13 February 2012 Dear Senator Griego: I have received and reviewed your letter, dated February 8, 2012, which

is clearly riddled with factual errors and misguided statements, to say the least. Due to your blatant disregard of logic and accuracy any response that I issued, no matter how cogent and sound, would likely be ignored. For this reason, I have decided to write an open response sent to various parties. First, you state: Today, too much of the tax burden is put on working families and the middle class to fund our childrens education and families healthcare while the richest 1% pay historically low tax rates. I find your tactic of pitting one group of Americans against another reprehensible. Your vague terms of working families and middle class are deliberately designed to make your readers arbitrarily segregate themselves into the working families, middle class, or rich classes. Once segregated you seek to invoke an emotional response from the preferred classes that they are paying more than their fair share in taxes and they should be resentful against the rich. Now, according to a recent Gallup poll, there are some of us who would classify ourselves as rich if we made less than $60,000 a year. i This poll confirms that the readers perception of what class they belong in varies, making it easy to persuade the reader. Furthermore, what historical data have you examined to conclude that the richest 1% pay historically low tax rates? Clearly you did not examine: 1) the turn of the 20th century data, under Woodrow Wilson, where the top federal tax rate was 77%;ii or, Franklin Delano Roosevelts tenure, where the top federal tax rate was 94%iii, which does not include the executive order that he issued in April 1942 that would tax all personal income over $25,000 at 100 percent;iv or, that the top federal tax rate continued to slowly decline through all subsequent presidencies to a low of 70% during Jimmy Carters stint in office;v or, the 2009 data, which shows that the share of income taxes paid by the richest 1% (i.e. individuals making more than $343,927) was 36.7%, the share of income taxes paid by the top 5% was 58.7%, and the share of income taxes paid by top 25% was 87.3%; while, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 75% (i.e. those making less than $63,193 - some of whom consider themselves as rich) was 12.7%.vi

2)

3)

4)

Second, you state: That is why I am sponsoring a bill (SB 152) asking individuals making more than $250,000 per year to pay a more fair tax rate. Let me get this straight, you chastise the richest 1% for not paying their fair share, and yet you target individuals making more than $250,000, whom would fall into the top 5% category, such that you would increase their burden of income taxes paid to in excess of 58.7%vii. It is readily apparent that according to you this is not a fair share; perhaps, you agree with Roosevelts executive order and believe that they will only be paying their fair share when they are taxed at 100%. Third, you state: To help create jobs, I am also sponsoring a bill (SB 268) which creates incentives for clean energy companies to invest in our state. According to your proposed legislation green industries means industries that contribute directly to preserving or enhancing environmental quality by reducing waste and pollution or by producing sustainable products using

sustainable processesincluding: (1) energy system retrofits to increase energy; (2) production and distribution of biofuels and vehicle retrofits for biofuels.viii Spain has already attempted this model and miserably failed at creating jobs, and on average we can expect to lose 2 jobs for every 1 job created.ix Also, the use of energy system retrofits to increase energy is eerily similar to what the EPA is currently mandating power plants, such as PNMs San Juan Generating Station, to do. The EPA is mandating that PNMs San Juan Generating Station install selective catalytic reduction technology which PNM estimates could cost up to $1 billion to install.x The San Juan and the Four Corners Power Plant provide more than 60 percent of electricity consumed by Public Service Co. of New Mexico customers.xi If PNM concludes that it is cost prohibitive to complete the retrofit, it will likely shut down that power plant. This is not farfetched, for due to EPA regulations, American Electric Power is shutting down 5 coal-fired power plants,xii and that equates to jobs lost. Not to mention, if that PNM power plant shuts down this will likely mean that there will be rolling blackouts and higher energy prices.xiii Also, production and distribution of biofuels is eerily similar to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.xiv Our refineries were penalized because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel. *+ But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.xv Furthermore, our refineries are facing additional EPA regulations that will likely hinder output and may cause some to shutdownxvi, which will equate to more jobs lost. So while youre proposing legislation to subsidize the green industryxvii, our energy companies are under direct assault from the EPA, and there is a very real threat of lost jobs, blackouts, and increased energy costs. Instead of proposing legislation that will ultimately hurt New Mexico, propose legislation which states that New Mexico will no longer suffer the dictates of the EPA, and protect our companies that are under assault. It is time to exercise our ninth and tenth amendment rights when it comes to the EPA. New Mexico clearly exercised those rights when it came to the DEA, as it legalized medical marijuana. Fourth, your SM 3, included in your reform package, provides for A Senate Memorial calling on Congress to send the states a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. It is clear from the memorial that you do not think that corporations are protected under the first amendmentxviii; however, the [Supreme] Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellottiand extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button.xix Since you and others voted in the affirmative for SM 3xx it is abundantly clear that you are for abridgment of our first amendment rights, for in the Citizens United v. FEC case the Supreme Court held: Although the First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, [the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002] 441bs prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. [] Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracyit is the means to hold officials accountable to the peoplepolitical speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.xxi As John Adams said, Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.xxii The facts and evidence are clear; you seek to divide us, to pit one group against the other, to overtax us, to subsidize one industry, to not defend other industries, and to abridge our first amendment rights. Sincerely,

Eric Jurist Patriot Enc: end notes and your original letter

Americans Set "Rich" Threshold at $150,000 in Annual Income by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup, December 8, 2011 The Futility of Raising Tax Rates by Bruce Bartlett, Cato Policy Analysis No. 192, April 8, 1993 iii The Futility of Raising Tax Rates by Bruce Bartlett, Cato Policy Analysis No. 192, April 8, 1993 iv New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDRs Economic Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton Folsom Jr., p.250, 2008 v U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011, Tax Foundation, September 9, 2011 vi Summary of 2009 Federal Individual Income Tax Data, Tax Foundation, October 24, 2011, tables Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2009 and Dollar Cut-Off, 1980-2009" vii Summary of 2009 Federal Individual Income Tax Data, Tax Foundation, October 24, 2011, tables Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2009 and Dollar Cut-Off, 1980-2009" viii Senate Bill 268 introduced by Eric G. Griego, Section 2 D, p. 4, Second Session 2012 ix Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources by Gabriel Calzada lvarezes PhD et al, published 2010, p. 1 x PNM seeks bids for San Juan upgrade, New Mexico Business Weekly, January 30, 2012 xi PNM juggles many issues at its San Juan coal plant by Kevin Robinson-Avila, New Mexico Business Weekly, December 23, 2011 xii Utility giant AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs by Andrew Restuccia, June 9, 2011 xiii EPA to Raise Electricity Prices, Risk Blackouts by Romina Boccia, The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation, December 6, 2011 xiv Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Title II: Energy Security Through Increased Production of Biofuels, p. 5-6, Signed into law December 19, 2007 xv A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesnt Exist by Matthew L. Wald, January 9, 2012 xvi API warns of possible EPA refinery regulatory 'tsunami' by Nick Snow, February 10, 2012 xvii Senate Bill 268 introduced by Eric G. Griego, Section 2 A, p. 2-3, Second Session 2012 xviii Senate Memorial 3 introduced by Stephen H. Fischmann, p. 1, Second Session 2012 xix SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Decided January 21, 2010, p. 4 xx Official Roll Call, Sental Memorial 3, As Amended, February 11, 2012 xxi SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Decided January 21, 2010, p. 3 xxii John Adams by David McCullough, p. 68, 2001
ii