Talk of the Town

Switching to public power is no panacea

Stephen Fischmann’s endorsement of public control of PNM (“New Mexico should use permanent funds to buy PNM,” Aug. 17 Sunday Journal) should be met with deep skepticism. The battle between private and public power has persisted for more than 100 years. The combatants on one side like Fischmann want more government involvement for different reasons — local control (sometimes labeled “energy democracy”), lower rates, advancement of a sustainable energy agenda, social justice and so forth. More broadly, some in this group mistrust corporate power and capitalism in general — for example, profits just fill the pockets of Wall Street and serve no social purpose.

The combatants on the other side oppose government overreach in operating an electric power system — public ownership means cronyism, misconduct and waste. Governments can’t even adequately provide basic services; how can we then trust them to run a complex power system that requires sophisticated technical skills when politics will dominate their decisions?

In my opinion, these polarized views distract from the real issue. The nature of political debates these days is that each side distorts reality to accommodate their agenda. Taking a position on public power should come only after understanding how different each class of utility behaves, which depends on the incentives and constraints they face. For example, the evidence points to public entities setting prices that maximize their political support, rather than consumer welfare.

My main conclusion: Switching to public power, or even studying it, would miserably fail a cost-benefit test by being the wrong solution to whatever problem advocates of public power claim to exist. I would therefore outright reject switching from private to public power as a viable policy action to grapple with whatever problem its advocates identify: It is extremely costly and arduous.

Kenneth Costello

Santa Fe

Public utility would benefit state residents

I am writing this letter in support of the column by Stephen Fischmann published in the Aug. 17 Sunday Journal: “New Mexico should use permanent funds to buy PNM.”

In that column, Fischmann mentioned that the world’s largest private equity firm, Blackstone, is currently in negotiations to purchase the parent company TXNM energy. Apropos this possible acquisition, the journalist Matt Taibbi famously described the investment bank Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” The same description applies to Blackstone only multiplied tenfold. No private equity fund should be allowed anywhere near a public utility, which is bound by law to operate in the public interest. That is not how private equity works.

The best way to assure that Public Service Company of New Mexico operates in the public interest is to have it owned and operated by the public. The precedent for this already exists in the form of rural electricity cooperatives. The model works, and the people of New Mexico should take the bold step of adopting it.

Robert Goldstein

Albuquerque

Leniency for driver will cause unsafe roads

A reckless driver plows into a highway work site, killing a construction worker and fleeing the scene. This guy gets off with an 18 month suspended sentence followed by probation — not even a felony conviction (“Driver sentenced in the death of highway worker,” page A4 of the Aug. 19 Journal). There is no mention of revoking or suspending the offender’s driver’s license.

This extreme leniency sends a clear message that dangerous motorists have carte blanche to speed blithely along, putting lives at risk. The judge and attorneys who agreed to this travesty ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Janet Goldstein

Socorro

Protecting the CDC shouldn’t be political

As a family practice physician, I have relied for decades on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help my patients live healthier lives. Their evidence-based information has guided me in recommending vaccination schedules, alerting families to outbreaks across the country and advising travelers on how to stay safe abroad. The CDC’s research allows me to provide timely, accurate and life-saving advice.

That is why I am disturbed by the recent attacks on this vital institution. The shooting at the CDC building, the disbanding of the vaccine advisory board and the firing of experienced clinicians are not just assaults on an agency — they are assaults on the health of every American. Equally troubling are the slashing of budgets for the CDC, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation; the abrupt termination of scientific grants; and the misinformation coming from Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

These changes will make it increasingly difficult for physicians like me to provide quality care. More broadly, they threaten the overall health of our society. Science and medicine cannot flourish when research is defunded, expertise is dismissed and evidence is drowned out by misinformation.

I urge my patients, my colleagues and all members of our community to speak up about these draconian changes before it is too late to reverse them. Protecting the integrity of the CDC and other scientific institutions is not a political issue — it is a matter of public health, safety and trust.

Frank Lonergan, MD

Albuquerque

Giving to panhandlers perpetuates problem

Having just spent a week on the East Coast, it was so refreshing to see the absence of panhandlers on city street corners. No one had their hand out for money. I was never approached in parking lots by someone claiming they ran out of gas, and could I just give them a few dollars to help get them get on their way? Upon returning home, the reality of the omnipresent panhandlers on nearly every corner hit me front and center. We have a major problem here in Albuquerque with panhandling, but it is solvable.

The reason panhandlers are out there on street corners in this heat, or in the cold during winter months begging for money, is because it is profitable for them. Enough well-intentioned Albuquerqueans roll their windows down and give them a few bucks, and in doing so we make it worth their while to stay out there with their hands out. We are perpetuating the problem.

Those of us who do this have the misconception that we are making their day by helping them, when in reality we are only enabling their dependency. I urge you to please resist the temptation to give them anything short of a burrito or a bottle of water. Instead, donate to a nonprofit that provides services for these folks, as it is much more effective and your dollars will go way further. If everyone, and I mean everyone, quit giving them money, the problem would go away. It’s really a very simple fix.

Robert Ferguson

Albuquerque

Theater of the absurd in Texas and California

In the 1960s I was a fan of the theater of the absurd. This genre presented plays that brought ideas to the absurd level to illustrate the absurdity of those ideas.

An example of this genre was Eugene Ionesco’s “Rhinoceros.” In this play people allow themselves to be turned into rhinoceroses because others are turning into rhinoceroses and they are afraid of not conforming.

Ionesco grew up in Romania as the Nazi Party was gaining power and he saw rational people turning into Nazis.

Well, thank you Texas and California politicians for illustrating the absurdity of allowing politicians to draw their own districts. Maybe now people in New Mexico and elsewhere will recognize this absurdity and demand independent redistricting commissions.

Richard Mason

Rio Rancho