Next year, always next year
The proposed constitutional amendment to draw more money out of the $16 billion Land Grant Permanent Fund to pay for early childhood programs appears dead once more — this year, Senate Finance Chairman John Arthur Smith did not allow a vote on the measure.
That’s a shame. House Joint Resolution 1 made it through the House. It deserved a vote in the full Senate — but to get to the floor, the resolution had to pass through the Senate Finance Committee (it already had made it through the Senate Education Committee).
Whatever your opinion of the proposed amendment, not allowing a vote in committee is a gift to legislators who want to avoid being held accountable on this important issue. Smith says he was sure the measure would not pass his committee; fine, limit testimony to save time, but take a vote. That way, legislators are on record. A full Senate vote would be even better because it would give citizens the opportunity to know where all their legislators stand, not just the ones who sit on important committees. This issue is too pressing not to get legislators on the record.
New Mexico’s children are suffering. Every year we are top or near the top of bad lists, whether number of children in hunger or those in poverty. This is a crisis of long-standing, with a lack of resolve to act boldly and change the status quo. Smart and compassionate people — everyone from advocates for the poor to religious leaders to progressive legislators — believe the best way to help children succeed is to use the state’s potent trust fund resources and invest them in kids.
Expanding early childhood education is their goal, along with funding research-based programs that boost babies and toddlers. The notion of focusing on very young children is based on research that shows how important it is for babies to be cuddled, to be read to, to eat nutritious food — the sorts of things that seem obvious but often are neglected in life. Early learning can help the brains of babies grow so that once in pre-school, and later, elementary school, they are better able to learn. These children do not start out behind.
However, it is possible to believe improved early childhood learning is desirable, think that state funds can improve the lot of children and still be against tapping the Land Grant Permanent Fund. Fiscal conservatives such as Smith sincerely believe taking another 1 percent out (5 percent already is going to public education) will damage the fund over the long term. (Others against the proposed amendment likely believe the government should not be providing such programs; that’s more a philosophical than a financial objection and, frankly, we believe this viewpoint is wrong.)
We respect Smith’s financial knowledge. That’s why we want to ask him — and others who want to leave the fund alone — how shall we pay for programs that are proven to work and that will make a difference in the lives of children and their parents?
The constitutional amendment, its backers believe, would bring in some $150 million a year for early childhood programs. Is there another place to find those dollars? Smith, especially, as a pillar of the Senate who understands the state’s finances, can help the cause by looking for other ways to pay for the work that needs to take place. Instead, what happens every year is that too much of the debate centers on the long-term health of the Land Grant Permanent Fund and not enough on how New Mexico can find money to lift children out of poverty. (It’s similar to what happened in Santa Fe last year in the soda-tax debate; nearly everyone loved early childhood education, just not a soda tax. Those opponents have not stepped up with a new way to fund pre-K. What is their better way?)
Progressives who want to tap into the fund can help the effort, too. Show other ways to fund additional early childhood programs — and, conversely, show why that might not be enough. Share more widely information about whether there is enough classroom space, tell how teachers will be trained and describe the kinds of efforts that will improve the lot of babies and toddlers. Much of this work has been done, but let’s broadcast it widely to blunt criticism.
To all the people who have worked so hard on this effort, the only consolation is that public opinion is on your side. So is the science of early brain development. This effort will succeed. Now the challenge is to figure out the best way forward.