Solar Energy Credits Robbed Peter To Pay Paul

[Webster]

Albuquerque Journal News: Solar Energy Credits Robbed Peter To Pay Paul

Almost everyone supports solar energy. It’s like supporting water conservation, homes for stray animals, justice for all. That sounds great at cocktail parties and in political discussions. Most of the proponents don’t have to make the tough decisions like deciding which cause to implement.

In the world of social intercourse there is room for all.

Recently, Gov. Susana Martinez was taken to task for vetoing the continuation of state tax credits for purchasing solar energy systems. The writer cited in support of his criticism the environmental benefits of such credits, the jobs that are created in building a larger solar industry and taking advantage of our state’s sunshine, which apparently now goes to waste.

New Mexico is a poor state. It lacks the tax base and the industry of its neighbors. Eighteen percent of its population is below the poverty line. Its educational system is in need of revamping. It is saddled with a nice-to-have but debt-ridden intercity rail line that a previous administration created. And yet, the state pays its bills.

The problem with the writer’s comments is that maintaining a solar energy system tax credit makes solar systems cost less for the purchaser by allowing the purchaser to pay less taxes.

And that might create some installer jobs but the subsidized increased demand also benefits those who manufacture and ship those systems, who of course are in states – and countries – other than New Mexico.

Why should this state pick up part of the purchaser’s cost for such a system when such payment benefits industries outside of our borders? By making less money available for programs assisting those in need of support – credits equal lower tax revenues, hence less ability to fund these other programs – how does that benefit those who really need assistance?

Someone dedicated to the role of solar power ought to pay the cost for such dedication, not seek to have others not in a position to utilize such a system help finance the believer’s purchase.

If fiscal responsibility in running a state means nothing to the writer then perhaps he should move two states west and live in the utopia of governmental fiscal irresponsibility. There is no free lunch. Everything has a cost. Prioritization of programs where they can do the most good for those who need them the most should be the watchword of state government.

It should go hand in hand with fiscal responsibility.

Martinez’s action, taking the heat from those like the writer for using sound fiscal judgment, was the right thing to do.

Thoughts?