I am writing in response to Milan Simonich’s decision to include me and my voting record in his rant regarding proposed alcohol tax concerns in the Santa Fe New Mexican.
First off, you took a cheap shot. The fact that I voted against loan reform wasn’t even on topic. Targeting me on a totally unrelated subject is beyond me.
I am a Bronze Star Vietnam veteran who waited 40 years for our government to tell me this. You were picking your nose watching Cronkite on TV while I was dodging soviet artillery. The people of my community have trusted me as a judge for 17 years and legislator for over 14 years to make decisions to make our community strong.
The voting decisions I make reflect careful study for what is best for the people of my district. You do realize that the loan reform legislation amounted to poor people being forced to beg their churches and social groups for help if and when banks and credit unions refused to back them.
We may as well pass legislation supporting panhandling on the median as a viable alternative for those who without the blessing of good credit. That is why I voted against it.
How I stand on the proposed issue of increasing taxes on alcohol at this time depends on a few important questions being answered. With the state bringing in $3.4 billion in new money, does NM really need to raise a tax with no assigned purpose?
The issue with the proposed alcohol tax is that the expected revenue is not specifically allocated for rehabilitation, education, expansion of specialty courts or help for those afflicted with alcoholism.You want to tax a disease. That’s what alcoholism and addiction are. Ultimately, if the tax is passed, no one will bat an eye at the extra cents on a drink when they go into a bar and those that will notice it will go hungry to feed their disease.
Eliseo Alcon
Milan, N.M.