allows for a lot of water to evaporate in to the hot, dry air. Technologies such as drip irrigation, where pipe systems with holes are installed below the ground to give water directly to the roots of growing crops, are being used almost exclusively in places like Israel with similarly dry climates. If we could develop ways of doing this more efficiently, many acre-feet of water could be saved.

The state in particular should look at changing its policy regarding water rights. Currently, if you own water rights and do not use them you can be in danger of losing them. This encourages inefficient use of water on a regular basis. By enacting a new policy that stimulates better uses of water we can save much. Furthermore, the state should look at establishing a water court similar to the one set up in Colorado to handle water-specific legal matters. This will allow things like water desalination to be implemented easier.

Third, all government agencies can do a better job of educating the public on where water can be saved on a day-to-day basis. By just turning off a tap between use when washing dishes or brushing teeth, an average person can save gallons of water every week. However, many people seem to be unaware of the potential savings to be gained by these methods. In Santa Fe, where the problem is much worse than in Las Cruces, it seems as if every public restroom has a note asking citizens and visitors to save water. At the very least, we can all start broadcasting public service announcements and sending mailers explaining what can be done for water savings.

2006-05-16T16:55:00.000-07:00

Las Cruces is facing a crisis in an area that is not thought often considered: affordable housing. Newspaper articles focus on how the housing market is booming, but the rising prices of both existing and new housing are glossed over.

The following data are taken from a recent study by a policy graduate student from Harvard:

- In the last five years, residential resale prices increased 61% and newly constructed home prices increased 37%.

- The average price for a new single-family home is $219,729; for an existing home it is $149,662.

- The income necessary to buy an average house without being overly weighed down is $58,280 for a new house and $35,964 for an existing one.

According to the 2000 census, the average median income for Doña Ana County is $29,808.

The US Housing and Urban Development defines a family paying more than 30% of its income for housing as “cost-burdened”, meaning that overextended families are spending funds for expensive housing and not for education, health-care, insurance, savings, etc. The people in this category, including nurses, teachers, and fire/police personnel are vital to the health of our community.

This problem is not new in our state. In Santa Fe, many in the working class live other places because owning a house is not financially possible. This is contributing to traffic problems as people who work in Santa Fe have to commute from Albuquerque or Rio Rancho, where they can afford a house. The Santa Fe City Council and County Commission recently passed similar ordinances forcing any developer who constructs a subdivision to make 30% of their houses “affordable” (people making between 80-120% of the area median income can buy a house without being cost-burdened). Developers are obviously not happy with this rule.

Though we here in Doña Ana County are not faced with as serious a situation, we are quickly getting there. The sooner we apply solutions, the easier it will be to deal with the problem. The following are moderate housing concepts that should be looked at by local policy-makers:

Since a large factor in determining housing price is the size of its lot, developers should be allowed to build denser subdivisions. Not only will this keep prices down, but it can allow for less sprawl and more environmental/farmland protection if we promote more conservation easements. A conservation easement allows dense subdivisions on a large piece of land (giving developers a chance to sell more houses) if developers save a part as agriculture or open space.

- Since dense zoning requires infrastructure (water and sewer), policy-makers need to look at increasing the number of PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) used throughout the area. PUD’s allow land owners to use a governmental entity as security for infrastructure improvement bonds, and fees are charged to homebuyers to repay the bond. Though costs are passed on to the buyer, overall home prices will drop as denser subdivisions are built. This benefits both the developer and the buyer.

- Distance-based impact fees (only applicable in the direct area of new developments) would assist cities and the county in building roads, wastewater capabilities, and other infrastructure necessary for denser, more affordable subdivisions.

- Governmental donation of land reserved for affordable housing is another option to consider, as it will give a direct incentive for the construction of less-expensive housing. This concept was recently discussed for some of the BLM land located on the West Mesa of Las Cruces. Though a useful option, strict guidelines must be enforced so that only affordable housing is built.

- Along with land donation, deed restrictions only allowing prices for a house to rise a certain percentage every year should be considered for these developments. Otherwise, if a house is built in an affordable range but housing prices continue to escalate, within 2-3 years prices could once again be out of the range of the target population.

These are just some of the moderate policy options available. Although there are drastic alternatives, we have time to solve this problem with a reasonable approach. However, if we do not find reasonable ways of providing home ownership opportunities to our poor and working class residents soon, they will not be able to live here anymore. Let us learn from the mistakes our northern neighbors have made and implement measured solutions to this problem before it is too late.

2006-04-23T16:49:00.000-07:00

Jack Abramoff. Michael Montoya. Duke Cunningham.

It takes only a quick glance at the morning newspaper or TV news to hear about the current scandals rocking our government. To see how much these stories undermine what our nation stands for, it is helpful to look at how the United States and our democracy was born.

Before the United States, the concept of the Divine Right of Kings was rampant across Europe. It stated that a monarch owed his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy or any other competing authority. This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God. Basically, the average person had no control over his or her life. If you lived in those times and tried to change your situation, you were told that God would punish you for it.

With the founding of the United States, however, a new concept emerged throughout governments across the world. The doctrine of self-determination allowed people the chance to affect how their own society was run. With this powerful force, a leader can move forward on critical items facing a community, state, or nation. Without it, that same leader is a useless husk. Its greatest strength, the trust and confidence of the people, can also be its greatest weakness.

Under our system, when someone goes into a voting booth and presses that button or checks that box, a bargain is made. Yes, the politician is given the power to speak for that person on the affairs of public financing and laws. But there is more to it than that. In return, that elected official must realize that when power is given, the people expect that they will govern with the best interests of the community, not themselves, at heart. When someone abuses that trust by taking money, trips, or other favors in return for their vote, it is the worst kind of sin.

To protect our system, we have written rules that shelter this trust. Our Federal, State, and Local laws are filled with laws that make bribes, nepotism, and undue influence by any one group illegal. Unfortunately, some of the very same people that write these laws have the ability to then make a mockery of them.

Some policy makers see a gray area when examining this issue: one can perform an activity that is unethical but still follow the law. But that is a luxury that cannot be afforded within our democratic system. Because of the high profile that political leaders enjoy in a community, even a small breach of ethical standards can lead to a wide chasm between the public, and all leaders elected within our system. Lawmakers should follow the letter and the spirit of the law, always acting without the merest hint of impropriety.

Most people enter politics because they want to help their community, and most stay clean throughout their careers. But even when a minority breaks the fundamental agreement that sets our society apart from so many others, it defames all of us who believe in it.

The public must realize that, like in every other profession, there are good politicians and bad ones; and even the good ones are not perfect. But politicians must come to realize that the attention, the money, and the power that can be accumulated by being dirty are nothing compared to a greater gift. That privilege that they are given by the people is the ability to have a vision for the future and then to lead those same people to a life that is better than the one they have now.

The American people must always be watching for abuses of power at all levels of government. And we, as the politicians who enjoy the faith of the people who voted for us, must not stand for any one of our profession who crosses that line: for though trust is powerful, it is easily lost.