Three connected political items bring to mind metaphoric train wrecks. First, the New Mexico legislature starts slowly each year. Week by week the pace of legislative business picks up a little until the last few days, regardless of whether it is a 60 or 30 day session.
Suddenly it is time for the New Mexico legislature end game. So both legislative chambers meet often around the clock those last couple of days which is too intense for the media to adequately cover. Mercifully, everything comes to a screeching halt at noon the last day. Those final hours often are taken up by filibuster so that much of the work of the legislature is ruined by the bills that get caught and cannot be acted upon.
Year after year it is the same. Each year losing all of that work to filibusters is a heck of a way to run a government. The manipulation of the legislative process by the leadership seems to be done to thwart scrutiny and the will of the people. In no way do these leaders resemble our servants; instead, we appear to be subservient to them in all ways.
This brings me to the second metaphoric train wreck. Regardless of how important it is to New Mexico citizens the political parties both engage in a win loss game such that in almost everything one side wins and the other side loses. It does no good to talk about what the citizens want because government is not about the citizens. Rather, it is what the political leadership wants: money and power. You often hear, “I am against everything the (democrats or republicans) are for.”
That brings up the third concern: There is the notion that somehow people who are elected to a job that does not pay anything end up getting significantly wealthier. The Occupy Santa Fe folks stirred things up for a couple days talking about the corruption of the elected people in the legislature, but did nothing more than mouth off. At the same time while journalists clamor for open government most understand the “Wink wink nod nod,” leadership in Santa Fe and do not report on the real actions that happen behind doors.
Journalists should pry the lid off public service and answer the question: who gets rich on the backs of the citizens while serving the people? This transparency would be great. There is a suspicion that some people in elected service feather their own financial nests in ways seen and not seen. So in the name of transparency what would help the people is the ability to see how being elected affects the bottom line of the participants in the process. Included in this analysis would be spouses and close relatives.
For each person elected in New Mexico take three years of financials before entering elected service. Then, compare that to the time while serving and the three years following. From that data it would be possible to do a cost benefit of being elected. We could see if there is a direction for personal finance while and after serving.
Additionally, this data about change of wealth while serving can also be compared to the population as a whole or perhaps even compared to the people who run unsuccessfully for elected office. Those who run one time and never again could be compared to those who win and become power-brokers. “Gee, Michael, do you think being a political power broker changes the general wealth of the broker?” Yes I do.
While I am painting with a broad brush and I do know a few legislators who are everything the citizens could ever want, and, in fact, I suspect they have lost quite a bit of money serving the people. Nevertheless there is the suspicion by many citizens that winning election is the road to wealth. This ongoing survey would clear up these points and it would also tease out the details of people who suddenly get wealthier upon election.
I am not saying that it is wrong to harvest the wealth for service in the legislature; I just want the numbers available to the public so that they can do a cost benefit of having these people get wealthy at the helm. I certainly do not want to exclude anyone from service. Likewise I understand when someone is a celebrity in sports or entertainment; there are people who want to be close to them. Some people are offered business opportunities based upon their celebrity status.
Consider: lawyers who become power brokers in the legislature may be more attractive to clients. It is reasonable to assume that some retainers going to power brokers may be more economic applause than a need to retain a lawyer. That is fine as long as it is transparent as to the method of rewarding power broker status. Likewise, those who work in public schools may get an increase of power within the school system while serving. We will never know unless we look at the data.
