Can we afford to enforce the law?

It costs money to enforce the law. Some actual number of dollars must be spent in order to make accountability to the law, inescapable, even for the most powerful.

A certain amount of money would be saved if the law were enforced. For example, if all of the laws that govern the spending of public funds were strictly enforced; if it was made impossibly difficult to embezzle public money without getting caught, some amount of money would be saved. Some actual number of dollars would be saved.

I would argue that if state spending were subject to continuous forensic auditing (at some real cost), the bookkeeper in the Jemez Mountain School District would not have stolen millions of dollars. Logically, she would not have even tried. If even the threat of certain exposure were not a deterrent, she still would have been caught stealing the first dollar instead of the three million more.

Manny Aragon would not have even tried to steal our money.
And even if he did, he would have been caught stealing the first dollar, and not the millions and millions more.

If the cost of enforcement is smaller than the savings, the investment is prudent.

Even in the face of a 700 million dollar shortfall, it would make sense to spend what few dollars we have, to save many times more.

No legitimate agenda does not move forward on the day that politicians and public servants are transparently accountable to meaningful standards of conduct and competence within their public service.

First, before we take even one other step,
let's end the culture of corruption and incompetence in state government, at once, and for all.

At whatever cost we must pay.