« Legislative "Leaders" Reportedly Refuse to Tax Wealthy, Big-Box Corporations in "Budget Deal" | Main | Stephen Jones Reports: Doña Ana County Democrats Host Rousing Convention »
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Rep. Ben Rodefer Calls for Immediate Joint NM House & Senate Democratic Caucus
New Mexico State Representative Benjamin Rodefer (D-Corrales) today called for an immediate joint caucus of the State’s House and Senate Democrats.
“We are all part of the same team.” Rodefer said in a statement he released early this evening. “Now is precisely the time we need to start acting that way, working together to address the very serious challenges facing New Mexico.”
The Democrats hold a significant majority in both New Mexico’s legislative houses, but a joint caucus like the one Representative Rodefer is calling for is extremely unusual, having not been called for in years.
Rodefer explained further: “Monday we will begin considering a budget deal orchestrated in private by Governor Bill Richardson and a small handful of legislative leaders. The deal calls for cuts to schools and all state agencies and includes several regressive taxes, including an increase to the GRT and a partial reinstatement of the food tax.”
“Yet it gives the rich, to whom the Governor gave huge tax breaks in 2003, and large out-of-state corporations like Walmart, a complete pass -- instead balancing the budget once again on the backs of New Mexico’s middle-class & working families.”
“That is not even close to the will and intent of either Democratic Caucus. It is high time that we all get together, sit in the same room, talk this through, and work as a team to create a better future for New Mexico,” said Rodefer.
Such an official joint caucus requires the support of both House and Senate leadership.
February 27, 2010 at 09:18 PM in Democratic Party, Economy, Populism, Education, Gov. Bill Richardson, Government, NM Legislature Special Session 2010, Taxes | Permalink
Comments
Now THIS is a Democrat! Go Rep. Ben!
Posted by: Old Dem | Feb 27, 2010 10:03:15 PM
Rep Rodefer,
Are you calling for a meeting in secret of a larger handful of legislators, or will stakeholders be invited to watch?
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 28, 2010 6:39:41 AM
Mr. Macquigg, for once why don't you pay attention to what your queen bee Janice Arnold Jones is doing? She was at the tea bagger candidate forum yesterday saying tea bagger things to please the tea baggers. Even worse the results of the straw poll they took will be kept secret - the public is not allowed to see them.
I don't know any party caucus that is open to the public do you? The "stakeholders" in a party caucus are the members of the caucus.
Posted by: Jim | Feb 28, 2010 9:02:11 AM
Thank you for your ad hominem attack and the vindication it implies.
I have written already that the Tea Party was errant in their intention to hand the results only to the candidates - I need no lecture from you on that point. If you have some evidence that the decision was JAJ's, point to it.
I am going to go out on a limb here, and suppose that you were not at the Gubernatorial Forum and in fact, have no idea what Janice Arnold-Jones answered to any question.
The proof to the contrary would be your ability to point to something she said, and your specific objection to it.
With regard to secret caucuses, "everybody else is doing it" is an argument that really does not plays outside of an elementary school play ground.
Point to something that could be said in a caucus that needs to be kept secret from you and why.
The "stakeholders" are everyone whose interests are affected by the decision that is being made. If you do not realize that decisions are being made in these meetings, that affect your interests, you are as stupid as you are rude.
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 28, 2010 9:38:55 AM
Does Ched have to waylay every thread that mentions Democrats with this Arnold Jones crap? Doesn't he have his own blog for bs like this?
Posted by: Sadie | Feb 28, 2010 9:41:41 AM
I did not waylay this thread, I did not bring up JAJ, Jim did.
Thank you for your ad hominem attack, and the vindication it implies.
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 28, 2010 9:54:52 AM
She attended the crazy tea bagger event and that is bad enough. The word caucus means a meeting of those in the caucus, duh.
Posted by: Jim | Feb 28, 2010 9:58:42 AM
The fundamental argument on this thread is whether government, in this case party caucuses, should be open to the public, or not.
I will spare you a restatement of the several and compelling arguments in favor of transparency in government.
So far, the arguments in favor of keeping this meeting in secret from the people whose power and resources are being spent, include
1. everyone else does it, and
2. the word caucus means meeting of those in the caucus. and,
3. duh.
None of those, to be blunt, strikes me as even considerable.
Is there anyone reading this thread who would like to present the argument in favor of secrecy? Is there anyone hear that will take the time to write out the words to the hypothetical conversation that should be conducted in secret from stakeholders, and then defend their position?
Rep Rodefer, I would suppose, will at some point read this thread. Is it reasonable to ask him to explain exactly what he needs to do in secret from the people and why?
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 28, 2010 10:38:05 AM
A party caucus is not government. You are thick as a brick Ched
Posted by: Jim | Feb 28, 2010 10:53:13 AM
"A party caucus is not government"
you are as ignorant as you are persistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus
Do you ever look at something you've posted and wish your computer had an "unsend" key?
Are your interests being discussed during caucuses?
Will their decision affect your interests?
While you might willingly surrender your right to exercise your right to attend to decision making that affects your interests, it is exceedingly arrogant of you to surrender everyone else's.
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 28, 2010 11:08:32 AM
So do the Republicans in Santa fe hold open party caucuses? Do the Democrats or Republicans do it in Washington? A party meeting is a party meeting. Again I say Duh.
Posted by: Jim | Feb 28, 2010 12:30:57 PM
and again you display the inadequacy of your defense of unnecessary secrecy.
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 28, 2010 1:40:05 PM
I'm not seeing any other House or Senate members coming out to support Ben Rodefer on this. Why not? Are they sheep?
Posted by: LH | Feb 28, 2010 5:07:55 PM
Wow, that was smart of Susanna Martinez to pass up this meeting of these crazy people. I am disappointed in JAJ.
It is a good thing that Diane Denish is going to be the next Governor.
Posted by: qofdisks | Mar 1, 2010 11:54:42 PM
Susana Martinez didn't attend because there was a family medical emergency.
Posted by: barb | Mar 2, 2010 8:12:45 AM
