.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....

Today's Opinions

  • Trump’s national security strategy clearly presented

    The Japan News published this editorial Dec. 20 on the National Security Strategy President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled.

    To counter China and Russia, both of which are attempting to coercively reshape the post-war international order, the United States will reinforce its military power and strengthen ties with its allies, thus promoting peace and stability. It is significant that such a pertinent strategy has been clearly presented.

    The U.S. administration under President Donald Trump unveiled its National Security Strategy. It will serve as the basic principle for the administration’s foreign and security policies. It is said to be the first time for the security strategy to have been formulated by any administration in its first year in the White House. It is expected to bring about such effects as eliminating, to a certain extent, concern over the unpredictable words and deeds of Trump.

  • Regulatory pendulum swings again in FCC’s net neutrality decision

    The trouble with regulation is what I call the Rule of One, as in, there’s always one. It applies to the regulated and to the regulators.

    Regardless of the industry, most of the regulated do their best to operate within the rules, but there’s always at least one company abusing the process, the consumer, the environment or its own employees. Once the abuses come to light, regulators come down on everybody, and no good deed goes unpunished.

    On the other side of the fence, most regulators try to be conscientious but fair and don’t assume that every entity they oversee is up to no good. But there’s always one who doesn’t wear the mantle of authority well or applies the rules in ways lawmakers never intended. Often they have no idea what the impact of their actions will be.

    I’ve reported on this see-saw for years and heard horror stories on both sides. It’s the reason we swing back and forth between lax and intrusive regulation. Now you can hear it in the arguments for and against net neutrality. And, of course, it’s political. Republicans favor less regulation; Democrats want more.

    Last week that the Federal Communications Commission abandoned net neutrality rules debated for more than a decade in favor of what FCC Chairman Ajit Pai calls a regulatory “light touch.”

  • New Mexico First, conference are in need of a review

    Probably the least known fact about the long career of Sen. Pete Domenici has to be that he did not hire me to be his press aide in 1989.

    Instead of the knowledgeable New Mexican — me — Domenici hired Ari Fleischer, who knew Washington, D. C. A sound choice, I think. Fleischer went on to be press secretary for President George W. Bush.

    Equally obscure is the story I wrote for the Albuquerque News in 1968 about the first city budget he presented as chairman of the Albuquerque City Commission.

    Much later my kids played Little League baseball with a Domenici grandchild. Domenici attended the occasional game.

    Domenici’s leadership of the Senate Budget Committee brought access to the committee’s economics staff, a smart, collegial group that provided insight on the national economy and New Mexico’s fit into the big picture.

    In the 1980s Domenici and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, together with Gov. Bruce King, created the Joint Economic Development Initiative (JEDI). (Get it?) Santa Teresa with its border crossing was one focus.

    As a matter of good management, two of Domenici’s policy legacies deserve a closer look.

    First is New Mexico First. During the mid-1980s several groups were having conversations about the murky future facing New Mexico.

  • Letters to the Editor 1-31-18

    Why I joined the Women’s March

    Dear Editor,

    Why did I don a handmade pink hat and march alongside my wife, Naishing Key, and thousands of others on a freezing day at the 2018 Women’s March in Santa Fe?  Because I feel the same outrage that millions of people across the United States feel. No one, whether the president or a private citizen, should abuse women or other human beings, or treat them with disrespect.

    Together we demand equality, justice, and respect. That means an end to discrimination on the basis of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or disability. These are not liberal values: these are American values, established in our Constitution.
    We will never solve the many problems of our state and nation with the same old politics of division and scapegoating. We can start to solve our problems by recognizing the dignity of each and every human being.

    That is why I am running, and that is how I will do my job if I’m elected as our next District 43 state representative.

    Pete Sheehey
    Los Alamos County Councilor,
    Candidate for District 43 NM State Representative

  • Letters to the Editor 1-24-18

    Recent editorials favor immigrants

    Dear Editor,
    The Los Alamos Monitor seems to run a disproportionate number of “woe the poor immigrant” editorials, gathered from national news media. The most recent was, “Leaving immigrants in legal limbo isn’t fair,” from the Boston Herald on Jan. 12.

    Why never headlines that might read, “Continuing one of the highest rates of immigration in American history unfair to workers, the poor and the environment.”?

    I will admit national corporate media is almost universally biased toward unfettered immigration – because they are owned by companies being enriched by unfettered immigration – and that can make for “slim pickins” for editors. But there are nonetheless reputable sources for better representation of the other side of the coin.

    Let’s begin with the last paragraph of the Herald editorial. 

    It states, unsubstantiated, “America needs its immigrants just as much as they need a safe haven from the countries they left.” That is an example of a statement that has been blithely repeated by open-border advocates (led by media who are at least occasionally supposed to be fair, fully inclusive of all possibilities and objective) with no effort to justify or substantiate it.

  • Federal communications law should be updated

    The Los Angeles Times published this editorial Jan. 17 on a Congressional bid to preserve net neutrality.

    Congressional Republicans breathed new life last year into the all-but-ignored Congressional Review Act, using it to reverse a wide range of Obama administration regulations on the environment, consumer protection and workplace issues. Now Senate Democrats are trotting out the act to undo a Republican effort to let cable and phone companies meddle with the internet. This particular turnabout is most definitely fair play.

    At issue is the Federal Communications Commission’s move not just to repeal the strict net neutrality rules it adopted in 2015, but also to renounce virtually all of the commission’s regulatory authority over broadband internet providers. Its new “Restoring Internet Freedom” order, adopted last month on a party-line vote, opens the door to the likes of Comcast, AT&T and Verizon giving deep-pocketed websites and services priority access to their customers for a fee. It also lifts the ban on broadband providers blocking or slowing down traffic from legal online sites and services, provided they do so openly. Such steps could cause unprecedented distortion in what has been a free and open internet.

  • Letters to the Editor 1-12-18

    Contrast between Sunday columns are amusing,
    disturbing

    Dear Editor,
    The contrast between the two columns and one letter on the Los Alamos Monitor Sunday Editorial page was both amusing and disturbing.
    As usual, John Bartlit presented an even-handed/minded analysis of the football-and-the-flag controversy, recognizing that the breadth of responses is a testament to the vitality of our democracy. My own thinking had been limited to: “Standing shows respect while kneeling shows obeisance or committed fealty – the latter choice of action doesn’t seem to match with the stated purpose for it.”
    Meanwhile, Paul Gessing continued to display what appears as barely-thinking partisanship against anything Democratic despite acknowledging that it was a Democratic governor who lowered income taxes – too much for stable state funding, as subsequent events have demonstrated.
    I still consider it a miracle that the State Permanent Fund maintains a legacy for indefinite generations of New Mexicans rather than being siphoned off to immediate political needs. (And by the way, doubling the gas tax would not be a tax increase – it would only restore the purchasing power of the tax to about the level of almost 30 years ago.)

  • Letters to the Editor 1-7-18

    County in deep fiscal trouble

    Dear Editor,
    Unfortunately Mr. Pete Sheehey seems to have a gross misunderstanding of the shape of LA County fiscally. We are in deep trouble running a debt twice the legal limit and on top of that at least $71 million in the red!

    This is all available for anyone to read on the county website in the last audit done after the fiscal year 2016 ended. As it’s rather hard to find and it’s a rather long report mostly taken from figures the county supplied and broken down into small sections it can be tedious reading and hard to put together.

    You find it by going to Los Alamos County Administrative Services, Finance and Budgets, Reports and Budgets button, Fiscal Year Reports and Budgets,

    Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Incorporated County of Los Alamos FY2016 CAFR button.

    On page 196 you see the summation of debts and on pages 179 and 180 the summations of all available moneys including reserves and all moneys spent.

    The bottom line is Los Alamos County is broke and bankrupt  to the tune of over $100 million!

    Greg White
    Los Alamos