Why We Need a Better Explaination of How Our Money Is Being Spent

Why We Need a Better Explaination of How Our Money Is Being Spent

Letters to the Editor: $100 million in campaign spending doesn’t show you care

A recent column from former Rep. Tom Tancredo appeared as an editorial in the Santa Fe New Mexican. It’s not a surprise since the New Mexico Congressional Record also features Tancredo’s column on the same topic every few days. The column focuses on the fact that there’s $100 million in campaign spending on the 2010 and 2012 ballot, but it doesn’t explain how all that money is spent.

When Tancredo said the money could have been used for projects that would benefit our great state and its citizens, he was talking about improving roads and bridges, helping our schools, preserving our wetlands and making the State Capitol more energy-efficient. But he didn’t have evidence, such as budget projections, for the millions in expenditures.

We need a better explanation of how our money is being used. We don’t have to like the proposed spending. Our Legislature does have a role to play in approving ballot initiatives and spending money. But it should be their role as representatives of the citizens they represent to explain how our money is being spent.

We’ve seen the $100 million spent before. It’s called the Proposition 1A bond and bond issue. If all goes according to plan, we expect more than $1 billion in additional bond authorizations.

We’ve seen the $100 million spending on the 2010 and 2012 elections. Some of you will believe everything I write in this column. But it’s not hard to find in our own news media. The New York Times has three columns on the spending. The Los Angeles Times does a story today that is a bit better.

The Times does point out, however, that the Proposition 1A bond should be repealed. And that our money has been wasted on a ballot proposal.

The Times also points out that the $100 million is a drop in the bucket for a state government that has more than $1 billion in revenues. And the Times doesn’t try to put it into context. The newspaper doesn’t include any analysis of what the bond-issue money

Leave a Comment