NM Senator Bingaman (D) on Government Shut Down

MeanMesa received the following email -- a monthly update -- from NM Senator Jeff Bingaman.  The explanation of the possible government shut down in April is especially interesting.  

(Note:  All links to "Continue Reading" are left active in this post.)

NM Senator Jeff Bingaman (D)

Newsletter Update from U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman 

March 17, 2011

Congress has recently been debating the federal government’s yearly budget. I have been hearing from many New Mexicans who are concerned about what the budget means for them, their communities, and the federal deficit, as well as many who feel strongly about government spending or taxes. Our current spending habits are unsustainable, and I believe we must all be prepared to make sacrifices in order to steer our country back to solid fiscal footing.

So the question is not whether we have to make cuts and raise revenue to balance the budget, but rather what we cut, and where we draw additional revenue to put the budget back into balance. Finally, I believe we must be careful to chart a long-term plan, rather than make draconian cuts this year that hamper the economic recovery that has only just begun. The annual budget is part of the important conversation we must have in order to improve the fiscal health of our government.

This newsletter is in question-and-answer format in order to address some of the concerns I’ve been hearing from many New Mexicans in recent weeks. I hope you find it helpful.

Jeff

What is the “CR” I’ve been hearing about Congress passing recently?

One of the main responsibilities of Congress is to pass annual spending bills that fund the federal government. These 12 bills allow federal government agencies to provide for our national defense, health care for veterans, basic science research and development, certain education initiatives, border security, and management of our federal lands, among other things.

When Congress does not pass the 12 bills by October 1, when a new fiscal year begins, the federal government is funded by “continuing resolutions,” also known as CRs. ... [Continue Reading]

What happens if Congress relies on Continuing Resolutions to fund the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year?

Short-term spending bills can have a negative impact on the country. Federal agencies need the stability and reliability of a longer-term funding stream. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said if Congress continues to fund the government under CRs, the Department of Defense “cannot do its job” and that the uncertain spending stream “would damage procurement and research programs … all of which directly impacts readiness.” This is just one example of the potential long-term damage we will do if we force agencies to continue operating through short-term CRs.

What will happen if Congress cannot reach an agreement on spending bills for this fiscal year?

If Congress fails to either pass another CR or fund the federal government for the next five months, there could be a government shutdown. That would mean all “non-essential” federal employees would be ordered to stay home from work, and not be paid for that period of time.

Each federal agency determines which employees are essential in order to maintain a skeleton operation, but the vast majority of individuals employed by the federal government will be furloughed, including Department of Defense and very likely national laboratory employees. Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a minimum amount of Border Patrol agents are deemed essential and would work (and be paid) on a regular schedule. ... [Continue Reading]

Did you support the House of Representatives’’ proposal to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year?

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a spending bill, called H.R. 1, which made deep cuts to the federal government that I believe would have harmed New Mexico and endangered our efforts to keep the nation’s economy moving. I did not support this measure, which was defeated in the Senate last week.

Of additional and particular concern to me was the devastating long-term impact H.R. 1 would have had on our economy, given the cuts to science and energy innovation. For example, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science—recently reauthorized by Congress under the America COMPETES Act—would have experienced a budget cut of $1.1 billion, or 22%, costing taxpayers 4,500 full-time scientists and engineers working toward our country’s energy independence, terminating the Early Career Research program for young faculty, and closing facilities used by 27,000 researchers. These are just the kinds of investments we should be making for our nation’s future.

H.R.1 would have also made our state less safe. … [Continue Reading]

What sorts of responsible spending cuts do you advocate?

Last year, my former Senate colleague, Pete Domenici, co-chaired the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, which came up with a plan to reduce and stabilize the national debt and reform personal and corporate taxes. The task force set forth measures such as freezing national discretionary spending (all spending that is not related to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), reforming certain programs, and raising additional revenue. While I did not endorse all of the proposals the panel advocated, I concur that a multi-faceted approach must be taken.

I also support many of the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which put very similar recommendations forward as measures that would help balance the budget and improve the long-term fiscal outlook of our country.

I do believe we need to freeze federal spending levels for many federal agencies and even make cuts over the long term in areas such as agricultural subsidies and defense. … [Continue Reading]

The Interesting Prospects of Congressional Poverty

Because MeanMesa is located in the beautiful high desert of New Mexico, the announcement that our Senior Senator was resigning this term sent shock waves through our Galactic Command Center.  There is little reason for another effort to eulogize the Senator's contributions.  That task will be well handled in more institutional forums.

Let it be said that Senator Bingaman has been a steady, dignified Democrat for all the terms he has served.  He has been reasonably honorable and reasonably honest.  In a quiet, non-dramatic way, Bingaman has legislated to the benefit of a laudable mixture of New Mexico interests, both the most successful among us and the least.

Now, however, our state faces the task of selecting another Democratic candidate to run in the 2012.  We have already seen the power of out of state (Texas, largely) money during the campaign which elected our new Republican Governor.  MeanMesa cannot avoid assuming that Governor Martinez's political shift --  from the lack luster Democratic candidate in her past to a well lubricated Republican one in the present -- was seriously detached from the new possibilities Citizens United opened to campaign financing.

The new Governor's program since her recent election, one including the dismantling of emission pollution regulation and regulators, a cessation of state investment in the profitable film industry, the revocation of driver's licenses issued to non-citizens and other barely disguised right wing wet dreams, demonstrates the grave necessity of electing a Democrat to fill Bingaman's Senate seat.

With this bit of an abbreviated introduction, let's get right to the title of this posting.

What kind of campaign platform will elect this Democrat to replace Bingaman?

What are the qualities of a Democratic candidate who can perform against a Republican opponent to win the votes?

Citizens United Selling "Up is Down" (image source)

Note:  If we were neo-con wing nuts discussing this topic, our questions would be somewhat different -- a difference which we should, perhaps, consider as something of an early commitment as we consider the design of the platform.  

"Platform?"  Yes.  Neo-cons are obsessed with the design of campaigns.  Since they have a fairly good record of winning elections, but a seriously flawed record of actually being able to effectively govern, neo-cons are inclined to always focus on the "fluff and the fury" of campaigns with little thought to the more enduring task of governing after they win.

"Qualities?" Yes.  The latest crop of Republican candidates, both ossified, traditional GOPCons and the latest lunatic fringe GOPBagCons, who are now seated in governors' mansions across the country as well as nice warm seats in the House and Senate in Washington, D.C., have a deeply resonating, screaming "quality" problem.

They are record breaking Medicare frauds, convicted car thieves, anti-abortion wing nuts, union busters, crooks and a clutch of pseudo-Objectivist government hating saboteurs.

Yet, in election after election, these miscreants emerged victorious.  Worse, unlike the days of the autocracy, most of these losers actually won enough votes to take their seats.  Such a statement is neither wild conjecture nor derived from "secret facts", either.  A realistic appraisal of such an unhappy development must also accompany our issues of candidate "platform and quality."

Oh what can be done?  Well, actually quite a bit.

Because, swamped with a tide of phony promises, the "platform" idea has already been reduced to an appropriately cynical "pile of rags," the "quality" issue seems to be what's left.  Campaign promises seem to mean less and less with every election.

This conclusion leads us to examine the oft touted differences between "politician" and "statesman."  Our candidate needs to honestly face this distinction, openly revealing his "statesman-like" qualities as he campaigns.  The fact that voters may not be familiar with this approach doesn't mean that it isn't the right one.

A Campaign of Personal Quality

Perhaps a good first step would be to address the "millionaire versus non-millionaire" question.  We, as an electorate, have gradually been convinced that "good" candidates have already proved their merit by becoming "successful Capitalists," that is, good candidates have already managed to accumulate -- by essentially any means -- a nice pot of cash.  In selecting our next Democratic candidate for Senator, could we consider a poor man?

If MeanMesa had to run in this election, this is exactly what the first plank of the platform would be.

"I am a poor man.  My entire financial statement is open to the public right now, and it will be open to the public if I  were ever to face the next election.  I intend to leave the Senate as a poor man.  If you want a millionaire to be your Senator, I'm not your guy."

"I am running the campaign of a poor man.  I will not ask for the money to deliver myself or my image with a thousand television ads.  I won't sell my soul or the interests of your state and country trying to raise so much campaign money that I can mask my identity or intentions."

"If you, as a voter, are considering choosing me, the research you need to make such a decision will be left up to you.  Either you care about the country or you don't.  And, when I tell you that, I'm not referring to  just voting for me, either." 

"I am talking about taking the time and making the effort to decide for yourselves how you will make your vote count for more than a pay back for the cost of simply creating name recognition. 

Next, the matter of personal "sainthood versus non-sainthood" should be settled. 

"I have no interest in claiming to be a saint or trying to deceive you into thinking I am a saint.  My history is public record.  I am running for the Senate to do the very best job for you I can.  I pledge to be a smart, competent manager, not your psychiatrist, confessor or baby sitter. I take the role of being a public servant seriously. If my record bothers you, vote for the other guy.  If it doesn't, take a chance and trust me."

"I could promise that I'm the candidate that Washington, D.C. can't purchase, but that promise wouldn't mean any more than other, similar promises have meant when they were made by candidates in the past.  Just remember, if you elect me, I intend to leave Washington just as poor as I was when I arrived there.  That is my promise.  No tricks.  Out in the open.  A US Senator earns a damned good salary compared to what you or I are used to having.  That salary is more than enough, and that's that."

Finally, the personal quality campaign issue should address the "experience" qualification.  

"I have almost no experience at the trade of politics.  Further, I won't debate or hide that fact, either.  I think that the 'experience' brought out to qualify a candidate too often means 'experience' in doing things that voters like the least, especially things which benefit some at the expense of all the rest.  If you insist on voting for a candidate with 'experience,' you probably need to vote for the other guy."

"A Senator must balance the mix of interests.  Not all New Mexico voters are poor, and not all are rich.  Rich supporters would be a great help in a campaign like this one, but that help comes with strings attached.  I claim to be much more like the 'non-rich' voters in this state.  They are the majority here.  They are the New Mexicans who will feel most directly the results of my work as a Senator.  It will be their votes which will either elect me or not."

"Finally, we have all watched members of Congress surround themselves with lobbyists and even become lobbyists when their public service ends.  I can assure New Mexicans that no one in his right mind will be interested in hiring me as a lobbyist when I leave the Senate.  We have all paid too high a price already for what special interests have done in the Senate."

Conclusions

Of course, such a campaign will have many more parts than these.  However, the quality of the candidate should represent the "spine" which holds up the rest of the picture. 

Voters have become accustomed to the idea that elections are decided by how much is spent "force feeding" a candidate's credentials during the process.  Our next Senate election can benefit by publicly displaying the amount of money that  each side has been spent to run it.  Campaigns become so expensive -- and mischievous -- precisely because voters are not expected, or challenged, to handle their side of the work.

Ballots have become a prize which can be taken by the expenditure of enough money.  This is the wrong idea.  Aren't we are hiring a Senator who can be reasonably expected to manage his office at least as well as he managed his campaign?

The voters of New Mexico have more common sense than they have traditionally shown under the heavily moneyed onslaught of recent campaigns.  Our Democratic Senate candidate needs to insist that voters use their common sense  and show their maturity instead of demanding that they be fed mindless -- and incredibly expensive -- campaign drek like children in a high chair.

Part 1: Why Bingaman (D-NM) Votes "No"

News From Washington to New Mexico

The following email  was sent to MeanMesa's Galactic Headquarters from New Mexico Senator, Jeff Bingaman.  It is presented here in its entirety for MeanMesa visitors who may not be on the Senator's mailing list.  On this tax issue, MeanMesa lands -- somewhat precariously -- on the side so eloquently explained by one of our favorite radio friends, Randi Rhodes (The Randi Rhodes Show, AM1350 KABQ, Albuquerque, 1-4 PM weekdays).

Take a few minutes to read what the Senator thinks and the decision he has made.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) (image source)

 Newsletter Update from U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman - December 15, 2010

Today, I voted against an $857 billion tax package that I believe will unnecessarily add to our nation’s growing deficit. It does so by extending deep tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.

My preference is to extend tax cuts to all Americans on the first $200,000 of income earned by a single wage earner, and $250,000 per couple. But in the spirit of compromise, I voted for a proposal that would have extended tax cuts on the first $1 million. I was disappointed when those proposals failed when they were put to a vote earlier this month.

In my view, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars and adding to an already out of control deficit in order to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans is both unaffordable and irresponsible.

Below is a speech I delivered to the Senate outlining my concerns with this tax cut plan. If you prefer, you can watch the speech on my YouTube page.

---

"Yesterday the Senate voted on proceeding to an $857 billion package that would: extend all personal income tax rates for two years; substantially reduce the estate tax; and establish or extend a host of tax incentives for American families and businesses. This package should be evaluated on how it deals with our two biggest economic problems: strengthening recovery from the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and setting us on a long-term course to achieve fiscal stability.

On the first issue, economic recovery, there is much in this package that I strongly support. We should protect 98% of American households from any tax increase. We should extend benefits to our fellow Americans unable to find jobs in this period of stubbornly high unemployment. And we should continue key business incentives like the Section 1603 program, which has provided a critical lifeline to our renewable energy industries. If the only economic imperative were recovery from the downturn, I would have voted for this package.

But as I said at the outset, this is not our only economic imperative. Our dire fiscal condition requires us to adopt a strategy that will dramatically reduce deficits in the coming years. And frankly, I'm disappointed by the plan's shortsightedness on this dimension. And therefore, I opposed the cloture motion.

If we are serious about addressing the deficit, we must admit that we cannot afford this package.

In 2001, I came to the floor to explain my opposition to enacting the so-called "Bush tax cuts." At the time, CBO was actually projecting budget surpluses. But as I explained then, I viewed the 2001 tax cuts as carrying a higher price tag than we could afford. The 2001 cuts, which were accelerated in 2003, reduced the stream of revenue to the federal government by an amount that virtually guaranteed the elimination of our anticipated budget surplus, and ensured that substantial deficits would once again become the norm in our federal budget.

The results – a federal debt that today nears $14 trillion – could have been avoided under the Bush tax structure only if there had been major cuts in spending at the same time. But as we all know, no such cuts in spending were proposed by the President or adopted by the Congress. In fact, in the years following the Bush tax cuts, spending increased greatly. The Bush tax cuts were larger than we could afford when they were adopted. Including interest costs, those tax cuts account for nearly 55% of the deficit projected for the end of the next decade. And once again, we cannot afford to extend them.

The nation's debt now stands at 62% of GDP. CBO says that if we continue on our current course, the debt will reach 90% by 2020, and 185% of GDP by 2035. This concern is not merely academic. Our growing deficit has stark consequences for our government's ability to meet essential priorities. At current levels, government revenue in 2025 will be enough only to cover interest on debt, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And the threat to American prosperity is severe: By 2035, rising debt could reduce per-capita GDP by as much as 15%.

In recent weeks, we've had several expert commissions tell us that we need to get the debt under control – and they have offered thoughtful, practical proposals to do so. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released a six-part plan that would achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reductions through 2020. Five of the six Senators on that Commission supported the plan. Two weeks earlier, a bipartisan commission headed by former CBO Director Alice Rivlin and my former colleague Pete Domenici issued their own report. Both bipartisan groups concluded that to be credible, any deficit reduction plan must impose limits on spending and increase revenue. For much of this Congress, the excuse for deferring serious action on deficits and debt has been "Let's wait and see what these commissions decide." Well, now these commissions have finished their tasks of issuing proposals. This bill is our first chance to begin considering their recommendations, and I see no evidence that we have done so.

I understand that we cannot tackle both tasks – stimulating the economy and reducing the deficit – with equal force at the same time. The decision, which I have supported, has been to focus first on stimulating the economy. But that focus does not excuse us from also taking the relatively easy first steps to reduce future deficits. I agree with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, whose leaders argue that "the critical objective is to pair any stimulus for the short-term with a credible plan to reduce the debt in the medium- and long-term. We should be talking about what triggers to attach, how to pay for this new package over the decade, and what spending cuts and tax reforms to make." It is unfortunate that no such conversation has taken place.

And because the cost of this package is not offset, it has been larded up with wasteful provisions that will do little for the economy. Most problematic is the $129 billion this package would spend to extend tax cuts that benefit only the very highest-income American households and reduce the estate tax below 2009 rates. Proponents of this bill say because the economy is weak, now is not the time to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest households to expire. But a CBO report issued earlier this year tears down this argument. Examining 11 options to stimulate growth and job creation, CBO ranked extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts dead last. CBO further found that extending the tax cuts for high-income households in particular would rate lower in effectiveness than extending all of the tax cuts because, and I quote, "higher-income households … would probably save a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income." We know that a recovering economy needs more spending. If government spending is to facilitate the transition to recovery, then we should put money into hands of those who will spend it. But the wealthiest among us are likely to save most of any additional income they receive. This is not effective stimulus.

There is one comparison that puts this sharply into perspective. Last month, the President announced that because of concerns about the deficit he will freeze all civilian federal salaries, at a savings of about $2.5 billion per year. I stated at the time that I supported his decisions. But we erase those savings nearly three times over with this package's reduction in the estate tax from the 2009 parameters. Is it not enough to reinstate the 2009 parameters, which exempt $7 million in assets per couple and tax amounts above that at 45%? Under this package, the exemption is dialed up to $10 million per couple and the rate reduced to 35%. So instead of reaching only 1 out of 400 Americans, this plan will subject only 1 out of 1000 estates to any tax whatsoever. So while a GS3 clerk at a USDA office in Albuquerque will have her salary frozen in the name of fiscal responsibility, the heirs of a $50 million estate save $5.35 million. This unwarranted generosity costs our Treasury an added $7 billion a year. Americans are right to question how we can possibly be serious about reducing the deficit when we are ready to give wealthy heirs a windfall, with no benefit whatsoever to the economic recovery. Do we really believe the question of "What's another $7 billion" is merely a rhetorical one?

Those who rate our debt do not view this rhetorically. In fact, after yesterday's vote, Moody's announced that the plan before us could endanger our vaunted Triple-A credit rating.

I am also troubled that this package makes the tax code permanently temporary – and falsely assumes that we will be able to achieve a different outcome in two years' time.

The cover of today's (12/14/2010) Wall Street Journal points this out, in a story "'Temporary' Tax Code Puts Nation in a Lasting Bind." The piece opens: "Welcome to the world of the temporary tax code."

A main argument being used in support of this temporary extension is that it is the only proposal we can get the Republicans to agree to. But I am concerned that this framework will make it more difficult to muster the political courage to reduce the deficit when these tax provisions again expire in two years.

The reason? Democrats are trying to ensure that all but the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers do not see their taxes go up on January 1. But we are told that Republicans are willing to accept tax increases on middle class Americans in order to protect the very highest income Americans. And so, the logic goes, while we don't agree with Republican demands, their willingness to punish 98% of Americans to get their way gives us no choice but to accept this quote "deal."

Frankly, that argument assumes a less generous view of our Republican colleagues than I am willing to embrace. I agree with President Obama that neither Democrats nor Republicans want to see taxes increase on January 1 on the overwhelming majority of Americans. To avoid that result, I believe Republicans would be willing to support a more responsible tax proposal along the lines of the tax proposals put forward by Senators Baucus and Schumer that I voted for last week. Those proposals would have shielded all families from any tax increase on their first $250,000 or $1 million in income. The fact that not a single Republican supported either proposal results from their expectation – apparently accurate – that if they remained intransigent, Democrats would give in to their demands. But those demands, reflected in the bill now before us, do not acknowledge the serious problem of the deficits. Retaining Bush tax rates on income over $1 million, reducing the estate tax to the level it was in 1931, and continuing the full ethanol subsidy of 45 cents per gallon are examples of provisions that do little to stimulate the economy but abdicate our responsibility to address our dangerous deficit. Some say that in two years, when the economy has recovered, we will be able to stop another extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest income Americans. I question the wisdom in that argument. Having achieved all of these wishes now will only embolden the Republican minority to adopt a similar hard line stand on extending the Bush tax cuts when the issue arises again in two years.

Failing to extend provisions with proven effectiveness merely because they were originated with the Recovery Act is terribly misguided.

Finally, I wish to note my deep disappointment with political posturing that has led to the cancellation of nearly every innovation under the Recovery Act. Even though it is the largest revenue measure to be considered in the 110th Congress, this package was negotiated behind closed doors. And I am informed that the Republican leaders demanded that no provision enacted under the Recovery Act be extended. Now I can understand that certain Recovery Act provisions might not warrant extension. But this opposition is purely political, driven by a desire to deny merit to the Recovery Act, which added 2.7% to third-quarter GDP growth and raised employment by 2.7 million to 3.7 million jobs. And so the package chokes off the Build America Bonds program, which has provided crucial support for municipal governments during a period of sustained challenges in raising funds to meet infrastructure needs. The package also ends a provision that Senators Crapo, Grassley, and I fought to include in ARRA, which raises the bank qualified limit, last adjusted in 1986, for small municipalities that sell debt to community banks – and which has significantly reduced rural governments' borrowing costs while creating jobs and needed infrastructure improvements for thousands of communities.

And because of the other side's reflexive anti-Recovery Act position, this bill relies intentionally upon outmoded, ineffective incentives for clean energy deployment. We fail to extend the advanced energy project or 48C credit, which allows qualifying companies to claim a credit for 30% of the cost of creating, expanding, or re-equipping facilities to manufacture clean energy technologies. The credit's vast oversubscription is a powerful demonstration of the potential for clean energy manufacturing in our country. But it, too, is allowed to die – which is all the more appalling given that the ethanol blenders' credit is extended again at 45 cents, even though the House negotiators and industry reached a consensus on reducing the credit by 20%. Had we done the same, we could have used the savings to implement a suite of energy incentives that would dramatically improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions, and enhance domestic manufacturing competitiveness. And I have filed an amendment with Senator Snowe to do just that. Unfortunately, this bill is closed to amendments.

In spite of its positive provisions to strengthen the economic recovery, the bill moves us in the wrong direction with regard to our other major problem of budget deficits. On that issue, it will start the 112th Congress off on the wrong track. For those reasons, I oppose going forward with this bill."

New Mexico Democrats Are WORKING FOR YOU!

MeanMesa is forwarding the following email from New Mexico Senator, Jeff Bingaman.

This is why the neo-cons, Republicans and other "tea baggers" have got their panties in knots to recapture the government.  When they see a bill like this one, all they can think about is how to loot it before it gets out of the Senate.

Newsletter Update from U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman - September 02, 2010

As thousands of New Mexico families were preparing to send their children back to school earlier this summer, they were uncertain about how state budget cuts were going to affect their neighborhood schools. Fortunately for New Mexico students, the worst case scenario—extensive teacher layoffs—will not play out this year. Congress stepped in to help close budget gaps in school districts in New Mexico and across the country.

I strongly supported the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act, which is sending $65 million to New Mexico to be invested in our public schools – funding that will keep 1,000 teachers, who had been given pink slips because of tight budgets, in the classroom. This important funding ensures that, even in difficult economic times, we can put New Mexico’s children first.

Keeping teachers in the classroom is crucial to student learning and success. When teachers are fired, student-to-teacher ratios increase, and the remaining teachers and students are forced to try to teach and learn in challenging, overcrowded environments. New Mexico’s students deserve the opportunity to learn, graduate on time, and be prepared to compete in the job market and in college. Overcrowded classrooms are a barrier to that opportunity.

While we all agree that we must invest in our nation’s future by investing in students, we in Congress ensured that this boost to schools was done in a fiscally prudent way – without adding to our nation’s debt. To achieve this, we paid for this jobs bill by cutting current spending in other areas of the budget and by closing some unfair tax loopholes.

The education jobs bill also includes funding to maintain continuity of health care services for lower-income families. States are scrambling to continue providing basic services during tough economic times, and all too often services for the most vulnerable citizens are cut. To make certain this does not happen, Congress included Medicaid extension funding in the education jobs bill. The estimated $126 million New Mexico will receive through Medicaid will ensure that life-saving health care services continue, and will free up state funds to close the state’s budget deficit, while supporting other priorities important to New Mexico’s working families.

Our state’s economic future is riding on the quality of education today’s students receive, and that is why I voted for the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act.

Sincerely,

Jeff Bingaman
United States Senator

MeanMesa's compliments  to Senator Bingaman