This morning I received an email from a very active member who I also count as a friend.  He is frustrated that even after all of your hard work, there is still the possibility of cuts to our members.  It's true--we're far from out of the woods.  If revenues continue to decline, our state and university employees may face furloughs, although we're hopeful that the revenues just raised are strong enough to avoid layoffs.  The agency cuts could still be done in a way that is harmful to our members, particularly if our relationship with the administration, which is currently fairly good, deteriorates.  Further, if the governor vetoes the very small increase in the food tax, we're looking at over a thousand possible layoffs.

I see those threats as a reason to double up our efforts to elect legislators and a governor who oppose cuts, and will at least take a balanced approach to the budget.  But my friend's email suggested that maybe AFSCME members should just not vote this November.

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more, and want to share why.  In yesterday's Albuquerque Journal, one of the editors who saw our work up close at the Roundhouse gave this assessment of the session:

        "Some observers have portrayed the budget-deficit session that ended Thursday as simply a battle between public-sector and private-sector interests, with the public sector winning.
        It certainly seems to me that public employees were well protected in the special session, and if they hadn't been as well represented, would have taken much bigger hits in the cut-government-spending versus increase-taxes debate.
        I also found persuasive conservative arguments that New Mexico has a disproportionate number of public employees, and when you consider retirement and health care benefits along with salary, they might be better off than many New Mexicans employed in the private sector.
        At the same time, I think it's misleading to argue that public employees won over taxpayers or voters at large.
        That's because public employees are also taxpayers and voters and their representation in the Legislature is largely a factor of their participation in electing members of the Legislature."

Now, the Journal is frequently critical of unions and government, and since we're a government employees' union, we often disagree with the Journal.  But on Sunday the Journal got it right:  your role--and your union's role--in being active in elections helps to ensure that legislators take a balanced approach when the time comes for making decisions about cutting hard-working state and university employees and the services we provide, or restoring some of the revenue that was given away over the last 10 years.

My answer to my friend who suggested we should think about sitting out the 2010 elections is that it's never been more important for us to be involved in elections and legislative work,  I can't imagine why we'd let others decide our fate without any input from us.  Over the last few elections, you've done a great job in electing people who will at least listen to us, and the regular and special sessions just proved how important that is to public employees.

If you do think it's important for us to stay involved, please call the governor TODAY at 505-476-2200 and ask him to sign ALL the revenue bills, including the small partial reinstatement of the food tax.  Gracias!  --Carter