Diane Denish 4-29-24+

Welcome to New Mexico News Services LLC!

diane denish 4-29-24 on

A million here, a million there

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

Imagine this: You are a legislator in the state House of Representatives and are told that you have $2.5 million to distribute in your House district or $4.2 million in your Senate district. Wow! You would no doubt feel like Santa Claus.

This is what happened in the 2024 legislative session, and it’s what happens every legislative session although amounts vary depending on the revenue sources.

Those revenue sources for the capital outlay (sometimes called pork) bill are general obligation bonds, severance tax bonds, and non-recurring general fund revenues.

The capital outlay bill in the last legislative session was a little over a billion dollars. About half ($479.7 million) of the appropriation was dedicated to state-owned projects, such as prisons, hospitals, and juvenile facilities.

The remaining $525 million went to “local” capital outlay. This is the money that goes into Santa’s sleigh, divided between the governor, the Senate, and the House. The amount last year was $175 million apiece.

Narrowed down, the money gets equally divided among members in the Senate and the House chambers. Senators (42 members) received $4.2 million last session and representatives (70 House members) received $2.9 million.

No matter how you look at it, it’s a lot of money.

The 16-member Legislative Finance Committee, made up of senators and representatives, was established almost 70 years ago as the fiscal management arm of the Legislature. Membership is a plum for those who serve. This committee will eventually hear the capital outlay bill. They have a full-time, year-round staff who research and prepare reports and briefs to keep the Legislature informed. This LFC staff goes through a year-long process with other financial agencies, the higher education department, and higher education institutions to form a “statewide framework” for the money dedicated to state owned projects. The other half, for pork, doesn’t get as much attention and seems less coordinated, if at all.

The LFC staff does basic training for legislators with guidelines for prioritizing requests. Even with that, there are challenges:· Lack of coordination. Ideally, a legislator would coordinate requests with local governments, mayors, or council members to see how a request fits into overall priorities. This happens on a limited basis. To please constituents, legislators sometimes fund random requests that are not priorities. As examples, I heard stories of unwanted recreational equipment, excess school furniture, and equipment being secured with no place to land. These random appropriations sometimes die on the vine or revert to the general fund.

· Lack of knowledge. In rural communities, where citizens may serve multiple roles – the village manager is also volunteer fire chief or postmaster, for example – few know exactly what steps should be taken to submit a request. They may also lack technical expertise and resources for project planning.

· Demand far outweighs supply. In the last session, there were requests for $3.6 billion in local capital outlay. Only $525 million, or 15%, was available. Because most legislators want everyone to have a package under the tree, they spread money wide and shallow rather than narrow and deep.

These challenges are combined with the fact that legislators don’t know exact allocations until late in the session, have no regular staff to help vet requests as they are submitted, and have lots of other legislation to consider once the session is underway.

This is why there is $1.6 billion of local capital outlay unspent: No vetting, little coordination, overwhelming requests.

Meanwhile, the portal for submitting requests for 2025 will open Oct. 17. Assuming revenues stay high, here comes Santa Claus.

Removing tax on tipped wages

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

The policy debate in the presidential election has a new focus: removing taxes on tips for tipped wage earners.

Both candidates announced their proposals to eliminate taxes on tips in Nevada, which has the highest workforce percentage of tipped workers at 5%. New Mexico’s percentage of tipped workers is 3.5%.

Harris’s announcement was different because it also included a pledge to raise the federal minimum wage.

This is a great sound bite for rallies and commercials, but behind the scenes it is more complicated.

A tipped wage earner is someone who customarily and regularly receives $30 or more a month in tips. In 2023, according to the Yale University Budget Lab, there were four million workers in this group, approximately 2.5% of the U. S. workforce.

Tipped wage earners are younger (17 to 34). Nationally, women are more likely to be tipped workers. According to the Tax Policy Center, women make up 71% of the tipped workforce while representing less than half of the current total workforce.

Food service, personal services, and ride sharing programs are the most tipped wage earner industries.

Statistics show there is spotty compliance in reporting tips, with some estimates showing only 50% of the income reported. Last year there was a 7% drop in tip amounts – indicating consumer resistance especially as more industries began to add it as an option.

The federal tipped minimum wage (sometimes referred to as the subminimum wage) is $2.13. Sixteen states stick with that amount. Other states have established their own tipped wage ranging from $2.23 in Delaware to $12.75 in Hawaii. New Mexico’s tipped wage amount is $3.

To add another twist, in New Mexico and other states, there are local options for cities to raise the tipped minimum wage above the state law amount. Three communities in New Mexico take advantage of this: Albuquerque’s is $7.20, Santa Fe’s is $4.36, and Las Cruces is $4.95.

No employer can legally pay a worker less than the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour. If a tipped wage earner does not get enough tips to close the gap and reach this figure, employers are required to make up the difference. Added to the mix, states can set their own minimum wage amount above $7.25. New Mexico’s minimum wage is $12. This is also subject to local option and Santa Fe’s minimum wage is now $14.60.

Closing the gap between the tipped wage and the required minimum wage, regardless of location, depends on consumers (those of us leaving tips) and the employers. Ultimately if employers fail to pay the required minimum wage, they can be subject to penalties such as fines, back pay requirements and in the most egregious cases, criminal filings.

Who benefits from these proposals is uncertain. According to experts at the American Enterprise Institute and the Tax Policy Center, it may not impact those who need it most – the lowest wage workers. More than one-third of tipped workers didn’t make enough to file federal taxes last year. Others who reached the threshold to file take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit or Child Tax credits, thus reducing their taxable income.

This is complicated, bureaucratic, and hard for voters to understand.

Here is the good news. Across the country states are eliminating the tipped wage and along with it bureaucracy. Seven states have done it and five others have legislation pending with hopes twenty states will accomplish this by 2025.

It’s simple: Workers are paid the minimum wage required by law in their state and tips are still allowable.

Hopefully, the major party candidates will catch up with state innovation and propose elimination of the tipped wage and raising the federal minimum wage to $15 as proposed. Then everybody wins.

Conventions provide voters with contrasts

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

The 2024 Democratic and Republican conventions are now part of the history books. Having attended four Democratic conventions, I know each has its own flavor and spirit. Conventions help show voters the contrast between parties and candidates.

For every convention, there is anticipation and media hype prior to the event. Candidates have completed the primary process, and it’s time to come together behind a candidate.

This year was historic.

The Republicans nominated a former president who has been convicted of 34 felonies and sexual assault. That is a historic first.

Joe Biden was the uncontested Democratic nominee with aging issues. Both men were unpopular, voters thought they were too old to run, and enthusiasm was lacking.

Even so, things were moving along as expected as the conventions approached. The Republican convention came off smoothly with bravado and confidence. Talk of a landslide seeped out. Then something unprecedented happened.

Three days after the end of the Republican Convention, Joe Biden withdrew as the Democratic nominee and endorsed his running mate, Kamala Harris to replace him. Within a few days, Vice President Harris had secured the necessary support to be nominated.

It was a seismic shift, leaving only 29 days to redesign the Democratic Convention. Democrats captured the news cycle. Excitement built for the Democratic Convention, and Republicans tried to regroup.

Harris’s energy, her warmth and her joyful style were soon on display as she campaigned. New Mexico delegates threw their support behind Harris and were full of excitement as they left for Chicago.

Even with changing events, the two conventions provided a contrast for viewers.

First, the delegations. In 2012 one news outlet described the Republican convention as pale, male and stale. Not much has changed. Only 3% of Republican delegates in 2024 identified as people of color.

Forty-four percent of Democratic delegates identified as Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and other ethnicities. New Mexico’s delegation was a wonderful reflection of our heritage.

Democrats had a joy factor. Fred Harris, our super delegate, having attended 14 conventions, said, “This was the most joyful and enthusiastic of them all.” Indeed, the word “joy” was used 35 times on the third night alone.

Roll call, traditionally the most boring convention moment, was a surprisingly stark contrast. At the RNC Mike Johnson reminded delegates to “mind their manners.”

For Democrats, roll call was a different story. Music for every state, dancing, diversity, and joy. Then there were signs. I, for one, never thought I would watch a convention where thousands of signs displaying “Mass Deportations Now” were waving. Never. But there they were at the RNC. Meanwhile Democratic delegates displayed signs saying “USA,” “Thank you Joe!” “Union Yes!” and a sea of thousands of American flags in a display of patriotism.

The acceptance speeches provided the starkest contrast. Trump made a 93-minute address described as rambling and unfocused. Initially, he tried to define himself differently with talk of uniting the country. It did not last. Very quickly he pivoted back to grievances about 2020, the media, legal problems, and prosecuting enemies. Focus disappeared.

Fast forward to Harris and the DNC. After a lengthy standing ovation Harris began with “Let’s get down to business!”

In a 37-minute, well organized speech she did just that. She told us about her early life and middle-class upbringing. She highlighted her prosecutorial skills, values, and love of country. She looked to the future: building the middle class and an opportunity economy, protecting healthcare rights for which we have fought, strengthening America’s place in the world, and fighting tyranny. All in 37 minutes.

Conventions start the ball rolling. The choice and contrasts will become even clearer in the days to come. Now is the time for New Mexicans tune in.

Having a coach on the team

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

“Now that we have a coach on the team, I feel great!”

Those are the words of my friend, Ray Birmingham, a retired New Mexico Junior College and UNM baseball coach when I asked him about Gov. Tim Walz. Others have made similar comments about Walz, a longtime coach and educator, who was tapped to be the running mate of Vice President Kamala Harris.

Walz, whose name and background have just been introduced to the public over the past few days, has all the characteristics of someone who connects with people in his community – a teacher and football coach who has touched a lot of lives over two decades.

He reminds me of a teacher I had in my hometown of Hobbs, James Richards. The similarities to Richards, who was my Houston Junior High civics and history teacher were what caught my attention. Coach Richards was kind, encouraging, a lover of both New Mexico and U. S. History. He challenged us to debate on subjects we didn’t know much about as a way to learn more. He coached at the junior high school and in later years moved up to be a teacher and assistant basketball coach for the Hobbs Eagles. He eventually became the high school athletic director.

Both Walz and Richards grew up in rural America. Walz was born in Nebraska; Coach Richards was raised in Potosi, Missouri, whose population today is 2,559. Both were raised in families who believed in public education. When Walz made his debut on Tuesday, he underscored small town farm roots and spoke about his life as a teacher for two decades, his military service, and his elected office experience. Some of his accomplishments include universal free lunches for kids, expanded healthcare for veterans, and resources to end veteran homelessness; as governor, he extended the child tax credit when the federal one expired – providing continuity for families in Minnesota.

But it was his love of his students and teaching that has stuck with me most and their love of him. Straight talking, hard working, challenging, and friendly. Straight talk including, “Mind your own damn business,” as a phrase to address the threat to personal decisions and freedoms. Coach Richards taught me the phrase, “The sun doesn’t shine on one dog’s tail all day long,” when we thought all was lost. Or cautioning me to “keep your eyes open” when he was warning me.

Former students are talking about Walz’s impact on their lives and how he made sure students were seen and valued. Coach Walz, like Coach Richards and Coach Birmingham, knew how to build winning football, basketball, and baseball teams. They lifted players up. They didn’t tear them down.

The stories from Walz’s students brought back other memories about Coach Richards. A former student, Larissa Beck, described how Walz was “ingrained in the fabric of Mankato West High School.” Every morning, he was in the halls greeting students by name in the same way Coach Richards stood at the door of Houston Jr. High greeting us from the first day. He knew our names in no time.

Later in life, I was part of a group who tried to get Coach to run for the New Mexico Legislature. He was an active Democrat, and he had the temperament and the love of New Mexico we needed. But he was shyer than Tim Walz and diplomatically turned down the idea.

I think voters can’t help but feel better having “a coach on the team.” The best coaches reflect their communities and value the people in them. Tim Walz, as a newly minted vice-presidential candidate, is helping us understand what that means. Welcome to the team, Coach!

Line of succession

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corne

r I’ve been thinking more these days about Vice President Kamala Harris, her role as vice president and the ever present is-she-ready question.

Being second in line is something I know a little about but on a smaller scale. For eight years, I served as lieutenant governor to Gov. Bill Richardson.

Another similarity we share is being the first women to serve in the offices mentioned.

In New Mexico, the lieutenant governor is elected in a primary and becomes part of the ticket. It’s somewhat like an arranged marriage with the voters deciding who should be part of the ceremony. At the federal level, each party’s nominee for president selects their running mate through a vetting process and confirmation of convention delegates.

Constitutional responsibilities are remarkably similar. Both are first in the line of succession to be chief executive (governor or president). Both serve as president of the Senate, presiding over the body. Neither has the power to vote unless the Senate is evenly divided on a matter.

An additional role for the vice president is the responsibility of opening, counting, and announcing the electoral votes in a joint session of Congress following a presidential election.

Most Americans had been unaware of this provision until Jan. 6, 2021, when President Trump intervened and tried to interrupt that process. Vice President Mike Pence leaned into his constitutional duty. The Constitution held strong despite a violent assault on the Capitol that day. Both offices, lieutenant governor and vice president, have evolved over time.

In New Mexico lieutenant governors received no salary until the term of Lt. Gov. Roberto Mondragon, who served two non-successive terms.

Additionally, as time passed, the lieutenant governor became a member of the governor’s cabinet and chair of several statutory boards designated in legislation. During my time I became chair of the first Children’s Cabinet. We acted as a mini cabinet advising the governor about children’s issues and the role departments could play in improving children’s lives.

The vice presidents responsibilities also grew. In 1949 the vice president became a member of the National Security Council, thanks to President Truman. Truman realized that should succession happen for any reason, vice presidents needed to be fully informed. Over time, vice presidents were included in the president’s daily intelligence briefings, and that is still the case today.

Still, the readiness and success in ascending to the top stop is partially determined by the governor or president and the role they carve out with their running mates.

Most of us, when first elected, have to grow into the position. In the case of a lieutenant governor and vice president, it also depends on establishing a trusted relationship with the top of the ticket. Vice President Harris acknowledged early on that building her relationship with President Biden was her first job. All indications are that Biden and Harris have done that with weekly lunches and her inclusion in staff meetings and briefings.

The Dobbs decision, which eliminates a woman’s right to reproductive care, created a new focus for Harris. She became the administration’s outspoken critic of the consequences of the decision. She has also been a key player on voters’ rights and a strong spokesperson for the president’s economic agenda.

At the end of 2023, Harris had cast more tie-breaking votes than any other vice president – 32 of them – including two critical economic bills: the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan, which helped rebuild the economy after the pandemic.

For all the current discussion of “Is she ready?” Yes. If and when the time comes. Her life experience, public service and strong values make her as ready as any of us can be to assume a job we have not held before.

Times of Agony

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

There has been no shortage of commentary about the Biden vs. Trump debate

. As the debate closed, the first focus was on Joe Biden’s appearance, voice and style. He had a poor start and improved as the night wore on, but commentators, journalists, Biden allies and Joe Biden himself conceded it was a bad night.

And a bad night for a candidate always brings out the vultures and the feeding frenzy. As journalist Nicolas Kristof once said, we report crash landings, not safe landings.

Since the debate, The New York Times has published 192 articles about Biden’s debate performance – 142 news articles and 50 opinion pieces. Trump was covered in 92 stories, most in regard to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. None mentioned Trump’s own mental fitness or sociopathic lying. In a disservice to viewers, CNN announced pre-debate its reporters would not fact check the two men in real time. As a result, the moderators let Trump spew lies about taxes, abortion, the deficit, and Biden.

Trump employed what is called the Gish Gallop in the debate. The formal definition of the Gish Gallop is “a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by abandoning debating principles, providing an excessive number of arguments with no regards for the accuracy or strength of those arguments and that are impossible to address adequately in the time allotted to the opponent.”

Trump used this technique effectively throughout, and, just as the definition implies, he spoke without regard to accuracy, spewed falsehoods and used his well-rehearsed style of personal attacks.

Here are a few examples of lies, all without evidence. Biden is “a Manchurian Candidate, paid by China.” One fact checker has dubbed this “Liar, liar, Pants on fire!” He also claimed Biden “encouraged Russia to attack Ukraine.” Not only false but bordering on delusional.

Most of his lies focused on immigration using the words “Biden,” “migrant” and “crime” and claiming Biden was killing “so many at our borders” with immigrants “coming in and killing our citizens at levels we have never seen.”

Once again there is no evidence to back up such a claim. But the Gish Gallop is designed to ignore facts and data.

And, showing off his repeated efforts to rewrite January 6th history, he tried to deflect blame to Sen. Nancy Pelosi, saying she refused his offer of 10.000 troops to assist. The latter has been frequently debunked by military officials who were at the ready and got no call. This is not true by any account.

And lastly, Trump’s claim that he “aced” two cognitive tests could or could not be true. He won’t release results. But when asked about being 82 at the end of a term, should he win, he turned to his golf game. I’m waiting for an intelligent voter to tell me he votes for the guy with the best golf handicap.

In the aftermath there was a feeding frenzy, as the number of articles indicates, and it was not by any standard an evenhanded approach.

The vultures were flying overhead and began to pounce.

Democrats, journalists and editorial writers began to question Biden’s fitness for the job with some calling for his withdrawal from the race. None spoke directly about Trump’s delusional state of mind. Some said Trump repeated falsehoods from his rallies, but some of the statements are so bizarre it should raise questions about his mental stability.

Regardless of the aftermath or the path ahead, one thing is clear: Neither Trump nor Biden won the debate. The only winner was the Gish Gallop, which was allowed to go unchallenged by both Biden and the moderators.

Who wins, who loses?

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

It’s hard to know who the biggest loser in the Hunter Biden trial might be. Hunter Biden, of course, who was convicted on three felony counts on June 11 by a jury of his Delaware peers, lost the legal case.

Donald Trump lost something bigger; his complaints about two-tiered justice were stopped cold. During the Biden trial, only snippets of the courtroom drama were reported: who was testifying and to what they were testifying. As with most news, it was hard to get the full context of courtroom action. What is clear to voters is the split screen of approaches by the former president and Hunter Biden and his family.

A jury of their peers convicted both men. Both trials had competent judges who followed best practices for courtroom procedure.

The former president and presumptive GOP nominee was unanimously convicted by a New York jury of 34 counts of fraud and falsifying documents. During the trial he spent time attacking the judge and witnesses and trying to uncover names and information about jurors. His allies were not family but GOP politicians, traveling to New York, conducting press conferences, trashing the judicial system.

Contrast that to President Biden’s son (who is not running for president) who stood trial on charges of lying on federal forms while buying a firearm and owning a firearm while using drugs. From day one, his dad expressed both his love for Hunter and his faith in the judicial system. Neither Hunter Biden nor the president whined or criticized the jurors or the judge. Someone in Hunter Biden’s family walked into the courtroom with him, supporting him with their presence every day. They hoped for a different outcome but didn’t get it.

The prosecutor emphasized the trial was not about addiction but about illegal choices while addicted. Millions of parents and families can relate to a family whose son, now a father himself, has struggled with addiction for years. Many families have experienced the damage caused by addiction and understand it. Prisons are full of those who committed crimes because of their addictions.

In my own family, my younger brother fought addiction from the time he was a teenager. I bailed him out of jail, had to go searching for him when he didn’t show up for family dinners. My mom denied his addiction. It frustrated my dad. Both loved him regardless.

All of those emotions have no doubt been on display for the Biden family this week. But what the trial really offered us was a contrast of two powerful men and their families and contrasts in accountability.

In the Biden family, we see a loving, supportive family showing us how love can be so important. Hunter Biden was remorseful. He refused to blame “a rigged system,” “unfairness” or “a corrupt judge.” Hunter Biden’s father expressed his love for his son throughout as well as his belief in a fair judicial system.

Trump’s family rarely showed up to support him. Trump and his allies were camera hogs, constantly trashing the third branch of government, complaining about a two-tiered system of justice. There were threats to prosecutors, the judge and his family and a lack of remorse that continues today.

But it’s clear the verdict discredited Republican claims of a two-tiered justice system.

Through the Biden family reaction, we were reminded what respect for the law looks like even when you lose.

Finally, it reinforced our faith in the justice system. In spite of recent attacks and accusations and a four-year campaign to destroy the institution, justice prevailed.

We are in the end, a nation of laws, not men.

Read election mailers with care

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

The last weeks before Election Day during the early-voting period, voters are bombarded with information through direct mail, texts and social media.

If you are a voter in a district where there are competitive races, no doubt your mailbox is stuffed with political mail. As of this writing, I am buried in 49 pieces of political mail; 37 of them are from just four legislative candidates. The remaining 12 are for five other races.

This year I’ve found some interesting things in mailers and not just in my district. (I get Democratic mail.)

First, there is the copycat flyer approach of endorsed candidates from Planned Parenthood Votes New Mexico and something similar coming from candidates endorsed by Moms Demand Action. Same design, same exact message, same colors, just a different candidate picture. An impersonal strategy at best.

And speaking of Planned Parenthood Votes New Mexico, in Senate District 9, Sandoval and Bernalillo counties, a flyer on behalf of their endorsed candidate claims the candidate has “a record in the Roundhouse” and “voted time after time to protect reproductive rights.” It’s not just misinformation – it’s a lie. Their candidate has never been elected or served in the Roundhouse. Sloppy or intentional, PPVNM knows of the error but has yet to issue a retraction.

They aren’t the only ones. Equality New Mexico sent out a text message to some voters in House District 18, my district. The message claims that one of the candidates, Anjali Taneja, is “deeply involved with the corporate medical establishment.” Nothing is further from the truth. Taneja is a doctor who runs a medical clinic, many of whose patients are uninsured. It’s a highly contested race, between her and the Equality New Mexico lobbyist candidate. After an outcry, the director admitted he should have done it differently.

In Chaves County the race for Senate District 32 to replace outgoing Sen. Cliff Pirtle is between Rep. Candy Ezell and Chad Hamill. A Republican political action committee supporting Hamill sent a mailer accusing Ezell of being too liberal. Now that qualifies as the silly season in politics. Ezell is a tough talking farm girl, a no-holds-barred woman. She votes 100% of the time with Republicans – doesn’t believe in climate change or gun safety laws and supports cutting programs to reduce spending.

In Senate District 42, encompassing three southeastern counties, Rep. Larry Scott uses mail to accuse Sen. Steve McCutcheon of being cozy with the Democratic governor simply because he accepted her appointment to the vacant seat. But voters are smart. They understand that Scott, who also applied for the appointment, would have accepted if chosen.

Many of the same mailers are filled with endorsements from current or previous elected officials. Although political endorsements are the least effective, candidates spend lots of time securing them. It’s a matter of debate what kind of endorsements work best and if they matter. An early endorsement might help secure a few activists. Late endorsements can help secure undecided voters in a tight race.

Endorsements from unions are described as a “call to arms” for members and sometimes come with volunteers, signs, and monetary resources.

Personal endorsements from longtime friends and colleagues and others outside the political class are many times the most powerful.

From a voter point of view how is it best to decipher this onslaught of information?

Fact check the information on mailers, texts, and social media.

Beware of candidates who promise the moon instead of focusing on your district’s needs.

Something to remember when you get negative mail: “Lies make it halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

And finally, be your own endorser. GO VOTE!

New Mexico’s lucky day

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

In New Mexico one of our best kept secrets is former U.S. Sen. Fred Harris. It was a lucky day in 1976 when Sen. Harris and his family moved to New Mexico.

The move came after two terms as U.S. senator from Oklahoma and two runs for president in 1972 and 1976.

On May 21 New Mexico PBS will air “American Experience: The Riot Report.” Harris is featured as the surviving member of the National Advisory Council on Civil Disorders, better known as the Kerner Commission. It was established after the Detroit riot of 1967, which killed dozens of people and spurred other riots in cities in Ohio, New Jersey and New York.

Harris was appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson at a time when one journalist dubbed it as the worst crisis since the Civil War.

The work of the commission and its conclusions were controversial. After intensive field investigations in 23 cities, the report concluded that white racism and police brutality – not communist agitators, as President Johnson had thought – were what sparked the riots. The conclusion was unanimous among the members of the commission, who had significantly differing political views.

Reading that was what gave me the idea to write about Sen. Harris, who I met in 1982. In New Mexico communities outside of Albuquerque, Fred Harris might not be a familiar name. And with the shrinking emphasis on teaching history, the story of the Detroit Riots through the Riot Report and other historical events of the 60s become less well known.

Fred Harris, through his personal story as a young boy in Oklahoma, his service as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator from the same state, his experience as a two-time candidate for president, and as a member of the Kerner Commission make him New Mexico’s own witness to history.

After moving to New Mexico, Harris began a 30-year career as a professor in the Political Science Department at the University of New Mexico. Then for ten years he was founder and director of the Fred Harris Congressional Internship program, established in 2006, which gives students the chance to spend a semester in Washington D. C. working for a member of the New Mexico delegation. Students get a bird’s eye view of how Congress works (or sometimes doesn’t work).

As a popular and beloved history professor at UNM, Harris became known as the best storyteller of historical events and their context, including those in his lifetime. Among them, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights fights, and successes of LBJ and the conflicts including in his own party about the Vietnam War.

He wasn’t always just teaching history. He was also connecting with and encouraging students to keep going. That story was brought to light last weekend at the convocation of the graduating political science students.

Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland told of Harris’ impact on her own life. She came to his classroom as a single Native American mom, recovering alcoholic, and struggling student working to get her education. Harris’ encouragement and friendship, his knowledge of the struggles of Native Americans, and his innate ability to identify her determination powered her through – encouraged her to be an activist, get her law degree, and succeed.

Almost 50 years after that move in 1976, Harris has become known by students, friends, and political colleagues from both sides as “a radical optimist,” always looking ahead with an eye on the future, believing in the goodness of others and the power of the next generation, and confident in our ability to do better. New Mexico is lucky indeed.

The high cost of self-checkout

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

If you do grocery shopping for your family, you have undoubtedly used self-checkout. That’s what I was doing recently when shopping for two items in a nearby store.

I noticed a new sign had been posted: “Self-check-out restricted to 15 items or less.” I had not seen that before.

On the contrary, there were times I had stood in self-checkout lines when the regular cashier stations were all closed or only had one checker. People had large carts full of items. Fresh foods, paper goods, canned goods, liquor or wine or beer, you name it.

The sign made me wonder what prompted the change. Scanning, bagging, and paying complete, I headed over to the long-time cashier, Margarita, who was supervising the area.

After her usual warm welcome and “I’ve missed seeing you lately” greeting, I asked about the sign. She told me a story of self-checkout that is also playing out nationally.

Theft is a problem, she said, with some customers who intentionally skip scanning expensive products. Some have figured out how to scan in cheaper prices. The more items the more likely the theft.

Self-checkout began early in the last century. The first Piggly Wiggly “self-service supermarket” was created in 1918. This was the beginning of putting customers to work for supermarkets without pay. From the start it was designed as a way to lower labor costs.

According to CNN Business, the more robust effort came with the first modern system, called Check Reboot, piloted by Kroger in 1986. It’s much different from what we see today; customers would scan items, someone would bag them, and then you would go to a central cashier to pay. (At least they were still doing the bagging!)

A decade later Walmart began to test the system, and in the 2000s they expanded it, as did Albertson’s and others that were cutting costs in the 2001 recession.

The premise was this: Self-checkout would lower wait times, eliminate labor costs and revolutionize the grocery industry. Machines don’t call in sick, and they always show up.

In 2020, Walmart began testing stores that were exclusively self-checkout. Machines and customers working for them. Fast forward to 2024.

A surprising shift occurred. In the fall of 2023, the retail giant removed all of its self-checkout machines in six U.S. stores. The Canadian company Giant Tiger and others began following suit.

Why?

Christopher Andrews, author of “The Overworked Consumer: Supermarkets and the Do- It-Yourself Economy,” says, “Self-checkout delivers none of what it promises.”

Customers are not the most reliable scanners and make mistakes. And, by some reports, 67% of customers either dislike self-checkout or find it too frustrating. Some customers are thieves and don’t scan expensive items. And, given the lax oversight, theft through self-checkout is high and costly.

Self-checkout still requires attendants to help customers and monitor theft, but monitoring theft can put employees in danger from aggressive thieves. Machine maintenance adds costs as it requires highly skilled IT expertise. Waits can be longer, not shorter, due to unpaid, untrained workers: customers like you and me.

And, Andrews says, some stores have figured out that due to theft, self-checkout actually hurts the bottom line.

There is little question that some form of self-checkout is here to stay. After 40 years you would think it would be flawless, but it’s not. And from a customer point of view, it’s sorely lacking in customer service.

Longtime cashiers we see every time, like Margarita, wonder where I’ve been lately, ask about my grandchildren, or give me a hug when they heard my husband died. That’s customer service no machine will ever provide.

Polling is a sketch, not a painting

By Diane Denish

Corner to Corner

In the U. S. there is something called the polling industrial complex. It’s a description of how polling has changed over 50 years. It has grown and become more complex and less understandable.

Researchers define polling as the ability of organizations outside of government to gather, interpret, and publish information about voter views on issues and candidates.

People often say when a poll comes out, “No one polled me!” That holds true for most Americans. It’s an indication of the skepticism people have about polls with which they don’t agree.

If voters want to be able to look at polls knowledgeably there are some key things to know. First, polling has changed dramatically over time, as have many things in the political consulting industry.

Twenty-five years ago, pollsters were calling land lines and had response rates upwards of 50%. Today polls are conducted online, through text messaging, and on cell phones. Today response rates have dropped to the single digits in most instances.

Polls are a snapshot in time. Voters tend to believe they are predictive of what will happen in November – a theme magnified by mainstream media. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I write, it is 198 days until the Election Day on Nov. 5. Any poll you see today will be irrelevant as soon as tomorrow.

Different polling organizations conduct surveys differently. Methods of surveys include live interviews by telephone (CNN), on-line opt-in panels (CBS and Politico) and online polls of respondents recruited offline (Associated Press and Pew Research). Some other less dependable pollsters use a combination of robocalls and opt-in panels.

Different methods can often have an effect on data quality. According to Pew Research and the Roper Center for Opinion Research, opt-in online polls (such as Survey Monkey) generally have a much higher error rate than live polling methods.

This brings me to what is called “margin of error.” Generally, commentators and consultants have led us to believe that a narrow 3% margin-of-error rate represents an accurate poll – assuming that the random samples may only slightly differ from the population. Pew Research cautions that a more accurate margin of error rate is 6%, when you consider the possibilities of mismeasurement, skewed group of respondents, or nonresponse.

There is sometimes an assumption that exceptionally large sample sizes are better. The theory that larger sample size is a sign of quality is outdated. Nate Cohen of the New York Times pointed out recently that because of increasing costs of polling, polls with huge samples are using cheaper and problematic methods. What may be true in textbook theory is not necessarily true in reality.

Polls may actually affect the outcome of elections. Sometime less reliable methodology, poorly weighted or designed polls, conclude a candidate is extremely likely to win – ultimately suppressing the vote. Conversely, polls showing an extremely close race might push infrequent voters to vote. What surprises Americans most in presidential elections is that polls can accurately identify the candidate most preferred nationally and not predict the winner. That happened in 2000 when Al Gore won the national popular vote but ultimately lost the electoral vote. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.87 million votes and lost the electoral vote. In 2020 that changed, with Biden winning the popular and the electoral votes.

What can we learn from understanding polling, methodology and results? Not as much as we would like. As Simon Rosenburg of Hopium Chronicles says, “Polls are a sketch, not a painting.” My conclusion is that albeit trite, it’s true: The only poll that really counts is when we all go vote early, absentee or on Election Day.

Welcome to New Mexico News Services LLC!

diane denish 4-29-24 on

This website uses cookies.