A Few of the Zillion Ways the Administration is Weakening the U.S.

 

Wherever one looks, the Administration is weakening our nation.

A major U.S. strength has been our attraction of foreign-born scientists, most famously in developing the atomic bomb first. Roughly 40% of recent U.S. Nobel Prizes in the sciences were won by immigrants or immigrants’ children. They’ve also founded more than 40% of U.S. unicorn startups.

Wanna kill that strength? Declare war on universities, drastically cut research and education funding, appoint political hacks to undermine scientific objectivity, torture some immigrants, and bar foreign scientists from the country for criticizing Donald Trump. Above all, start emulating the authoritarian governments many immigrants fled.

Most of the world is facing climate craziness. China is aggressively positioning itself to lead in developing ways to mitigate it. The U.S. isn’t. Mr. Trump says it’s all a hoax. So we’ll go slow on developing what everyone will need.

Cutting IRS enforcement jobs lets tax cheats skate free, particularly large cheats whose cases might be complex. That’ll cost more money than it saves, jacking up taxes on citizens and small businesses. And grow the deficit.

It’s a great time for crime: of 10,000 Justice Department attorneys last year, about half are gone. Judges are mocking department lawyers. While high-quality lawyers used to like the challenging work and highly competent co-workers, few qualified applicants apply now. Would you? Do an honest job, you’re fired.

It’s a great time for war. A rookie Defense Secretary is firing battle-tested top leadership arbitrarily, and hasn’t the least experience running anything, let alone our defense system. It’s especially good for cyberwarfare. In 2020 Trump fired respected, nonpartisan cybersecurity head Christopher Krebs, whom Trump had appointed, for saying the 2020 election was secure. That disrupted an important defense agency’s work, and made officials fear that speaking truth was a door to unemployment. That deters good people from applying or remaining. I’m no Commander in Chief; but if I were, I’d want subordinates telling me the truth, even unappetizing truths.

It’s a great day for poisoning air and water: the EPA has lost staff to detect, investigate, and punish violations.

Meanwhile, bizarre, inexplicable tariffs are weakening the economy. Economists can’t make sense of them, and Trump sure can’t explain ‘em. He keeps thinking foreigners pay ‘em, not us!

We’ve a huge doctor shortage. Medical education is long and costly. So part of Trump’s big, beautiful law puts an unrealistically low cap ($200,000 total lifetime) on federal graduate student loans. ($200K? But 70% of medical students have loans, the average debt load is $223,130, and 20% graduate owing $300,000+. The cap will keep lower-income students from trying. Just when we need ‘em – and we’re scaring away the immigrants.

Again, Mr. Trump isn’t solving the problem, but worsening it.

Internationally? Trump thinks unpredictability intimidates. But bizarre conduct and reneging on trade deals, and quitting alliances and climate organizations, weakens us and cedes leadership to some more trustworthy nation.

These examples of deterioration matter. Collectively, they weaken our resilience, and our government’s ability to handle crises. They limit our ability to compete globally, and impose future costs. They’ll also accentuate the dissipation of public trust in government – and teach other nations’ they can’t trust us.

Pushing people into unnecessary illnesses (and healthcare-caused bankruptcies) ultimately costs us. Yeah, the Administration loathes the very idea of helping folks with medical care, because Trump is trying to mark territory he associates with Obama. But those folks don’t just disappear.

                                                     --- 30 ---

 

The above column appeared today, 16 November 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and will presently be on the newspaper’s website and KRWG’s website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version of this Sunday column will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station show archives.]

[It just happens too often that I shake my aging head in wonder at the sheer breadth and depth – and meanness and pettiness – of the Administration’s conduct, and how a vast amount of that conduct not only enriches Mr. Trump and punishes immigrants, ethnic minorities, and “woke” folks, but just plain weakens us: you fire top military leaders to put in pals, including a Secretary of War with no managerial experience whatsoever, you weaken our military – and perhaps guess enemies won’t notice. Tariffs screw up our economy. All the misconduct concerning the Justice Department doesn’t matter to criminals or most of us, but it sure should matter to the folks who keep screaming about rising crime rates. Etc., etc. ]

Jupiter - a County Embarrassment, So Far!

Does our County Commission care more for Project Jupiter than for following state transparency laws or protecting our environment?

The project promises jobs, but will have a huge negative impact on our environment, and seriously undermine the state’s ambitions to cut our greenhouse gas production and help combat climate craziness. Too few of the proponents’ many promises appeared in the contract; and that contract is enforceable solely against the specific entity that signed it. If that goes belly-up, the real owners just laugh at those promises.

The process was embarrassing and likely unlawful.

Commissioner Susana Chaparro objected to approving a contract marked “draft,” containing blank pages and material she hadn’t seen. State Senator Jeff Steinborn was appalled that the Commission approved material with missing pages. A lawsuit alleges that the County approved industrial development bonds that didn’t meet certain requirements, including environmental impact.

County Commissioners should not have been reading project documents marked secret, and being told not to let us seem them. Legal concerns were then exacerbated when the Commission, approving the deal, authorized Commission Chair Christopher Schaljo-Hernandez to tinker with it. After local journalist Heath Haussamen criticized the deal, he received a “final” version of the contract that seemed to make some vague promises enforceable. Days later, there was a new version. Chaparro said, “There is no permanent document yet, even though we’ve already voted on it, and that is just wrong.”

The Open Meetings Act requires such decisions to be made in front of us. Sure, the Commission can delegate purely ministerial tasks such at signing it and filling in the effective date, and that sort of non-substantive change; but where changes actually alter the parties’ obligations to each other, in substantive ways, large or small, that’s not allowed.

For example, such AI data center campuses normally use huge amounts of water for cooling. In a desert suffering from serious drought, that matters. Responding to critics, proponents promised that this was not really a problem because a closed-loop cooling system would minimize water usage. Otherwise, this thing could wipe out water supplies of poor citizens in the south county. Altering such a material provision, after the vote, can’t be consistent with the open meetings law. All commissioners must be heard, either representing their constituents or honestly own a failure to do so. We should have some theoretical chance to talk a little sense into them.

Huge power requirements and environmental degradation are issues. This will be a data center campus. It will definitely use vast amounts of energy – and could possibly keep using gas-fired electricity plants for more than the next twenty years. Elsewhere, the plants have significantly increased people’s electricity costs.

The Open Meetings Act seems quite clear. Further, NMAG Opinion 98-01 confirms that ministerial acts (signing, executing, transmitting) are not “meetings” under the Act. More substantive changes would be. The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government sees this as a clear OMA violation, and likely will tell the county so.

Schaljo-Hernandez says the deal is complete, and follows the Memorandum of Understanding, and denies that laws were violated. But bond closing dates keep shifting.

We’ll eventually see what a judge or the present state attorney-general thinks. Meanwhile I’d hate to be the bond attorney who has to give an unqualified opinion that the bonds were properly approved. Or a Santa Teresa family worrying about water availability and electricity rates.

Or someone who likes to breathe.

                              – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared today, 9 November 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and will presently be on the newspaper’s website and KRWG’s website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version of this Sunday column will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station show archives.]

[I wrote the column a couple of weeks ago, but screwed up sending it in. Last week, the situation was still unsettled, and it appeared that the lawsuits and legal questions might be holding things up. Whatever the legal rulings turn out to be, this has been a sloppy and embarrassing performance by our county commissioners, many of whom I have respected for years.]

Blowing up Boats and Lying

 The U.S. Navy saved two loathsome drug dealers from drowning recently.

Trump proudly ordered the Navy to fire on small boats leaving Venezuela. As Rand Paul notes, about a quarter of the time authorities think someone is carrying illegal drugs, they’re wrong. So destroying four boats leaving Venezuela (where we lack a police presence) it’s likely one or two of those murdered crews wasn’t transporting drugs.

Amazingly, the Navy rescuing two men from a boat the Navy had just destroyed. Given the reasonable possibility that those guys wouldn’t be guilty of anything, I figured the standing order might be to let ‘em drown. Executing all the folks you branded “criminals” would be effectively scare the pants off drug dealers without some embarrassing acquittal of a fisherman.

Quite likely Donald Trump was amazed to hear of the rescues, too. “Dead men tell no tales.”

Trump bragged that 25,000 Americans would have died if those drugs had gotten through to the U.S. How absurd is that? In 2023, 108,000 died of drug overdoses in this country. So 25,000 would be a quarter of the nation’s annual total for a year. (That 108,000 figure decreased to about 80,000 in 2024, a statistic Mr. Trump would be waving around like a pardon, if he’d been president then.) Those 81,000 last year included both illegal drug overdoses and prescription drug overdoses. (Usually, 75% involve illegal drugs, so 60,000.) Trump’s 25,000 would be 42%. From one boat. Not blood likely. Further, fentanyl is responsible for 70-75% of the deaths. Venezuela is just not a major producer, exporter, or transit country for fentanyl. The large-scale flow is from China and Mexico. But you can’t massacre their fishermen so casually.

So Trump wanted to threaten Venezuela. He didn’t want his scheme disrupted by unsuccessfully trying some poor fisherman. Note that the rescued men were sent home to their countries, not tried or imprisoned.

I’d bet this irritate Trump.

The overall Navy commander for that area was a four-star admiral with a sterling record. That very same day – not even, say, a week later! – he was fired for no known reason. (I figured Hegseth fired him for being Black.) He was just 60. He’d taken over that job less than a year ago, and reportedly was doing it competently. We may never know, but I gotta wonder if Mr. Trump was so furious about the rescues that he lashed out. When reporters found that one man killed in one of these attacks was a lifelong fisherman, with no known drug involvement, and the disabled boat had sent a distress signal and was waiting (in Colombian waters) for rescue, and Colombia’s president complained, Trump called him a drug dealer, cut off aid to Colombia, and hit Colombia with a new tariff. (Impulse control, anyone? Can the Supreme Court impose “time outs?”)

So, yeah, we’re killing people without trial. Normally, the U.S. doesn’t execute criminals without first establishing that they are criminals, and guilty of a worse crime than drug-dealing. But Mr. Trump has been ordering our sailors to do just that. His story that a small boat leaving Venezuela carried enough of some drug to kill 40% of the people who die this year of illegal drug overdoses? Does he believe that nonsense, or has he such contempt for voters that he figures we will?

Worse than extrajudicial killings is being defended by an infant lacking the least impulse-control.

                                            – 30 --

 

[The above Las Cruces Sun-News column will presently be on the newspaper’s website and KRWG’s website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version of this Sunday column will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station show archives.]

 

 

County's Rush to Jupiter Sparks Legal Complaints and Transparency Concerns

Our County Commission cares more for Project Jupiter than for following state transparency laws or protecting our environment.

I have my doubts about the project. It’ll have a huge negative impact on our environment, and make a pathetic joke out of the state’s ambitions to cut our greenhouse gas production and help combat climate craziness. Too few of the proponents’ many promises appeared in the actual contract; and that contract is enforceable solely against the specific entity that signed it. If that goes belly-up, the real owners just laugh at those promises.

The process, though, was embarrassing and likely unlawful.

Commissioner Susana Chaparro objected to approving a contract marked “draft,” containing blank pages and material she hadn’t seen. State Senator Jeff Steinborn was appalled that the Commission approved material with missing pages. A lawsuit alleges that the County approved industrial development bonds that didn’t meet certain requirements, including environmental impact.

There were open-meetings concerns, which have now been exacerbated by an obvious violation: in approving the deal, the Commission authorized Commission Chair Christopher Schaljo-Hernandez to tinker with it. After local journalist Heath Haussamen criticized the deal, he received a “final” version of the contract that seemed to make some of the vague promises enforceable. Days later, there was a new version, apparently still not final.

The Open Meetings Act requires such decisions to be made in front of us. Sure, the Commission can delegate purely ministerial tasks such at signing it and filling in the effective date, and that sort of non-substantive change; but where changes actually alter the parties’ obligations to each other, in substantive ways, large or small, that’s not allowed.

For example, such AI data center campuses normally use huge amounts of water for cooling. In a desert suffering from serious drought, that matters. Responding to critics, proponents promised that this was not really a problem because they’d use a closed-loop cooling system that minimizes water usage. Otherwise, this thing could wipe out water supplies of poor citizens in the south county. Altering such a material provision, after the vote, can’t be consistent with the open meetings law. All commissioners must be heard, either representing their constituents or honestly own a failure to do so. We should have some theoretical chance to talk a little sense into them, unlikely as that now seems.

Huge power requirements and degradation are issues. This will be a data center campus. It will definitely use vast amounts of energy – and could possibly keep using gas-fired electricity plants for more than the next twenty years. Elsewhere, the plants have significantly increased people’s electricity costs.

Chaparro said, “There is no permanent document yet, even though we’ve already voted on it, and that is just wrong.” The plain language of the Open Meetings Act seems quite clear. The county ordinance is not to the contrary. Further, NMAG Opinion 98-01, as do guidance letters, confirms that ministerial acts (signing, executing, transmitting) are not “meetings” under the Act. The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government sees this as a clear OMA violation, and likely will tell the county so.

We’ll eventually see what a judge or the present state attorney-general thinks. Meanwhile I’d hate to be the bond attorney who has to give an unqualified opinion that the bonds were properly approved. Or a worker with a family in Santa Teresa worrying about water availability and electricity rates.

Or someone who likes to breathe.

                            -- 30 -- 

 

[The above column in the Las Cruces Sun-News will presently be on KRWG’s website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version of this Sunday column will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station show archives.]

[I remind everyone that we’re in the midst of a local election. Please vote.]

[Courts and maybe the New Mexico Attorney-General will sort all this stuff out. Writing the above column was no fun. The county commissioners are mostly people I like and respect, and often agree with. I wish they’d taken more time with this one, despite the proponents’ pressure. Ironically, when I went on line intending to post this, I saw another article about a big data center and alleged lack of transparency about water . Yeah, that was Amazon. I have no opinion on the allegations. But the proliferation of such stories about data centers just emphasizes the basic point, that the proponents here, nice as they may be, are not necessarily our friends. Their legal and ethical obligation is to maximize shareholder profit. That might [Gee, whiz!] not always align with commissioners’ obligation, to make the best deal for the county and its residents. Transparency is not always convenient for the proponents, and thus we do need to get it all down in a writing we can actually enforce. I hope we’ve done that here – or would it be more accurate to say that I hope they somehow do that if and when the contractual documents are complete and final?]

[I hope all that comes out right. I hope the data center’s closed-loop cooling process actually minimizes water use, and never breaks down and requires suddenly greater water, where there ain’t much. I hope the data center doesn’t do a whole lot of harm to the air here, and that the proponents, as one of them assured me they will, maximize their use of renewable energy, because there’s no question their energy needs will be huge and constant. I hope they never need so much electricity that it ups folks’ rates, as has happened elsewhere, but which commissioners and proponents seem sure won’t happen here; and I hope that if anything goes wrong, the county has insisted on all the right contractual provisions to ensure that citizens don’t suffer, and the company makes everything right, and there’s a company that’s both solvent and contractually obligated to make things right. I do hope all that. But if you had charge of a betting site, what would you make the odds?]

[Also, thanks again to Heath Haussamen for all the reporting he’s done on this, including persistence in getting documents. Heath and I don’t work together, we don’t always agree on things, and all that, but check out his website – https://haussamen.com/ – read his reporting, and, if you’re solvent, consider donating to help him continue the good work. ]

Thoughts on the Present Local Election

Here’s how I’m voting (or would, if I lived in the proper district) in the local election for three city councilor positions and three Las Cruces School Board positions, and on school and county bond issues.

For City Council, in a prior column, I unreservedly recommended incumbent Becky Corran (District 5) and Michael Harris (District 3).  Corran is hard-working, progressive, and thoughtful. She’s had a powerful impact on council actions in a wide variety of areas.  With four years’ experience, she’s a superstar.  Harris seems sharp, and has already worked on a city board and spoken up about progressive issues.  His opponent, Isaiah Tellez, seems a good guy and perhaps a promising future candidate, but lacks Harris’s knowledge, experience, and beginning of a record.

In District 6, I recommend John Muñoz for city council.  He's a progressive business leader who is pretty widely respected and liked. He’ll bring an interesting mix of experiences and likely be a strong unifying force helping the city move forward.  He’s probably more conservative than I, but brings a lot to the table.  District 6 will be the sole city district using ranked-choice voting.  I’d put Tommy Black second, and, if John weren’t in the race, I’d happily vote for Black.

I recommend all three incumbent school board candidates.  We have an unusually competent, open-minded, and knowledgeable school board right now.  It’s a tough position with lots of unanswerable questions you have to take your best shot on.  These folks have impressed me, individually and as a team:  Patrick Nolan (District 1 - unopposed), incumbents Pamela Cort (2) and Bob Wofford (3).  Cort and Wofford are former teachers.  Each is hard-working and progressive, and cares about our community. Because of a national effort to turn schools trumpy, it seems particularly important to re-elect all three.  

Other local races feature unopposed candidates of whom I approve, but whom I lack space here to discuss.

I strongly support the proposed Las Cruces Public Schools bond, which won’t raise taxes and will address serious maintenance and other capital needs in our schools.  Because our kids’ minds and health are non-negotiable, I’d go vote for that even if I had no candidates to vote for.

I guess I’ll also vote for the two General Obligation bonds for Doña Ana County, despite my disappointment that the Commission blew opportunities to handle “Project Jupiter” better.

It seems important to revitalize community centers and improve wastewater infrastructure in rural areas of the county.  Unfortunately, the county included so many possibilities that we don’t really know exactly how the money will be used. Even so, I’ll vote “Yes.”

On the bond that would revitalize the County fairgrounds, including building an amphitheater, I was undecided before talking to Southern New Mexico State Fair manager Travis Brown. The fair continues a local and western tradition of raising livestock and crops, and doing other crafts that shouldn’t die out, and I favor that pretty strongly.  It’s also interesting entertainment for many.

Given the location, I have doubts that the amphitheater will draw enough patronage to make the thing worthwhile.  (“It will if you get the right bands,” a friend responded.)  I also definitely favor improving recreational facilities in rural areas of the county.  I gather that the property tax impact would around $15 for a house valued at $285,000.  So I’m a “yes” vote, with reservations about the amphitheater.

                                             – 30 – 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 19 October, 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website, and will presently also be on the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version of this Sunday column will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station show archives.]

[I urge everyone to vote, whatever your views on all this. Too few folks do vote. Early voting is in progress at some sites, including the County Building.]

Did our Guv Put Fingers on the Scale to Help Commerce Trump Science?

What’s to say about Governor Lujan-Grisham pulling a Trumpish stunt to help the oil&gas industry endanger us?

Should treated fracking waste (euphemism: “produced water”) be used in ways that don’t include drinking water or watering crops but would reach streams and rivers? The waste contains hundreds of contaminants, which O&G uses “trade-secret” claims to not even identify for us.

Eighteen months of Water Quality Control Commission hearings led to a thoughtful, evidence-based decision: to prohibit discharges, but initiate a pilot program to identify all the contaminants and figure out how to deal with any dangerous ones. That May ruling, the Wastewater ReUse Rule, sounded sensible.

Guv and O&G disagreed. Within weeks, O&G filed a new petition aimed at overturning that rule. Normally, barring urgent new evidence, few bodies, and not the WQCC, would grant such a motion on something they just spent eighteen months deciding. (If nothing else, it’s awfully wasteful.)

But the Guv stacked the deck. She and her cabinet urged commissioners to vote for advancing the petition, and used the appointment process to put in safe votes. Environment Secretary James Kenney pressured commissioners and even became a commissioner. He also forbade Environment Department scientists, who’d proposed the ban and provided scientific evidence favoring it, from participating in the new hearings! Reminds me of RFK, Jr. firing CDC scientists, so he could ignore science and good health and set rules he wanted.

As one environmentalist put it, “At a time when we’re seeing institutional norms and government integrity disintegrate at the federal level, it’s disappointing to see that in our state.” Notably, the proposed reversal would also remove requirements that companies notify the public (and neighbors) before discharging the waste. Folks with nearby wells, children, cows, or crops would be clueless. And helpless.

This stuff contains dissolved solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, PFAs, metal, emerging contaminants, and naturally-occurring radioactive materials. It’s dangerous without careful and costly monitoring and disposal. Would washing my car with it or swimming in a stream it gets into harm? I’m no scientist. But when scientists and lawyers battled it out, the WQCC didn’t say “Go for it!”

Still, the Guv pushed for a rehearing and stacked the deck to be sure WQCC would set one. A hearing date may not come until next spring, and the Environment Department is following through on the May ruling. Several groups have asked the Court of Appeals to vacate the rehearing order and disqualify seven of the 14 commissioners, based on hard evidence of the state’s improper pressure. WQCC decisions are appealable to the state court of appeals. Note that O&G didn’t do that. I’d infer that they weren’t confident of their case – and were in a hurry. And had a cooperative guv. If she has her way, and the environmentalists and ranchers can use that appeal, and I’d bet on them. When a politician tells underlings to vote a certain way, contradicting their votes after extensive hearings, and denies them testimony from the state-employed scientists who testified in previous hearing, it shouldn’t be hard to convince a fair court that the decision was not based on, or supported by, evidence.

Corporations used to be free to pollute. We’ve so fouled our nest that everyone started paying more attention to people’s health and the environment. But governments are ignoring science and procedural protections to dance to corporate masters’ tunes. Does the Governor have some cogent explanation for this apparent example?

                              – 30 –

 [The above column appeared Sunday, 12 October 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun- News, and will presently be up on the newspaper’s website and on the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version of this Sunday column will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station show archives.]

[I’m still seeking a reasoned explanation. I may also try to arrange a radio discussion with folks who hold divergent views on these events.]

Thoughts on Two City Council Races - Retain Councilor Becky Corran!

This morning [1October2025] I listened to radio discussions of two city-council candidate races.

District 5 incumbent Becky Corran spoke knowledgeably about many city issues. Her challenger, Ronnie Sisneros, didn't respond to an invitation and didn't fill out the Bulletin 's questionnaire that lets candidates express their views unedited.

Sisneros has said that he would represent the conservatives to whom, he says, the city government doesn't listen to. (Running in 2021, he said he'd recently become a Republican and, if elected, would “oppose all of the present city council and all of the decisions they've been making for as long as I've been here.”)

Corran spoke effectively about issues including law enforcement, housing, roads, secure voter-registration information, food for the poor, recent ordinances, and dealing with the federal budget cuts that not only hurt individuals but reduce municipalities' funding. Though she looks at police with an independent critical view, she spoke knowledgeably and favorably about LCPD's Chief Jeremy Story's leadership.

She had no answer to the increasing acrimony of public comment, which helped fellow Councilor Becky Graham's decide not to seek re-election. Citizens address councilors in an exceptionally angry manner. Councilors can only respond during councilor comments, hours later. Some conservatives share Mr. Sisneros's view.

I've had more opportunity to observe Ms. Corran than I have most councilors. She's a star. A thoughtful teacher who has no political ambitions, diligent, and independent.

In District 3, now represented by Graham, Michael Harris and Isaiah Tellez are the candidates. Harris graduated from Mayfield High then received two degrees from NMSU. He and a friend then founded a small technology company doing software development and other technology projects.

Tellez was also born and raised here, as were his parents. He's a realtor. Public safety and concerns about violence “pushed me to run for office,” and that he will prioritize public safety. He said he wanted to restore youth recreational problems he experienced as a kid here.

Both men were conversant with city problems and actions. Each mourned friends leaving town for better opportunities elsewhere. Asked their highest priority, Tellez cited public safety and Harris mentioned making sure the city's budget was sustainable.

Graham has endorsed Harris. So has Conservation Voters of New Mexico, citing “his deep commitment to climate action and voter protection.” I don't know either man personally, but appreciate Harris's involvement with Cruces Creatives. I like that both are lifelong residents who know the city and care about its people. I would vote for Harris, because he seems to have a wider range of knowledge of issues, has already served on the city's transportation board, is more deeply concerned about climate craziness, and seemed to have a more balanced perspective on law enforcement. Like Corran, I appreciate Chief Story. I support the police and appreciate their challenges. As Corran mentioned, they're now asked to do much that's beyond their training and expertise. That isn't their fault; but incidents of unjustified police violence must also be faced.

The Bulletin asked each to state “the biggest challenges facing Las Cruces.” Harris's answer started, “The biggest long-term challenges to Las Cruces are climate, water, and energy costs.” Tellez started, “One of the biggest challenges facing Las Cruces right now is public safety. particularly the rise in youth crime.”

This local election includes city council and school board races and bond issues. I'd urge folks to study up, or even meet the candidates, then decide.

                               – 30 – 

 

[The above column appeared Tuesday, 7 October 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun- News, and on the newspaper's website and on the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version of this Sunday column will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station show archives.]

[ Apologies for this typo: In the version sent to the Sun-News I erroneously identified the district represented by Councilor Corran: it is in fact District 5. ]