Senate removed fairness features in tax legislation

The League of Women Voters deplores that the New Mexico Senate gutted House Bill 6 (“Session ends with last-minute compromise on tax legislation,” March 17). The New Mexico House version of the bill would have set New Mexico on the path to a more reliable source of funding, generating more than $300 million. But the Senate removed much of the revenue generation and eliminated almost all of the fairness features of the House version. The final version will generate only $70 million.

The Senate Finance Committee opposed tapping the Land Grant Permanent Fund, arguing that New Mexico must wean itself from dependence on revenues from the oil and gas industry. Then they eviscerated the House version of HB 6, which included no revenue from oil and gas. It is amazing that they did not see the disconnect. It is time for New Mexico to generate the revenues needed to fund essential services; those revenues should come from those who can most afford it. Judy Williams president League of Women Voters of New Mexico Santa Fe

System that works

I am a U.S. Navy, Vietnam era, combat veteran who did three in-country tours from 1965-69. I remain productive in retirement as an engineering consultant due to the health care I receive from Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.

There is no shortage of opinions, both good and bad, about the VA health care system. According to conservative political pundits, the VA is “broken” — a position that stems from the belief that any governmental spending is suspect, if not demonic. For the folks who work for or benefit from the VA, the system is far from “broken.” The thought of losing such a valuable service sends shudders up their collective spines.

The VA provides a number of benefits, ranging from health care to medical research to training. The most valuable benefit derived from the VA, however, will be as a template for a singlepayer, national health care system that works. R. French Leger design engineer Santa Fe

Appalled by plug

A reader recommended the book The Mythology of Global Warming by Dr. Bruce C. Bunker (“Teaching text,” Letters to the Editor, March 18). I am appalled at this recommendation. Bunker claims the data don’t support claims of global warming, but anyone interested in that claim should understand that science works by producing measurements that are reproducible, repeatable and consistent. It is not adequate to make a claim using data that 99 percent of the scientific community can’t replicate. I urge adults to become literate with how science is done. Claims are not made to be used to promote a political agenda. They are made based on the data. Politicians and citizens should then use these valid (reproducible) claims to make policy. Cynthia Weehler Santa Fe

Side more saintly

Several letters recently have demanded equal respect for immigrant sanctuary cities and Second Amendment sanctuary counties. While ignoring or breaking unjust laws is a proud American tradition, it matters why you break the law.

One of these movements provides sanctuary for people seeking to escape violence and intimidation, for whom freedom from violence is worth risking their lives and leaving their livelihoods. The other movement wants sanctuary for guns, especially for military-style and concealable weapons whose only purpose is violence or the threat of violence against humans.

Sanctuary means refuge in a sainted or sacred place, originally a church. Should we offer it to people who have known how violence creates oppression, or to people who believe that the threat of violence makes them safer or more free? Both are protests, but the similarity stops there. Which side would the saints be on? Kim Sorvig Santa Fe

When you vote

I keep hearing from the Democrats that “we are for the teachers;” yet, at the end of this legislative session, there was a budget dispute over whether funds should be used for a mandated raise for teachers (Senate position) or should be used for a raise for all personnel, including supervisory personnel other than superintendents (House position). The House insisted on its position and prevailed in the bill adopted.

The House is basically the Democratic Party, they have such control. So when a Democrat tells you, “We support teachers and putting more money in the classroom,” they are lying, and this shows it; they support the education establishment and the unions. I support the Senate position, and teachers and money in the classroom. If you do, too, remember this when you vote. Sam Haas Santa Fe