CNBC-The horse racing industry Wednesday lined up behind a proposal to adopt tougher oversight and penalties at New Mexico's tracks, which were recently identified as having the worst safety record in the nation. Horse and track owners and a jockey's union were among those who spoke in support of a New Mexico Racing Commission proposal to adopt model regulations developed by the Association of Racing Commissioners International. No one spoke against the reforms. The meeting Wednesday focused on penalties and restrictions for the illegal doping of horses, but Commission Chairman Rob Doughty said it is just " the first step in a long series of reforms" the commission would like to make "to send a message that the state of New Mexico does not allow cheaters." The move comes after a New York Times story described New Mexico as having the worst horse safety record in the United States. The report blamed lax regulations for New Mexico's poor record. Laura Bonar, program director for Animal Protection of New Mexico, said the proposal is a good first step, but emphasized changed needs to be implemented quickly to address what she described as horrific and chronic issues with safety and integrity at the tracks. Read More News New Mexico
N.M. tightening concealed carry policy
Posted by
AHD
KRQE - Carrying a concealed weapon in New Mexico comes with a long list of requirements. You need to be 21, a U.S. citizen, pass a criminal background check and be properly trained to use the weapon safely. "I believe New Mexico has a really strong concealed carry law," said Gorden Eden, the Department of Public Safety cabinet secretary. "Some states don't." Not every state has all of those requirements. Alabama, for example, doesn't have a mandatory fingerprint-based criminal background check. Montana and several other states give licenses to those who are 18 and older, instead of 21. Texas, Colorado and Arizona issue concealed permits to resident aliens. According to state law, New Mexico can only accept concealed weapons permits from states that are "at least as stringent and substantially similar" to New Mexico's own licensing laws. Although New Mexico accepts permits from and has agreements with 19 other states, only six states actually meet the legal requirement: Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Included in the other 13 states are neighbors Texas, Colorado and Arizona, but DPS says current agreements to accept permits from those states are still valid. Read More News New MexicoN.M. tightening concealed carry policy
Susana PAC actively fighting opponents
Posted by
Jim Spence
![]() |
| Susana Martinez |
Recently, it was reported that a single national labor union has already spent almost $200,000 attacking me and our agenda in just the past few months. Another radical left-wing group funded by national liberals is secretly spending big sums of money, as well. Now, these groups are promising to focus their attention on conservative candidates for the state legislature. I formed Susana-PAC to help promote our agenda and elect more Republicans to office. And we've made great progress. We took on the culture of entitlement and waste by the powerful and got rid ofexpensive government perks like private jets and chefs. We balanced the budget in our very first year by cutting spending and without raising taxes. This year, we cut taxes for small businesses by over $100 million to help create jobs.We ended the dangerous "sanctuary" policy for illegal immigrants who commit crimes. We instituted reforms to stop corruption and get the lobbyists hands out of the state cookie jar.
We are creating a business-friendly climate and Forbes magazine recently ranked New Mexico #4 in potential job growth. And, our education reform initiatives have led to New Mexico being one of only eleven states in the country to receive a waiver that frees us from federalregulations. These victories, and many others, occurred because of your strong support. But success, as they say, does not come without a price. And the price for our success is the anger of liberal politicians and special interests threatened by our reforms and desperate to get back the power they lost. National left-wing groups are going to spend a massive amount of money this year to block our reforms, including our efforts to repeal the law that gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. But with your help, we can level the playing field and continue to move New Mexico forward. One national union has already spent $190,000 attacking me and my agenda. They are now promising to turn their sights on conservative candidates running for the legislature.
Susana PAC actively fighting opponents
State senator drops lawsuit against 2nd challenger
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
![]() |
| State Senator George Munoz |
State senator drops lawsuit against 2nd challenger
Straight talk on the federal budget
Posted by
Michael Swickard
![]() |
| Paul J. Gessing |
From NMPolitics.net - by Paul J. Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation - Particularly in this political season, the tendency is for the media and politicians to ignore what then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen called, “The biggest threat we have to our national security” – our debt. After all, no one running for office wants to be seen as taking government benefits away from people. To make a dire, but complicated budget situation easier to understand, imagine a pie chart divided up into four approximately equal parts. They are: military, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and everything else. About 25 percent of that “everything else” is not spent on actual programs; rather it is spent on interest payments on the national debt. Unfortunately, the amount of spending done on these programs far exceeds tax revenues collected. This year, we are overspending by $1.3 trillion or so, or more than 36 percent of the federal budget. That $1.3 trillion must be borrowed, thus adding to the burden on future generations. Total federal spending has doubled since the end of the Clinton Administration (from $1.8 trillion back in 2000 to $3.7 trillion this year). Tax rates can be raised and lowered, but they cannot solve the problem. For starters, if the federal government simply confiscated all of the wealth of anyone in the country who earns $250,000 or more annually, we’d have about enough to bridge the deficit for one year. But, taking that wealth is a one-time operation. What do you do beyond that? Read column
Straight talk on the federal budget
The Buffett Rule Facts
Posted by
Jim Spence
Labels:
Spence Columns
0
comments
Uninformed journalists use a superficial approach to the Buffett Rule story rather than an in-depth examination of it. It all begins when journalists jump to the middle of the story instead of starting at the beginning. When you skip over critically relevant details of a story, false assumptions tend to serve as fertilizer for intellectual dishonesty and political chicanery.
Understanding the so-called Buffett Rule requires a basic realization of how businesses obtain access to capital financing and pay dividends. First, “capital” is money that has been saved for the future by human beings AFTER state and federal income taxes are paid. Combined tax rates on high INCOME in some states runs close to 50%. This means most capital is formed with what remains after about half the original income stream has already been taken away by state and federal governments. That is right, half.
Understanding the second part of the Buffett Rule story requires a grasp of the facts regarding how dividends are already taxed. Dividends to shareholders are only paid AFTER income taxes have been paid. Proponents of the so-called Buffett Rule always skip over any mentioning of the heavy taxes already paid on capital formation and on dividend income when describing the mathematics of taxing the “rich.”
Though both dividends and capital gains are derived from sources that have ALREADY BEEN TAXED ONCE, these second sets of cash flows are subjected to yes, you guessed it, a second series of state and federal income tax levies. However, because of the critical value of having after-tax capital available for future job creation, the rate of the second round of federal income taxation is capped at 15%. The second federal tax levy is also capped on dividends paid to shareholders at 15%.
When these additional rounds of taxes are piled on, the total income tax rate currently paid in 2012 on realized capital gains and dividend income in high tax states comes to about 78%. In the case of short term capital gains, income tax rates are even higher.
If you prefer facts you should know that multi-layered tax rates on dividends and capital gains are more than fair already because federal and state governments are allowed to tax these streams of income not once, but twice. Don’t kid yourself. Politicians know these facts. However, some still try to convince uninformed voters to think it is just fine to stick it to savers and investors because, well, because they are “rich.” It isn’t just fine. Pitting big government against people who are already paying taxes not once, but twice is foolish. Let’s all repeat this together. Savers and investors already pay taxes twice.
Savers and investors are not the problem. Power hungry politicians that traffic in financial ignorance are the problem.


Understanding the so-called Buffett Rule requires a basic realization of how businesses obtain access to capital financing and pay dividends. First, “capital” is money that has been saved for the future by human beings AFTER state and federal income taxes are paid. Combined tax rates on high INCOME in some states runs close to 50%. This means most capital is formed with what remains after about half the original income stream has already been taken away by state and federal governments. That is right, half.
Understanding the second part of the Buffett Rule story requires a grasp of the facts regarding how dividends are already taxed. Dividends to shareholders are only paid AFTER income taxes have been paid. Proponents of the so-called Buffett Rule always skip over any mentioning of the heavy taxes already paid on capital formation and on dividend income when describing the mathematics of taxing the “rich.”
Though both dividends and capital gains are derived from sources that have ALREADY BEEN TAXED ONCE, these second sets of cash flows are subjected to yes, you guessed it, a second series of state and federal income tax levies. However, because of the critical value of having after-tax capital available for future job creation, the rate of the second round of federal income taxation is capped at 15%. The second federal tax levy is also capped on dividends paid to shareholders at 15%.
When you hear politicians making speeches that specifically single out the so-called “rich,” and accuse them of not paying their “fair share,” they always skip over the all important details described above. Why? Politically it just won’t work if all the layers of taxes are explained to voters.
If you prefer facts you should know that multi-layered tax rates on dividends and capital gains are more than fair already because federal and state governments are allowed to tax these streams of income not once, but twice. Don’t kid yourself. Politicians know these facts. However, some still try to convince uninformed voters to think it is just fine to stick it to savers and investors because, well, because they are “rich.” It isn’t just fine. Pitting big government against people who are already paying taxes not once, but twice is foolish. Let’s all repeat this together. Savers and investors already pay taxes twice.The Buffett Rule Facts
VetVoice Does Not Speak for Veterans Organizations
Posted by
Jim Spence
Labels:
Guest Columns
0
comments
![]() |
| Jim Harbison |
These experiences gave me the deep-rooted appreciation of our environment. We need to understand that a Presidential Executive Order creating a National Monument imposes significant restrictions that will prevent our grandchildren or future generations from enjoying the same experiences.
Creating a National Monument will not bring tens of thousands of visitors, $23 million or 350 local jobs because there is nothing within the proposed Monument that will attract the number of visitors experienced by Carlsbad Caverns. If this area is so compelling, why haven’t we already been inundated with eco-tourists? Designating it a monument only imposes restrictions on areas which have been open to the public for years. Read rest of column here: News New Mexico
VetVoice Does Not Speak for Veterans Organizations











