• The Governor vetoed the food tax today.
  
  
• “I am not willing to put this burden on working families in the form of an unfair tax on food. I agree with those who call this a cruel tax. It is especially cruel during the worst financial crisis New Mexico has ever experienced."
  
  

Democrats across New Mexico are getting ready to exhale as Big Bill today is expected to veto the hyper-controversial food tax that if allowed to take effect could give Republicans an unexpected gift and potentially change the calculus of the 2010 race for governor. The AP reported late Tuesday that all signs pointed to a veto, but until the Guv makes it official, the Dems will continue to hold their breath.

A key aide to Bill said he thinks he can veto the food tax, part of a package of tax increases approved by the recent special session of the Legislature, without running into legal challenges. A veto would mean the administration would have to find $68 million in revenue elsewhere.

Richardson was the one who originally proposed repeal of the food tax in his first term, but has been taking hits for not fighting hard enough to keep the partial reinstatement from reaching his desk.

The food tax is especially lightning in a bottle now because it is lower and middle class New Mexicans who are on the front lines of the Great Recession, losing their jobs in record numbers, while the professional classes take hits to their bottom lines, but mostly retain their positions.

Supporters of the food tax argue the working poor would not be hurt by it because they get food stamps. The elitism of that argument--not to mention its shaky credibility-- is putting fear into the hearts of Dem politicos across the board, as it reminds them of 1994 when an increase in the gas tax played a key role in the defeat of Governor Bruce King by Republican Gary Johnson.

The food tax is also causing an identity crisis in the self-described party of "working families." If Democrats are not against this tax that hurts those families the most, what are their core principles and why should those families continue to vote for them?

The Senate, House and Governor's office are all controlled by the Democrats.

Soon-to-be Dem Guv nominee Diane Denish, who initially demurred when asked if she would veto the tax if she were Governor, had her campaign tell us last week she would cast a veto if it could be done legally. Alligators and analysts questioned her political judgment on this hottest of issues when she failed to immediately and loudly renounce the tax upon its approval by the Legislature.

If Richardson, as expected, does cast a veto it will be a monkey off of Di's back--a monkey that has been growing heavier by the day.

The Guv will announce his decision about 11:30 a.m. We'll update the action.

PEARCE AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Fallout from our blogging this week on congressional candidate Steve Pearce's position on partially privatizing Social Security. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, citing Pearce's assertion here that it is not "factually correct" to say he supports privatization, came with this headline:

Steve Pearce vs. Steve Pearce: Pledged To Privatize Social Security ; Medicare, Now Trying to Pretend Like It Didn't Happen..

We blogged this week that Dems were getting ready to unload the Social Security bomb on Pearce who is seeking to win back the congressional seat he held for three terms and which was won by Dem Harry Teague in 2008 when Pearce gave it up to run for the US senate.

But Pearce's campaign manager gave us a statement disputing Pearce's past support for privatization, so we went back and checked the February 6, 2005 ABQ Journal article where Pearce's stance was discussed:

Pearce...said he agrees with the president's call to partially privatize the system but not as drastically as has been proposed. He suggested a plan that would allow workers to divert into a private account a portion of their 6.2 percent Social Security tax--but only on the first $50,000 of income. Social Security tax drawn from income between $50,001 and $90,000, at which point Social Security taxes are no longer imposed, would still go to the trust fund under Pearce's proposal.

It seems pretty clear that Pearce favored partial privatization. Pearce's campaign did not respond to an inquiry for comment on the Journal article. It was also made an issue when Dem Tom Udall defeated Pearce in the '08 US Senate contest.

The surfacing of the Social Security issue signals that while the R's have had Teague playing defense on healthcare and cap and trade, Teague and the D's have some offensive plays of their own. Stay tuned.

THE HOBBS CHOICE
Eric Honeyfield
We didn't realize running the city of Hobbs (pop. 30,000) was so complicated. But it must be because the city council there has just rehired its city manager at a cool price tag of $145,000. That's nearly what ABQ's equivalent of a city manager--chief administrative officer David Campbell--pulls down. Campbell gets $155,000 a year.

But that's not all. Hobbs city manager Eric Honeyfield has won approval from the Hobbs council to "double-dip." He will also draw a state retirement check of $90,o00 a year for 25 years of government service (he's a former city manager for Raton and Gallup) on top of the $145,000 for running the small SE NM city. That's $235,000 a year. Never mind that Hobbs is cutting projects and leaving vacant positions unfilled as it copes with a big revenue shortfall.

Somehow we don't think that represents the "small town values" that Hobbs native daughter and Lt. Governor Diane Denish trumpets in her Guv campaign.

858,000 AND COUNTING

That's how many of us there are in the ABQ metro, according to the US Census Bureau. We now rank 57th in population among all metros in the USA.