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

Today's Opinions

  • Why must Los Alamos be divided?

    BY LISA SHIN AND KATHLEENE PARKER
    Guests Editorial

    Our nation is divided. Must Los Alamos be too? Why, so often, are letters or comments at public meetings about personal attack? Perhaps we should remember Thomas Jefferson’s, “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

    In the Dec. 1 edition of the Los Alamos Monitor, Jess Cullinan – incidentally, a prime driver in asking the school board to pass a sanctuary policy – wrote labeling “those vocal few” as seeking to “sow chaos and to sabotage” the school board’s and superintendent’s efforts to protect vulnerable students.

    But, it is that assumption – that students are even vulnerable – that is our right to question. Cullinan’s letter defines that federal immigration policy “prohibits by law” asking about immigration status and that ICE activity in schools is restricted, proof – based on Cullinan’s own information – that the Los Alamos effort is not about solving a real problem but make a political statement.

  • Letters to the Editor 12-8-17

    $7 million Kiddie Pool with a $34 million
    Cash Cow

    Dear Editor,
    Earlier this year, County Councilor Chris Chandler told us that what the voters would decide in the REC Bond election, would become the “Council’s marching orders.” So I ask, was a $5 million or a $7 million kiddie pool the voters’ “marching orders”? A $5 million pool was questionable. But $7 million? Citizens voiced their opinions and made their voices heard on May 23, 2017.
    We had hoped that our County Council would vote on what the majority wanted. Democracy in action. Apparently, that was asking too much.
    Further, Councilor Susan O’Leary told us that “if the bond fails, $7 million in CIP funds allocated to the projects is likely to be distributed to non-recreation projects vying for that money.” If only voters had known what this actually meant: “if the bond fails, $7 million in CIP funds will be distributed for an expanded kiddie pool.” Unbelievable!

  • Throwing money at The Wall is pointless

    New Mexico’s border crossing at Columbus small but brisk.

    Tiny Columbus’s claim to fame is Pancho Villa’s raid in 1916, commemorated by a state park. Snowbirds hunker down in the campground to spend a comfortable winter. The only shopping is a Dollar Store close to the international boundary.

    Across the border, the much larger Palomas gets a steady stream of Americans shopping at the Pink Store, getting dental work done or buying cheap over-the-counter drugs.

    Border guards on both sides are friendly and professional. The atmosphere is relaxed.

    You can’t visit the border without contemplating The Wall.

    The existing wall here of 18-foot steel columns is of fairly recent vintage. I try to imagine a new wall of the prototypes on display in California and envision a tourniquet that squeezes trade and relations between the two countries.

    In October the U. S. Customs and Border Protection unveiled eight giant rectangles made of concrete or composites. If you live in Ohio, you might believe a wall of this stuff will keep us safe and hold the hordes at bay.

  • Letter to the Editor 12-5-17

    Make your voice heard about Aquatic Center

    Dear Editor,
    On Aug. 8, 2017, the County Council voted to just do a small kiddie pool for $5 million, instead of using the entire $7,816,000 that was in the projected budget for a multi-generational pool. Since then the county staff did the research as requested by the council and has now presented a design for the $5 million, they had to leave out the lazy river and the water slide and it is now just a zero-entry, warm water pool with some water sprays.

    The extra $2 million will bring back the lazy river and water slide. The county has the money to make a nice family recreational pool that can be enjoyed by all ages, all year around. What are we waiting for!

    Thirty years ago, the entire Aquatic Center was $4 million things are not going to get cheaper. This community can afford to do this for our families, what we can’t afford is to wait any longer!

  • Businesses unsettled by DACA uncertainty

    FINANCE NEW MEXICO

    Barring congressional intervention, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is ending, and DACA recipients — or “Dreamers” — are subject to deportation when their work permits expire if they didn’t get an extension before the Oct. 5 deadline.

    The demise of the program has created uncertainty among employers who are required to fire DACA recipients the day after their permits expire but risk discrimination charges if they act too soon to terminate — or even identify — DACA recipients on their payrolls.

    Companies risk fines for employing ineligible workers. They’re also advised to prepare carefully for this sudden change in circumstances for up to 800,000 young people whose parents brought them into the United States without proper documentation when they were children.

    A delicate question

    All employees, regardless of their citizenship status, must fill out an I-9 form and provide multiple forms of identification to verify their eligibility to work in the United States. Noncitizen workers carry papers that authorize them to work here temporarily; the paperwork includes a code that specifies the basis for the permit, but employers are discouraged from using the code to identify DACA recipients.

  • N.M. banks too small? Loan opportunities wanted

    Some banks are too small to succeed, suggests Joe Ricketts, founder of TD Ameritrade and presumably someone who knows his way around the financial world. Maybe “too small” means having assets under $10 billion, Ricketts wrote in the Oct. 30 Wall Street Journal.

    Presented with Ricketts’ observation, a senior executive of a New Mexico-based bank chuckled. He’s not talking about New Mexico, the banker said.

    Maybe Ricketts has a point. Consider: Wells Fargo Bank of San Francisco, headquartered near the Union Square shopping mecca, counts $8.5 billion of deposits in New Mexico. For the whole bank, the deposit total is around $1.3 trillion. At less than 1 percent of the company, New Mexico doesn’t make afterthought status.

    Wells’ New Mexico deposit total dropped $450 million between June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017, according to the deposit market share report from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a regulator. That loss is more than the total deposits of all but 15 banks doing business in New Mexico. Three of the 14 branches closed across the state during the period were Wells Fargo branches. The state had 473 branches as of June 30.

  • So-called monuments review was much ado about much ado

    The dreaded national monument review stirred up the dust and is now disappearing.
    In April the administration called for a review of 27 national monuments, including two in New Mexico and two nearby in Utah, to examine “another egregious use of federal power,” as the president put it. After many protests and photos of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on horseback, what’s happened is: Not much.
    The blowback was hotter than Zinke and the administration anticipated; public comments, overwhelmingly in support, topped 2.3 million. New Mexicans submitted the largest number of comments per capita (97,000). Supporters went all out to demonstrate that these monuments weren’t just an environmental fantasy – they were created after long study and public hearings, and all but Utah’s monuments enjoyed broad public support.
    From the beginning, it was obvious that the main target was the 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah, established by President Obama at the end of his term. The two buttes that give Bear’s Ears its name lie just north of the Navajo Reservation.

  • If sanctuary school, then kiss $8 million goodbye!

    BY LISA SHIN
    Guest Editorial

    On August 29, 2017, our County Council unanimously passed a proclamation honoring the contributions of immigrants. Compared to the earlier version in April, specific language was removed, its tone was softened, and a more strident “resolution” was changed to a “proclamation,” which did not require a vote. Although Councilor O’Leary called it a “milquetoast,” “weak half measure of timid support,” Councilor Maggiore recognized “that the original was a little inflammatory, a little reactionary to what just transpired on the national scene...” “We’re not actually trying to create new laws or turn the county into a sanctuary county,” because we would be “fools to do that.” Councilor Sheehey, remarked “I see this as a statement of values. I have no intention of trying to push our county into some kind of a legal battle about sanctuary cities.”