Our view B-2 My view B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6
SUNDAY, MARCH 9, 2014 THE NEW MEXICAN
OPINIONS
B
The best editorial cartoons from the past week. Page B-3
Energy burst one way to cool Putin’s power grab
Lobbyists continue spending in final stretch
V
L
ladimir Putin may be a bully, but he’s no dummy. He has sent Russian forces into Ukraine and has taken control of the Crimean Peninsula — Ukraine’s strategic warm-water port — and he likely won’t give it back. In 2008, Putin did roughly the same thing in Georgia. The U.S. and European nations may have complained, but now it’s six years later and Russian troops still maintain a forceful presence there. Last Tuesday, President Barack Obama said Putin’s actions were “not strategically Rob clever.” Try telling Nikolewski that to the Ukrainians. Only the most Commentary naïve could miss that Putin’s dream has always been to reconstitute the remnants of the former Soviet Union. His power grab involves some risks, but he sized up the likely reaction from his neighbors and determined the rewards were greater. Unfortunately, he appears to be right. From Putin’s point of view, what are the downsides of going into Crimea? Well, the U.S. has threatened to boycott the G-8 Summit that Russia is scheduled to host in June. You can just imagine Putin mulling that one over: Hmmm, hosting a soiree in Sochi or taking control of a peninsula that has been prized by every Russian leader since Peter the Great? Come on. What’s more, within moments of the U.S. diplomatic contingent floating the idea of a G-8 walkout, the foreign minister of Italy went wobbly, telling reporters that G-8 members weren’t even discussing a boycott. Yes, economic sanctions can be leveled against Putin but no sooner was that threat lobbed than the foreign minister of Spain told reporters flat-out last Monday that sanctions would be unjustified. EU nations have shown no willingness to get tough, and Putin certainly figured as much when he rolled the troops into Ukraine. Secretary of State John Kerry keeps talking about how Russia’s behavior has no place among 21st-century countries, but that’s seeing the world the way it should be and not the way it actually is — especially when you’re dealing with a cunning former KGB agent who perfectly understands the realpolitik of 21st century Europe. In that same speech on Tuesday, Obama uttered what figures to be the 2014 frontrunner for political understatement of the year when he said, “Countries near Russia have deep concerns and suspicions about this kind of meddling.” Meddling? Mr. President, meddling is when I tell my next-door neighbor how to discipline his bratty kid. Sending troops into another country is not meddling; it’s an act of war. While foreign relations isn’t Obama’s strong suit (e.g., Syria and his “red line” declaration and subsequent walk-back), to be fair, Obama doesn’t have many options in this crisis, given the flaccid response from the Euros. But he does have one card to play: energy. Russia’s state-run monopoly Gazprom supplies Europe with more than one-third of its crude oil and 31 percent of its natural gas. Simply put, that is why Europe won’t stand up to the Bear. In a study released with ominous timing this week, guess which of the 25 largest energy users in the world is most dependent on foreign (in this case Russian) sources of energy? Ukraine. However, the U.S. is in the midst of an energy boom. An announcement by Obama to fast-track liquefied natural gas exports to Europe, as well as speeding up the permitting process for refineries, could certainly concentrate the mind of a troublesome adversary. True, it would take one to two years to get the infrastructure in place to displace even a portion of what Gazprom produces, but it would send Putin a strong message that bad behavior will not be tolerated and, more important, that Russia’s days as the only energy sheriff on the Continent are receding if he doesn’t shape up. Of course, such a move would drive Obama’s environmental flank crazy because an increase in oil and gas exports involves the “f” word — fracking. But in a nasty geopolitical fight with the likes of Vladimir Putin, such are the wages of leading from behind. Contact Rob Nikolewski at the website he edits, www.newmexicowatchdog.org.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Readers sound off about changes to comics pages fter returning from a short business trip to Arizona (lovely place … but the local news there is very scary) I looked forward to reading the morning paper. Much to my surprise, your latest cost-cutting actions disappointed me. Where’s Stone Soup, Baldo, Knight’s Life, Get Fuzzy, Rose is Rose and Pardon my Planet? (Admittedly, they were the weaker strips.) But the crowning glory was your removal of Doonesbury from the editorial page. So what if Gary Trudeau quit writing a daily strip — isn’t Charles Schulz dead and yet you continue with Peanuts? La Cucaracha is no match for Doonesbury — I’m sure there is a wealth of older strips that apply to today’s political climate. Really, Doonesbury was one of the reasons I bought your paper. You should be ashamed. I may just buy the Sunday paper to get my Doonesbury hit. You just publish yesterday’s news anyway.
sents yet one more example of the dumbing down of your publication. Charles Schulz won’t be creating any new daily strips any time soon, and yet you print insipid Peanuts reruns. Why not Doonesbury? You should be ashamed.
Bill Wirtel
Santa Fe
A
Santa Fe
Missing ‘Fuzzy’ I like the larger type on the comic page, but am extremely disappointed that Get Fuzzy is no longer carried. Any chance of bringing it back? Warren Gatto
Santa Fe
Lamebrains Maybe I should send this to the obituary page — obituary for your brains, that is. They apparently died when you decided to dump Get Fuzzy from the comics page. Bring it back! it’s one of the few reasons to keep reading your increasingly lame paper, which offers less and less in news, in intelligent opinion articles, in sports coverage, not to mention food, travel, and whatever else you used to offer. I’m 71 years old, with not the greatest vision. But really, this new format is unnecessarily large-print. Maybe you’re just trying to save money by carrying fewer strips? Paul Hummel
Santa Fe
Dumbing down I was disappointed to read your rationale for replacing the intellectually challenging Doonesbury with the lightweight La Cucaracha. It repre-
Foster Hurley
Santa Fe
Missing Bucky For the most part the new comic section seems just fine. However, I will miss Get Fuzzy. That was the one strip that actually made me laugh out loud while I was sitting at the breakfast table. I will definitely miss that little weasel Bucky and the rest of the crowd. It really is a shame they are gone! Robert L. Bowley
Equal insults I think that the two “comics” that printed on the bottom of the Opinions page are an insult to the intelligence of both conservatives and liberals. Jerry Zollars
Seton Village
Too large? In light of Santa Fe demographics, you are right in conceding to making the comics a little larger. But they are so large it appears you are trying to fill the space with fewer comics, rather than make the surviving comics more readable. A compromise on size could make room for a couple more comics and still be readable. I needed glasses and/ or good light to read the old ones. But, with all due respect, if we need comics this large, perhaps we should start investing in magnifying glasses. What’s next, a large-print version of the paper? Debbie Curnutt
Santa Fe
Lost pleasure You took away my greatest daily pleasure with the paper when you switched to The New York Times Crossword. I don’t have the time or the wits to finish it, so I have lost the joy and satisfaction of finishing the puzzle each day. Penny Kielpinski
Santa Fe
COMMENTARY: MARTIN HEINRICH
U.S. should increase minimum wage
I
still remember my first job like it was yesterday. I worked as a busboy at a local family restaurant, during our small-town fair. While the job only lasted a few days, I can still recall how incredibly proud I was that I earned a few dollars. I must have done something right, because the next year, that same family hired me to bus tables and wash dishes year-round at their restaurant. I soon went from busing tables to bagging groceries and then to stocking shelves at the local grocery store. I was proud to make minimum wage, and I worked very hard, despite being the youngest employee. But I learned about chores and work long before I ever held that job, because I grew up on a
Editorial page editor: Inez Russell Gomez, 986-3053, igomez@sfnewmexican.com
small farming and ranching operation. So whether it was drying dishes after dinner or helping my dad with the cattle, hard work Sen. Martin was simply a Heinrich requirement for every member of our family. In addition to the ranching and farming, my dad worked as a utility lineman — the people who climb up the power poles during a lightning storm to fix electrical lines, switches and transformers. My mother worked in a factory inspecting wheels on the assembly line. During those days, I learned to
cook because my mom often worked seven days a week (and eating my dad’s cooking was not an option). I would work at the grocery store after school and on weekends. The work was formative for me, and having my own paycheck was very satisfying. It meant independence. It meant I could save for my own used car and not just inherit my sister’s old tornado-damaged truck. That paycheck was a huge source of pride. Like many families across New Mexico, I learned the value of hard work — no matter who was doing it. My personal experiences made me realize why the minimum wage truly matters.
Please see WAGE, Page B-4
obbyist spending on food, drink and fellowship for New Mexico legislators continued into the final week of the session, recently filed lobbyist expense reports show. Meanwhile, the director of a nonpartisan government watchdog group in the state told me last week that that there needs to be a bigger effort to enforce the laws that govern lobbyist spending and reporting. Here’s the last reports to pop up on the Secretary of State’s Office website: Stephanie Ly, a lobbyist for the American Federation of TeachSteve Terrell ers, says that on Feb. Roundhouse 19, the night before Roundup the session ended, she spent $1,421 for a dinner (in “recognition in support of education legislation”) for lawmakers at Piccolino Italian Restaurant. Nancy King, lobbyist for Louisiana Energy Services, which operates a uranium enrichment facility in Southern New Mexico, spent $1,638 on a Feb. 13 dinner at the Inn of the Anasazi for several Republican legislators and Cabinet secretaries. King reported this was attended by Sen. Carroll Leavell, R-Jal, and his wife; Sen. Gaye Kernan, R-Hobbs, and a guest; Senate Republican leader Stuart Ingle of Portales; Sen. Cliff Pirtle, R-Roswell; House Republican leader Don Bratton of Hobbs and his wife; Rep. David Gallegos, R-Eunice; Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn and Energy Secretary David Martin. And a late-session event was paid for by Karin Foster, a lobbyist for Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico. Foster spent $1,979 on Feb. 14 on an unspecified “annual event” for all legislators and staff. The most expensive event among the filings was for an event that took place relatively early in the session. This was a $7,002 dinner at the Bull Ring on Jan. 30 paid for by Deborah Seligman, a lobbyist whose clients include several energy interests including Ameresco, Concho Resources, Energyadvocate and HollyFrontier Navajo Refinery. Seligman also contributed $2,000 to the 100th Bill Party — an annual event for which several lobbyists kicked in — at the Eldorado Hotel on Feb. 10. But wait! There’s more! Right after the session, The Associated Press totaled up all the lobbyist spending and reported, “Lobbyists and their clients spent at least $200,000 during New Mexico’s just ended legislative session … .” The key words there are “at least.” The fact is a lot of lobbyist spending does not get reported. And that’s perfectly legal. While the Legislature is in session, lobbyists are required by law to report all expenditures larger than $500 within 48 hours of the spending. Because of that $500 threshold, many expenditures on behalf of food and entertainment go unreported. One way they do this is Lobbyist A will join with Lobbyist B and maybe even Lobbyist C to split the cost of meals for a committee. As long as the cost to the individual lobbyist is less than $500, it doesn’t have to be reported. And the only lobbyist spending that we report on is that which the lobbyists report voluntarily. Viki Harrison, executive director of Common Cause New Mexico, said there needs to be more enforcement of the current laws related to lobbyist spending. “Those who do late reports, incomplete reports and more need to be fined and held accountable,” she said. “We need spot checks and someone in the [Secretary of State’s] office enforcing reports and spending.” Harrison pointed to a recent Common Cause report about legislative lobbying. “Currently, Secretary of State employees rely on complaints typically made by legislators or the media to find out whether a lobbyist has not registered for each client, a haphazard and uncertain process,” the report said. “The Secretary of State does not have the funding to investigate thoroughly, or the reports to cross check lobbyist client and lobbyist reports.” The report says, “When asked how much additional funding would be required to upgrade the web site and enforce the lobbyist registration process more vigorously, the Secretary of State’s office estimated the cost to be $100,000.” Contact Steve Terrell at sterrell@ sfnewmexican.com. Read his political blog at roundhouseroundup.com.
BREAKING NEWS AT WWW.SANTAFENEWMEXICAN.COM