There’s no need for shutdown

Gov. Susana Martinez does not seem to be giving up on the notion of shutting down government. A statement from her spokesman, Michael Lonergan, put it bluntly: “The governor has met with [Department of Finance Authority officials]; they tell her that soon we won’t be able to cut checks. Cash is nearing empty. She directed DFA to begin exploring the process of a government shutdown. This could mean many things — closing our museums to just a few days a week; cutting hours at parks; state employee furloughs; and, God forbid, fewer days our kids spend in the classroom.

“This was COMPLETELY avoidable. But from day one, the Senate seemed determined to drive us into a shutdown.” Cut to reality. New Mexico is in fiscal year 2016-17. The budget was passed last year, but ran into trouble — fairly predictable trouble, since oil and gas prices were plummeting — and had to be amended. That took place both in a special session last fall and during the first few weeks of the 60-day legislative session this year.

Legislators sent — and Martinez signed — a fiscal solvency plan in January to take care of current state spending. The bill should bring in some $190 million to the state’s general fund, closing a projected $80 million deficit and plumping up reserve accounts. Lawmakers tried to get reserves up to 3 percent — something Martinez had promised — but the plan she signed, after a few vetoes, only brought reserves to 1.8 percent.

That proposal, a compromise to be sure, took care of spending problems this year. The current dispute is about next year’s spending — that is, the $6.1 billion proposed state budget that would take effect July 1 (note that today’s date is March 23). New Mexico is not running out of money right this minute, unless, of course, there has been a precipitous drop in revenues that only Martinez knows about. Otherwise, why shut down government? Even a partial closure of parks or museums just before the tourism season makes no sense.

And, while we are pleased that Martinez is meeting with DFA officials — that’s the agency that makes sure the books are balanced — what might be a good is for the governor to meet with Senate and House leaders to see if there is a way to get the 2017-18 budget approved without the cost of a special session. At $50,000 or so a day and the state cash-strapped, we can ill afford it. Especially with the governor’s tendency to clutter special sessions with non-emergency items.

Her spokesman, in the statement, seemed to say a special session is inevitable: “The governor will call a special session soon because the do-nothing Senate wasted 60 days debating things like holiday songs instead of working on a balanced budget that doesn’t raise taxes on our families.”

The Senate and House passed a practical budget, one that avoids further damaging cuts while finding sensible ways to fund government. The $6.1 billion budget has $128 million in new spending — over and above projected revenues, in other words. That would be unconstitutional except for an accompanying piece of legislation designed to raise some $350 million in additional revenues, giving the state a financial cushion. Or, if the governor objects to closing tax loopholes or other measures in the bill, she can line-item veto them and whip the legislation into her preferred shape. The revenue plan did receive GOP support in the Senate, but all House Republicans voted against it.

What seems to be at the heart of the cry for a government shutdown is the desire to create a sense of crisis. The governor and her House GOP allies want a reform of gross receipts taxes — and we do, too. However, when the state’s finances are in such precarious shape, any drastic reshaping of the tax code needs to be considered long and hard.

Use the interim between sessions to hold hearings and cost out GOP Rep. Jason Harper’s plan — and simplify it, please, so no nasty surprises can be included. He has made a valiant start at eliminating costly exemptions and lowering the base GRT rate to make taxes more uniform. But the state must be certain that losing exemptions will bring in enough revenue to make up for lowering the rate. That would be difficult in a special session.

Meanwhile, let’s get the budget signed, find enough revenue to pay for it and return to the business of governing.