2008 Writing D e s e r t E x p o s u r e
September
2008
In the Tank
I have read Desert Exposure several times in the past and this little paper does a great job capturing some of the magic of southwestern New Mexico, and I sincerely congratulate you on the great job you have done since coming onboard. I also realize this paper is your capital investment and frankly your source of voicing your political opinions however you wish and no one can say otherwise — thank God for America, eh? But after reading your August 2008 editorial this morning on "Pumped Up," I felt compelled to send you a brief note to simply remind you that you are espousing to your readership an extreme position that only shows part of the picture.
So that you are not blind to my background and why I have a different viewpoint, I can state that I grew up on a ranch on the Mimbres Valley and a large part of my extended family made a decent living at Kennecott and Phelps Dodge. We still have the ranch but none of us work at the mine facilities anymore.
I do agree with your main point that you were trying to express, which is that our national energy has been in a shambles with no leadership. It has been an ineffective group of policies that have done very little regarding our vehicle fuel and our power industries. Your entire editorial is well worded and I see nothing incorrect in your statements, except for two items:
1. "A (50 cent) gas tax in 2004 could have 'pushed' Americans toward conservation sooner rather than later. And the money could have gone to alternative-energy development and to offset costs to lower-income taxpayers, instead of to oil companies and foreign countries." Here is where your belief system I am sure feels right to you (and apparently John Kerry), although you have absolutely nothing to substantiate this. You want to "tax" people to "force" them to do something you believe is right, i.e. conserve. I was not aware our tax system was to be used as a stick to herd people in a direction our lawmakers believe they should be headed. The last I recall, the taxes on gasoline were used to build the roads and bridges that we need to drive our vehicles on. Keep this in mind the next time you attempt to leave Silver City and realize your fellow citizens in that community could not begin to afford those very long roads that go to that small community. Next time, stop on the side of the road partway back to Deming, take a long deep breath, look around, and imagine driving a dirt road with no bridges next time. I believe you might actually have an epiphany on this very issue: Taxes to provide government programs and services — good. Taxes to force people to follow a certain belief — bad.
I assume your belief in "tax and force" would also apply to our runaway food consumption in the US as well. If most of us were to believe the way you do, then we could easily raise taxes and get obesity under control and ultimately invest in alternative food programs that would somehow get people out from under the thumb of those evil farmers and ranchers as well. It has to be the farmers and ranchers' faults they are producing food way too cheap because of all those subsidies and making everyone fat. That has got to be it, right?
2. "Moreover, as economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently pointed out, just because the US produces a barrel of oil doesn't mean only Americans get to use it. America would get all the environmental risks, Reich noted, but only some of the oil." This statement is correct, and a few paragraphs above this you also correctly stated we in the Southwest will benefit from increased prices of copper with increased employment. Unfortunately, you get your argument confused at this point in your effort to convince people it is hopeless to lower oil prices by increasing domestic production. However, it escapes many people that there is an entire oil and gas industry that will benefit from increased domestic production. That means more of your money stays here in America and doesn't go to Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, where we get absolutely no benefit from that revenue.
Why don't you show your readers how much good can come from having increased domestic production just here in New Mexico alone? Why don't you explain to them why the State of New Mexico has a surplus of cash to spend lots of money on all those juicy state programs everyone wants each year? Why don't you visit the southeast part of our state and ask them about increased domestic production and local jobs? Why not Mr. Fryxell — why not?
So here we sit, and unfortunately the loudest voices that we typically hear are the newspaper editorials (including yours now) shouting for conservation and magic "alternative energy" that will solve all our woes or at least stop the sky from falling or perhaps heating up. How many front-page news stories are there regarding how our universities are rebuilding their nuclear-engineering programs and also starting research and development on cleaner coal initiatives? Few, very darn few.
Our destiny is in our own hands, not in others'. Therefore that means all of our local natural resource industries must be enhanced and utilized, such as nuclear, coal, solar, wind and, yes, even oil and gas.
Matthew R. Thompson
Las Cruces
Editor's note: Thanks for your thoughtful and provocative letter. I don't think we actually disagree all that much. I'm not against careful
increased domestic production, merely pointing out that it's not the panacea
some politicians would have folks believe, and that much of its benefits are
years away. Most of the domestic production that's currently being debated,
in any case, is offshore and in Alaska — not really analogous to
copper in its potential New Mexico economic benefit.
As to taxes, when you say, "I was not aware our tax system was to be used as a stick to herd people in a direction our lawmakers believe they should be headed," I'm afraid you're missing the thrust of much of the US' current tax laws. We want to encourage home ownership, so we allow mortgage interest to be deducted. We want to discourage smoking, so we boost cigarette taxes. Tax credits and deductions "herd" people toward education, while "sin" taxes "force" them away from alcohol. You can certainly object to this approach on philosophical grounds, but it's deeply embedded in the way our government works today. Suggesting that higher gasoline taxes back then might have accomplished what high gas prices have today — with more of the money staying in America — is
not exactly a radical shift in government strategy, merely an unpopular one
(as candidate Kerry found out and swiftly backpedaled away from).
My wife, Kathie, and I read your outstanding article, "Pumped Up." It was extremely perceptive and provided an excellent history. I really enjoy Desert Exposure. It is my favorite New Mexico publication.
Greg Lennes
Las Cruces
Jarring Note
Marjorie Lilly's "Sitting on the Shore of the Universe" (Borderlines, July) was a lovely contemplation of nature — that is, until she mentioned that she was putting up a sign to "get rid of [her] kittens." Wow, that sounds pretty callous. Ms. Lilly, spay and neuter your cats (and dogs), the way all responsible people should do.
Elaine Kaufmann
Las Cruces
Let us hear from you! Write Desert Exposure Letters, PO Box 191, Silver City, NM 88062, fax 534-4134 or email letters@desertexposure.com Letters are subject to editing for style and length. Deadline for the next issue is the 18th of the month.