What should we expect – or want –
from the 2019 state legislative session?
It's an interesting year: there's more
money than usual, and both our governor and legislative majorities
are Democratic.
More money means we can do some things
we need to; but more money could tempt us to make promises we might
not be able to keep. Reason and restraint are essential.
The source of the extra funds brings
to the fore a key dilemma: our financial health depends on an
oil-and-gas industry that (a) is inherently mercurial and (b) will
and should decline as we try to save what we can of our environment.
Our legislators should recognize this in evaluating energy and
environmental matters. We must act to decrease our dependency on
fossil fuels, but try to prepare realistically for how that could
affect our state. We must diversify our income sources, and build
cleaner ones, such as renewable energy and outdoor activities. Given
our sunlight, developing solar energy could be an important
opportunity for our state, not merely practical.
Party power means party
responsibility. With power and adequate funding, we can do what's
right – if we can figure out what's right. “We tried, but she
vetoed it,” won't be an excuse this year.
That said, what should we hope to see
– and plan to keep an eye on and advocate?
Timely bills regarding water planning
and administration, but those deserve their own column, and more.
Without water, we aren't here.
Legislatively and administratively, we
need to turn around education – including early-childhood, and
focus particularly on the under-served kids addressed in the
Yazzie/Martinez decision. And while the outgoing administration
provided examples of what doesn't work, I've seen no clear blueprint
of what will work.
The Health Security Act. A ban on
coyote-killing contests. Ending the marijuana prohibition,
increasing both fairness and profit.
The Elizabeth Whitefield End-of-Life
Act. If you're mentally competent and terminally ill, you should be
free to leave the party when you choose, with a doctor's help.
What decision could be more personal -- with less reason for
government interference?
Decriminalization of abortion. This
too is a deeply personal decision. (We men can't imagine how it
feels to carry and give birth to an unwanted baby.) That some
religions forbid it means that some adherents to those religions will
decline to have abortions. There's a recognized constitutional right
to choose; thus the law is ineffective clutter. If ever the Supreme
Court withdraws federal protection of that right, New Mexico should
start from a clean slate and decide in today's world what to do –
not be hamstrung by an old law.
Adding teeth to the law requiring
background checks for gun-buyers.
Sensible environmental regulations.
The Trump Administration is bent on letting every business poison our
environment if a buck can be made that way. Governor Martinez was
owned by oil-and-gas, and her eight years weakened some important
regulations. Legislatively and administratively, we must repair what
damage we can, and correct what we must, even if keeping an oil
company from poisoning neighbors' water wells could slightly reduce
the company's handsome profits.
Meanwhile, escalating
hyper-partisanship is a threat to our democracy, one Trump has fed
but did not start. I hope our Democratic friends in Santa Fe treat
our Republican friends with the courtesy and civility Democrats would
have liked to enjoy during the past four years.
-30-
[The above column appeared today, Sunday, 13 January, 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website. A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org)]
[I discussed the Elizabeth Whitefield bill in another recent column, The Freedom to Live, the Freedom to Die, (23 December 2018) I've
also recently interviewed several of our state representatives on radio
recently, and think we've sent to Santa Fe an excellent set of people,
generally, to deal with the opportunities and problems under legislative
consideration.]
[Something I hope many will take a look at on the paper's website is the obituary of Arturo Flores,
a remarkable man who died 1 January, 2019, a few months after his 100th
birthday. His longevity is the least of the reasons he was
remarkable. One of the major reasons will be understood by anyone who's
seen the film, Salt of the Earth,
which focuses on the courage and heroism of Mr. Flores and others in
the 1951 strike against a mining company in southwest New Mexico. The
obit has links to discussions with him and others about those events.
(One thing I greatly regret is that I didn't get an interview recorded
with him during the past couple of years. His hearing difficulties and
limited mobility were problems, as was my schedule, but until near the
end he was cogent and interesting, and I should have gotten it done!
Another reminder that our time is limited and we should get the
important things done!) In addition to having been a remarkably smart,
resourceful, and courageous gent, he headed a fine family -- and I was
startled to realize at his birthday celebration that people I already
knew and respected were related to him and/or has been influenced by
him. The paragraph below is from a website concerning the best labor
films of all time, on which list this film is second:
Salt of the Earth (US, 1954)
Directed by Herbert Biberman, Salt of the Earth is
famous in film history because nearly everyone involved in making the
movie was blacklisted by Hollywood as part of the Red Scare of the
1950s, also known as the McCarthy Era for Wisconsin Senator Joseph
McCarthy. The film tells the story of a 1951 strike in New Mexico
against a zinc mining company. The story is unusual for the time in that
most of the workers are Mexican immigrants; in addition, a major aspect
of the story is the struggle between the male workers and their wives.
The striking male workers want their wives to stay at home, cook and
take care of the children. The women want to help the men win the
strike. Guess who wins that argument? When the mine owner obtains an
injunction against the striking workers, the women step up and maintain
the picket lines.]
No comments:
Post a Comment