© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. “As
quickly as you start spending federal money in large amounts it looks like free
money.” Dwight EisenhowerSwickard column: Our in debt forever society
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, March 27, 2016
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. “As
quickly as you start spending federal money in large amounts it looks like free
money.” Dwight Eisenhower
He was trying to make a different
point but I wouldn’t call the people who won elections my leaders. Leaders are
like the King and Queen. Leaders rule over me. Well, perhaps Congress is full
of leaders and lacks representatives of the people.
Many of the representatives we send
to Congress act like they are royalty. They get rich on the public dole. While
making less than $200,000 a year from their congressional salary their wealth
increases by millions each year. The media turns a blind eye to this.
Also, there is the long-term effect
of our representatives. They have put every man, woman and child in our country
very much in debt without our permission. Every year for decades they spent more
money than our country had from tax revenue.
Know this: I did not empower my
representatives to place me in debt. They won’t admit it either that our
country is broke because our representatives have consistently for decades
spent more money than they received from tax revenue.
In fact, our representatives have
and are spending more money than taxes can ever bring in. Our listed debt is near
twenty trillion dollars and our unfunded debt is near a hundred trillion
dollars. That means we could take every dollar in our economy for five years and
apply it to our debt but we would still be hopelessly in debt.
This has been done in less than
sixty years. During the Eisenhower presidency there were several years of
budget surpluses. Then starting in the 1960s our representatives spent and
spent and spent making government bigger and bigger and bigger. Each new class
of representatives seemed to outdo the last in making government bigger and
more intrusive.
Worldwide we see this in many
countries. Their politicians over decades have consistently spent more money
than tax revenue to the point these countries are completely broke but will not
admit it. At first they borrowed and borrowed and borrowed to keep their power
going.
When they couldn’t borrow any more
money they printed money. Now they are in default as will be almost all nations
who spend more than they take in. They still deny their debt and try to make it
someone else’s problem. Ultimately, that will not work.
In New Mexico it is a similar story.
States cannot spend more money than they take in from taxes so our
representatives starting with Governor Bill Richardson stopped only spending
what they had and started borrowing money so they could spend even more money.
Previously under Governor Gary
Johnson New Mexico only spent what it had. The state was one of only several states
who did not have debt. Richardson changed that and floated bonds for spending
which are debt instruments. Now a large percentage of our spending is paying
for the debt they borrowed. It only gets worse.
Everything in Santa Fe is about
bonding capacity and using more and more debt instruments. The debt of these
practices will bankrupt the state at some point. But the media didn’t take
Economics 101 so all they see is more spending, not realizing that the spending
is achieved with debt which must be repaid.
There is an old saying, “Laugh when
you borrow and you will cry when you repay.” Yep, we are about to have a
sob-session like no others. Look at countries that have spent and spent and
spent. They are forced to tighten their belts and the citizens often are
rioting because they feel entitled to money the country doesn’t have.
The very least we can do with the
debt that is being foisted upon the citizens of New Mexico is to admit that it
is debt and not good in the long-term. Our representatives are money-holics who
live to spend. First they must admit their addiction to debt if we are to cure
this problem.
Swickard column: Sutton’s Law goes to college
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, March 20, 2016
![]() |
| Willie Sutton inspired a law |
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. “Why do
you rob banks?” asked Mitch Ohnstad. “Because that’s where the money is,” said Willie
Sutton.
A noted bank robber from the Twentieth
Century is used by medical students as a way of making a quicker diagnosis.
Rather than think of all that might be wrong with a patient, they go directly to
the most likely diagnosis which has been dubbed, “Sutton’s Law.”
We are seeing Sutton’s Law in our New
Mexico institutions of higher learning when it comes to budget problems. Money
is tight. That normally should trigger soul-searching and budget searching to
see what could be cut. Being short on money is the time to look at priorities
and adjust programs accordingly.
Instead, using Sutton’s Law, colleges
only raise tuition “because that is where the money is.”
In the 1990s I did a Ph.D. at New
Mexico State University. The tuition and fees when I started were under $600 a semester.
Currently they are $4,000 a semester and there are calls by the NMSU
administration to raise tuition because of budget woes.
As to inflation, $600 in 1994 would
be $960 today. But NMSU’s tuition is $4,000 meaning tuition has risen more than
four times the rate of inflation. Ignoring economics, NMSU again and again
increased tuition and then had a surprised look on their faces when enrollment dropped.
I have written about this repeatedly
over the last twenty years as the cost of a college education in New Mexico
increased rather than NMSU cutting programs and becoming leaner. It’s Sutton
Law, increasing tuition is where the money is.
I enjoyed my time at college and
went to college willingly, in fact eagerly. The education I received was very
good for what I wanted and I am satisfied that my time was well spent. But it
was spent at $600 a semester and I am tightly wound so I didn’t stay long.
The other day I was speaking to a
very bright young person. We were discussing educational options. I confessed
to this potential college student that am not sure I would go to NMSU at $4,000
a semester and then buy books and all the other costs. Might not.
The question is: could I
self-educate in some fields instead of sitting for years in classes? Are there
other things I could do productively to earn an income that would satisfy me?
Now in degree-requiring fields you
have to go college to get a job. The question is: which colleges can give you
the required credentials most economically? Colleges and universities are up
against several trends which might spell the end of higher education as we have
known it.
There are three issues that our
higher education administration apparently does not want to address: first, most
college students assume a job will follow. Programs that do not have a vibrant
job market are not being phased out to the detriment of students.
Secondly, college students are
charged the same for high value classes as for low value classes. In some
programs the professors are paid less than $30,000 a year while some professors
in Engineering make six figure salaries. There is no adjustment in the cost of
classes.
Finally, the sunk cost of bricks and
mortar in the physical plants cause our institutions of higher learning to lean
toward using those physical plants since they have to pay for them regardless
of if they are useful for the future of students.
It asks the question: does the administration of NMSU have
a fiduciary relationship with the students or their employees? It can only be
one. If it was financially appropriate to fire a quarter of all NMSU employees,
could the administration do so or would the students be asked to cover the
costs to no gain for them?
Those are tough questions in this changing world. It is
like NMSU football which I touched on recently. I still intend to buy tickets
to the football games whether they are D1 or not. I will be at their games
cheering.
Are they going to continue selling
losses because “that’s where the money is?” If they do, they will eventually lose
the entire football program and probably look surprised.
Email: drswickard@comcast.net
Swickard column: Sutton’s Law goes to college
Swickard column: To stop an attack upon America
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, March 13, 2016
![]() |
| Perhaps not if, it is when |
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. There is a mainly unseen and
undiscussed danger in America. It is that we are subject to irrational fear in
some areas. And our enemies know this. What do we fear the most? Atomic bombs.
The Soviet Union and our country
engaged in a War of Fears during the Cold War from a principle known as Mutually
Assured Destruction or MAD. Growing up in the 1950s I became aware that my life
would be over in minutes if any madman pushed the button. In October 1962 that
almost happened.
The central idea of deterrence was where
you and your enemy if either use nuclear weapons will both be completely
destroyed. It worked. We haven’t had a nuclear attack in seventy years of
nuclear weapons.
But now our country faces a dilemma:
if some terrorist organization explodes a nuclear weapon on American soil what
is our national response? We do not have an articulated policy.
No one is talking about the threat
of a nuclear attack, yet rouge states have fissionable material and making a
bomb while complicated is possible. It is not my intention to unduly scare
Americans but there is a lot of the material already made. And, Iran along with
North Korea have been making more for bombs.
It would seem to rational Americans
that it isn’t a question of if, rather when, some terrorist attacks our country
with a nuclear bomb. I would predict widespread panic that will bring our
nation to its knees. America would be hurt more by the panic than by anything
else.
A nuclear bomb doesn’t need to be
the size of the first bombs, it can fit in a suitcase. So the question is: what
is America’s policy about being attacked? What is our response to nuclear
attack by terrorists?
Rather than trying to come up with a
policy while in ashes, it would seem that we need an articulated policy that we
would really do. Would we bomb some enabling country into the Twelfth Century
or is our response to send a protest letter to the United Nations?
MAD worked with the Soviets, but the
threats are terrorist groups and their sponsors. How can America respond if say
ISIS sets off a nuclear bomb in our country?
To end World War Two, the Allies had
to do three things: defeat and disband the armies of Germany, Italy and Japan.
Second, the Allies had to displace the leadership of those three countries.
Finally, they had to change the culture of those three countries so that a new
generation of fascists did not arise.
We are engaged in multiple places in
our world in a war of small scale domination. It is not like Germany taking
Europe, but there are similarities. Most notably, any method was fine with the
Nazi Government. Likewise, there seems no restraint of our attackers in the
Middle East.
At the start of WWII, Admiral
William “Bull” Halsey is quoted as saying, “Before we’re through with them, the
Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.” The Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor sparked that feeling in many Americans.
Thankfully we beat Japan’s dictatorship
but after the war joined hands with the Japanese people. Not so much at first
but they became good trading partners. I lived in Japan for three years and
enjoy their culture.
We must have a plan for the threat
of nuclear attack and after the first nuclear attack on America to insure that
no other attack every comes. Perhaps we can stop the threat entirely if we have
the right policy.
That will require a ruthlessness
that matches our enemies since that is all that they know. Importantly, it is
not the ground people that enable such attacks, it is the nations that supply
money, training and hardware to the terrorists. That is who we must intimidate
into inaction.
For that reason, our leaders in
Washington must be clear that an attack on America with nuclear weapons will
result in catastrophic damage to the nations that enabled that attack. This
must happen even though innocent lives in those countries would be taken.
We must have a rational response policy
if we are to deter attack.
Swickard column: To stop an attack upon America
Swickard: Being smart in college football programs
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, March 6, 2016
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. “I find
that the three major administrative problems on a campus are sex for the
students, athletics for the alumni and parking for the faculty.” Clark Kerr,
1958
The NMSU Aggie motto might even be
to blame: nobody tells an Aggie what to do. That’s the Aggies I have known
since I started watching Aggie Football during coach Warren Woodson’s last
season in 1967. He found success while none of the following coaches even came
close.
Woodson had a great quote: “The
perfect record is seven and four because the fans are happy with the winning
season, the Alumni are sullen but not mutinous and the NCAA won’t come and look
at your program.”
In the last thirty years of writing
columns the number one topic has been Aggie Football. More than anything else I
have protested one policy: selling loses to big programs for cash.
NMSU has been harvesting cash with
loses for most of forty years and each year their fortunes get worse because
all football programs are judged by their win/loss record. I have made no
progress with the leaders of the university. One said to me, “We know what we
are doing!”
My reply was that they were ignoring
research and available data. This same person said that I just did not
understand university administrative issues. Friends, I have a Ph.D. in
educational administration from NMSU and pointed this out to that
administrator. To no avail, they kept selling losses and the program gets
weaker and weaker with their abysmal win/loss record.
Finally, NMSU was thrown out of the
good football league that included some great teams. Our college was dragging
the rest of the league down because we sold losses. Currently NMSU finds that
there is not a league that wants NMSU because NMSU sells losses but NMSU next
year is going to continue selling losses.
Fine, but don’t look surprised when
your Football Program ends. That is the fate of Football Programs that continually
sell losses.
From the Clark Kerr quote to start
the column, parking is a big problem at colleges. I asked a professor at NMSU
about the parking some thirty years ago. He said, “It’s going to get a lot
worse before it gets better.” So I immediately asked, “Do you think it will get
better?” He shook his head, “No.”
Many colleges had declining
enrollments and act surprised. Why should less students coming be a surprise?
College doesn’t hold the magic key of prosperity like was once the case. Now to
even get a job students have to be savvy enough to select an employable major.
The colleges won’t help because
their administrative fiduciary relationship is with the professors so they will
try to keep everyone employed rather than pare off majors where few jobs are available.
With the football program and the majors at the university, NMSU is a contrast
in roles.
Does NMSU have the best interests of
the students in mind or are those administrators feathering their nests? Why
sell losses when it only weakens the program. Why keep majors where there are
few if any jobs? Those questions need to be answered.
Remember that the motto of NMSU is:
nobody tells an Aggie what to do. So I doubt that there will be any changes. In
fact, each time I point out the lunacy of selling losses the leaders
double-down on their stupidity and amaze me even more with bad leadership.
Ultimately, it is easy to see that these
failures are my fault. I always buy season tickets to the Football Program and
I went to NMSU for my Ph.D. So I guess I have no complaints. While I talk bad
about the management they know I still support their decisions with my money.
The customer is not always right but
the customer always is the one with the money. This customer would like NMSU to
be smarter.
Swickard: Being smart in college football programs
Swickard column: Windy boy windy for New Mexico
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, February 28, 2016
![]() |
| Columbia loaded for trip home- George Swickard |
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. After college my first professional
job was in television production. The Albuquerque station had a weatherman who was
interesting because he was not from New Mexico. The annual spring winds upset
him. In fact, when you asked about the next day’s weather anytime during the
year he answered, “Windy boy, windy.”
And it is time for New Mexico’s
annual spring winds. Some people are quite upset with them while the rest of us
usually shrug and go about our business. Sometimes we even find humor in the
winds.
A tourist from back east pulled up
to a restaurant at the same time as me and was having trouble keeping ahold of
his hat. “My God,” he exclaimed with a look of horror at the dust and debris
flying by, “Does the wind always blow like this in New Mexico?”
“Nope,” I said and smiled. “Sometimes
it comes from the other direction.” The man was shocked by the violence of the
dust. I could not resist. “But the wind right now isn’t blowing enough to pick
up scorpions and rattlesnakes so you should be fine. Watch out when the wind
really picks up, they can drop right out of the sky.”
The man could not get out of New
Mexico quickly enough. Our Chambers of Commerce hate it when we play with the
tourists. And in March and April each year there is plenty of wind to play with
tourists. The truth is that if you were born in New Mexico and the winds in
spring start blowing dust, you will not have a surprised look on your face.
One bright spot if you are heading
east. A couple years ago I went from Las Cruces to Roswell almost not using any
gas in my truck. I felt pretty good about the wind until I drove back to Las
Cruces and almost used a tank of gas.
I feel bad for high profile vehicles
since the wind often plays the devil with handling and sometimes even just
keeping all four wheels on the ground. Some of the roads in New Mexico are
closed in bad dust storms because there can suddenly be zero visibility with the
possibility of a big wreck involving many vehicles.
One of the almost lost stories of
wind in New Mexico involves the only time when a NASA Space Shuttle landed in
our state. More to the point, what is rarely referenced is the windy day before
Space Shuttle Columbia landed.
In 1976 Northrup Strip was selected
by NASA as a Space Shuttle training and backup landing facility. We now call that
facility the White Sands Space Harbor at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
New Mexico was halfway between shuttle landing areas at Edwards Air Force Base
in California and the Shuttle Landing Facility at the Kennedy Space Center in
Florida.
STS-3 was launched in March 1982 as
a seven-day mission but excessive rain in California flooded the landing area there.
So the Northrup Strip at White Sands Missile Range was selected. However, it
was spring wind season. On the scheduled landing day, it was a nasty dusty day
of high winds and low visibility.
The network news programs showed a
New Mexico straight out of a Chamber of Commerce nightmare. It looked like a hurricane
except it was dust instead of water. One reporter opined that the Space Shuttle
Columbia might never be able to land in New Mexico.
Not so. The next day at about nine
in the morning it was a glorious New Mexico morning as if there had never been
a dust storm. About twenty thousand people were at the landing strip and
millions watched on television as Columbia landed. So we rarely mention the
Wind Hall of Fame day that proceeded the landing.
Best way to deal with the wind is to
expect the coat of dust and not get too worked up about it. We have been having
these dust storms in New Mexico for the last two-hundred and eighty million
years, come next August so don’t be surprised.
My advice: get yourself a beverage
and stay inside with a good book. It’s going to be windy boy, windy.
Swickard column: Windy boy windy for New Mexico
Swickard: The magic wand of work
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, February 21, 2016
The New Mexico Legislature has ended
and there are people in our state who were wanting those politicians to change
the sad plight of New Mexico, which is last in almost every category in our
nation. They are disappointed that despite the politician promises at election
time New Mexico remains poor.
If past performance is a predictor
of future performance it is a good bet that New Mexico ten years from now will
still be last in most categories. Why, because the Legislature does not have a
magic wand to wave over the Land of Enchantment to bring wealth to every
citizen.
Yes, legislation can help citizens who
want to lift themselves out of poverty. Legislation can make New Mexico more
attractive for businesses. But the heavy lifting of changing the fortunes of
New Mexico must be done by the citizens themselves.
It starts with a work culture. New
Mexico suffers from a culture of not working. Right now more New Mexicans are
not working than are working. The poverty programs in our state make it hard to
take a job for pay when the pay will nullify benefits. And the state does
nothing since the poverty programs employ many people and give power to the
leaders.
Question: when do most people who
get a job do so? The week after their unemployment benefits end. Or, and this
is important. They get a job almost immediately after losing a job. One or the
other. I’m painting with a large brush, but we have two cultures.
One says “I work proudly.” The other rides government
programs until they end and then despairs. Those who go for a year between jobs
while milking the system find it hard to get a job when benefits run out.
However, some sectors such as the
Agriculture Industry are full of proud workers. If they do not like a job they
hunt another before moving on. The Oil and Gas Industry have men and women who
do not watch the clock, they get the job done.
But as an employer myself and
manager of hundreds of workers over the last forty years I find many young
people are not taught to work. No, not that you need a 13/16 socket to take out
a spark plug. They do not know you must be on time always. In fact, be five
minutes early so if traffic snarls you are not late.
This all starts in public schools
which should not propagandize but should provide many examples of enjoying
work. The magic wand, if you want to think of it as such is attitude. Thomas
Edison looked forward to going to work each day because he liked to work. Those
people who enjoy being employed are important.
Many people in New Mexico think that
wealth comes from the government and all you have to do is have one of your
relatives get elected to some office and the wealth truck will make regular
deliveries. And in our crony corrupt state that is more true than not. But it
cannot and will not last.
What happens to these people when
their relative is caught and cannot provide any more loot? Then they turn to
drugs for quick cash. Some New Mexicans have no Social Security benefits
because they never have worked officially.
The attitude that is important is to
find things about the job that prepare you for the next job. We hear so much
about minimum wage jobs but most people only make the minimum wage for a few
months and then are promoted beyond it if they apply themselves.
If it is easier to float on the
government programs than actually go to work this will come to the end at some
point. At some point the problems of our budget and debt will intrude. We are
spending money that we do not have.
Who will ride out the hard times the
best? Those who can hunker down working at any job and being satisfied with
making money rather than having it given to them. They have the magic wand of
work.
Swickard: The magic wand of work
Swickard: New solutions for poverty and illegal drug use
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, February 14, 2016
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Comedian W. C. Fields joked,
"The best cure for insomnia is to get a lot of sleep." That is like the
solutions our leaders have for America's problems of illegal drug use and poverty.
Over the last sixty years our leaders have filled to overflowing our court
system with non-violent illegal drug users. And our leaders have dramatically
increased the number of people on welfare.
Neither solution over the years has even
started to eradicate the problems. Worse, it seems the best minds in our
society can only come up with things that make the problems worse. We have more
illegal drug use and more poverty now after spending billions of dollars.
Tragically both leave lots of human
carnage in their wake and lost opportunities for generations. It would be nice
if we apply Thomas Edison's view of failure. He referred to inventions that
didn't work by saying, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways
that won't work." In each case he tried something different.
Our leaders cannot see different
solutions for poverty and illegal drug use other than what we have been doing
for sixty years. Albert Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results."
Part of the problem is that crime
and welfare are huge industrial complexes with billions of dollars to employ
people. If you no longer need all of those police and prison workers do we have
anyone who could fire a million government workers? Politically it is
impossible. But it needs to be done.
Poverty is not because other people
are successful. Poverty is because people do not have the desired productive
skills or inclinations to use their skills. Welfare stalls people from jobs
because they lose benefits.
Poverty doesn't cause crime.
Criminal behavior and illegal drug use are mental illnesses. I am not saying ignore
or release them because it is an illness. But before we find a solution we must
correctly identify the problem. We must frame as mental illness the disregard of
society's rules.
Putting millions of Americans into
the legal system because of their choice for themselves of taking drugs does
not work. One approach is to view illegal drug use as a health problem rather a
criminal offense. Portugal did so in 2001. The results are compelling.
I am not involved in the illegal drug question personally.
A few years ago a speaker said, "All you people from the sixties spent
your time in college partying and smoking dope." I raised my hand and
said, "Did not!" If drugs were all legal I would still only be
medicated by coffee and green chile.
The reason I am looking to Portugal
along with twenty-five other nations is that over fifty years as a journalist I
have watched our drug policies fail miserably. Drugs are as available now as
fifty years ago, according to people who know.
I believe that the correct direction
for our country was mentioned by Herbert Hoover in 1928 as he was campaigning
to be elected President of the United States. He said, "We have not yet
reached the goal but... we shall soon, with the help of God, be in sight of the
day when poverty shall be banished from this nation. There is no guarantee
against poverty equal to a job for every man."
Our nation can become great when we
allow people to become more productive, to use their natural talents and
abilities in jobs. Jobs are the great changer of a society. The free market is
the engine of prosperity. The enemy of prosperity is government people who want
to control the free market.
Every rule or regulation that diminishes
the ability of people to be productive moves people toward poverty. It is not
something that can be legislated. Everyone is either moving toward poverty or
not. Change the drug laws to treat it as an illness and not something to fund
our vast law-enforcement/judicial/prison industries.
I hope Winston Churchill was right
when he wrote, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing -
after they've tried everything else." We've tried all those things that
don't work, let's try something different.
Swickard: New solutions for poverty and illegal drug use
Swickard: SJR 1 has a serious defect
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Wednesday, February 10, 2016
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. "The
prison-industrial complex and the military-industrial complex are here with us
and are multi-billion dollar enterprises. We can make more money off the kid in
Compton if he's a criminal instead of a scholar. It's business." Henry
Rollins
Then there are prisons with all of
the staffing. Somewhere in all of this money come bail bondsmen. There is something
aimed at them that is not a good idea.
This session in the New Mexico
Legislature a proposed Constitutional Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, involving
bail reform doesn't mean what people think. The test is easy. Another bill with
the same language except for one provision, House Joint Resolution 13, is being
offered and is said to be dead.
The news media and casual observers
may not see what is happening but the attorneys in the Legislature certainly do
and they are "game-on" for this windfall. What is the one provision?
That if someone is arrested and goes
before a judge instead of having to post a bond saying they will make their
court appearance, they can be released if they are poor and are not violent.
For them no bail will be required.
The easy sell on both measures is
that Judges will have more power to keep violent people in jail without any
chance of being released before their trial. That is a big push for a safer New
Mexico. Many people are injured because a violent offender reoffends while on
bail. The second set of victims naturally feels that the offender should have
been kept in jail. So that change in New Mexico Constitutional Law is needed.
The "More money for defense
lawyers" provision in SJR1 which is missing from HJR13 involves that some
people are kept in jail when they cannot arrange bail. Sometimes bail is ridiculously
low such as one hundred dollars. Jails spend more than that per day housing
those citizens.
What is not being said by anyone but
the Bail Industry spokesmen is that most people who can get bail do so by their
relatives or friends coming up with the money and property collateral. Who
would put up their house for their child if the alternative is to refuse to do
so and their child is released for being poor and unable to afford bail?
When someone is bailed out there are
two parties that work together to make sure that person makes their court
appointments: the people who provided the money for that person's release and
the Bail Bondsman. Both have a financial interest in that person doing the
right things.
If people are just released on their
own recognizance, there is not that pressure. Further, the private enterprise
of Bail Bonds is such that the risk is weighed on each individual. Some people
cannot bond out because no bail bondsman will take the risk. That is good to
know.
Finally, the real push for this
provision is to free up resources from the parents and friends for the defense
lawyers. Right now they see the bail as taking money from them since the
friends and relatives come up with that money. With no bail required that same
money that otherwise would go to bail would be available as extra resources for
the lawyers.
With this provision in SJR1 the
lawyers see a pot of money glimmering and they assume most people will not
think this through. They will just react to the notion of a debtor's prison
where people sit behind bars because they don't even have a hundred dollars.
I would like to see HJR13 pass and
be voted on by citizens in November but not SJR1. It is making a bad situation
worse and funneling more money to lawyers while ending a private enterprise that
minute by minute in our system looks at the flight risk of each person.
Are their abuses? Of course. But
that is no reason to make the system worse.
Swickard: SJR 1 has a serious defect
Swickard: Mosquitoes like the DDT ban
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, February 7, 2016
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. "It
is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
The
way to deal with this epidemic is to kill all of the mosquitoes who spread the disease.
While it seems hard to kill all of the mosquitoes, we have almost done it once
before but politics gave the mosquitoes a chance to come back fully and kill
millions upon millions of people.
Several
years ago two researchers had an article in Forbes, "Rachel Carson's
Deadly Fantasies." This was published September 5, 2012. Dr. Henry Miller
and Gregory Conko wrote that Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring"
led to a worldwide ban on DDT use. Lacking DDT to kill mosquitoes is responsible
for the loss of tens of millions of human lives, mostly children in poor
tropical countries.
They
opine, "This remains one of the monumental human tragedies of the last century."
The
insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was first discovered in 1874
and in 1939 a Swiss Chemist found it had great insecticidal properties. It was
used in World War Two to control malaria and typhus. After the war the use of
DDT expanded.
The
discovery of DDT's usefulness won the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine.
Mosquitoes were controlled to the point that in just a decade they were
seriously on the decline and therefore Malaria deaths were likewise on the
decline.
With
no valid data DDT was banned and still is banned due to a political book by
Rachel Carson in the 1960s. Malaria death returned and have stayed high. Mosquitoes
have brought many other maladies of encephalitis and West Nile virus to the
point that New Mexicans are injured or killed each year.
It
is a political campaign to keep DDT on the banned list when it has no known
harm to humans and the presumed harm to raptors could not be replicated from
Rachel Carson's book. Instead of telling people in New Mexico to put on
mosquito repellent and to stay indoors, our government should kill every mosquito.
Yes,
the environmental lobby will not stand for it, but we could try. I have lost
two friends to West Nile virus and have no patience for the environmental
people who condemn our most fragile populations to death and diseases. If they,
the environmentalists wish to die, so be it, but the great martyrs of our world
did not send women and children into the wilderness instead of going
themselves.
Every
death worldwide to malaria is an unnecessary death. Every death or illness from
mosquito born viruses is not necessary. Millions are dying unnecessarily each
year. Rachel Carson and her faulty research are responsible for millions of
deaths.
And
we are responsible for those deaths because even by the early 1970s it was
obvious to our scientists that the loss of DDT was far more harmful to human
lives that we had realized before the ban. At that point there should have been
an outpouring of information to reverse this ban. There wasn't because environmentalists
are rabid about their agenda.
In
the 1950s, while I was living in Japan, early in the mornings the DDT truck
would come down our street spraying the mosquitoes. We kids would often play in
the mist to no harm other than ants refused to crawl on us for several days.
Talking
the truth gets people attacked because the environmentalists are political not
scientific. If you join me in calling for the reintroduction of DDT all over
New Mexico to protect our elderly and children you will be attacked. But the
lives of our children are worth it.
I'm
all for setting up a Blue-Ribbon panel to investigate this controversy as long
as politicians stay out of the way. They know nothing and only react to
political causes. I always say to never use a political solution for a
non-political problem.
Mosquitoes
are killing our citizens. There should be no politics as to the cure. It's DDT.
Email: drswickard@comcast.net
Swickard: Mosquitoes like the DDT ban
Swickard: The five rights we need to do
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, January 31, 2016
![]() |
| Bill Richardson horsing around |
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. We are living in angry times. Anger
drives much of what we do. With the New Mexico Legislature in session there is
more anger than normal. The political animals realize they only have a small
amount of time to get what they want. So they spew anger to get their way.
It makes me think of what Aristotle
observed: "Anybody can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with
the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the
right purpose, and in the right way... that is not within everybody's power and
is not easy."
There are big things driving anger in
this Legislature like the impasse caused by driver licenses. Some want a
driver's license for those who are in our country legally and another license
for those without legal status.
The anger has ratcheted up in the
dialog so that thinking people want nothing to do with the debate since the
flamers will scorch everyone who does not conform. That fight involves the
political bases of both parties.
Another flash point for anger is the
desire of political animals to have their way regardless of the rules and
regardless of any promises made earlier. Example: When Spaceport America was
first proposed the idea was to get the construction paid by Dona Ana and Sierra
County taxpayers. Those taxpayers stood to gain the most from an active and
vibrant Spaceport.
And I supported the idea of a Spaceport
since, at the time many years ago, this was going to be the first one and the
promises were rosy to say the least. Governor Bill Richardson, who was putting
together a presidential bid, was looking for high profile projects and this fit
the bill, er, the Bill.
About the same time presidential
candidate Bill Richardson unveiled the Richardson for President Rail Runner
Express Transit system from Belen to Santa Fe which proclaimed Richardson's
stature nationally that he understood mass transit.
The enabling legislation never
mentioned a rail project; it was aimed at New Mexico highways. That seemed a
good idea and then the political animals dashed in and sprung the Rail Runner
on New Mexico taxpayers without the taxpayers having any way to avoid the
financial consequences which are huge.
What do the Rail Runner and Spaceport
America have in common? Both started with a political push and both are now
mired in controversy about their financing. The Rail Runner is a deep hole in
the Earth into which New Mexico taxpayers must pour money.
I am not sure about the ultimate
fate of Spaceport America. But the leaders of the project are doing things that
anger New Mexico taxpayers and that is not good. The Spaceport is clearly not
going as we expected when it started and putting lipstick on the project with
cheerful press releases has not helped.
State Senator Lee Cotter (District
36) who represents Dona Ana County has Senate Bill 157 to stop Spaceport
America from paying salaries and other expenses with tax dollars intended to
pay off the facility debt.
Cotter has sponsored this bill
previously. The proponents of hijacking the dollars say they need the money. But
they don't want to come to the Legislature for those funds because they are
afraid the legislature will say no.
Senator Cotter said, "Dona Ana
and Sierra County taxpayers are hurt when their taxes are diverted and do not
go towards paying down the debt faster." Exactly. He points out that it is
all borrowed money. If New Mexico had the money to begin with that would be one
thing but both Rail Runner and Spaceport are with borrowed money.
With the Rail Runner there is a day
coming when many millions of dollars will be due. And it can only come from the
taxpayers. We always need to do these projects with the five rights: the right
people, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in
the right way.
Hey, since the Iowa Caucus is now
done, can New Mexico lose the Ethanol mandate. Why give that money to the Iowa
farmers and take it away from New Mexicans? Why indeed.
Email: drswickard@comcast.net
Swickard: The five rights we need to do



