Early voting for this Fall’s municipal elections starts this Saturday (October 19). A full list of early voting locations can be found here. For those of you who MUST vote on Election Day, that is November 5.

We at the Rio Grande Foundation decided to take a look at the ballot for this fall’s election. There have been some big changes including the date of the election (local elections used to be in October) and the inclusion of summaries instead of actual ballot language for some complicated and important issues.

Here are a few of the critical issues on the election:

School Board: Peggy Mueller Aragon is a reformer while her opponent, Lauretta Harris is the status quo union-sponsored candidate.  If you are happy with the way APS is currently managed, Ms. Harris will keep the unions in charge of APS, but if you think the District is in dire need of reform, Mueller Aragon will carry that banner.

Voters can reduce the burdensome and regressive gross receipts tax this election. They will be asked to renew the Transportation gross receipts tax of ¼ percent, 38% of which will be spent on wasteful transit projects.

BONDS You can read about all of the proposed bonds here.

One problem with ALL bonds is that 1% of the money is diverted to “art” projects. That may seem like a trivial amount of money, but on the $5 million housing bond alone $50,000 will be diverted to pay for so-called “art.”

General Obligation: Senior, Family Community Center, Homeless Bonds totaling $21,705,000 including money for new homeless shelter that even homeless advocates have concerns about.

Energy and Water Conservation: $10,420,000
$3,855,000 of this will be allocated to solar panels and other so-called “renewable energy” project at City facilities.

Metro Redevelopment is $8,000,000, $5,000,000 of that would be for the proposed Railyards redevelopment which is estimated to cost between $50 and $80 million just to prepare the site.

Public Transportation: $3,130,000 for Albuquerque’s unpopular bus system.

Affordable Housing $5,050,000, $5,000,000 of which would be used to build a new homeless facility (see above).

CNM wants passage of an $84,000,000 bond. $7,000,000 of this would be used for new buildings relating to New Mexico’s heavily-subsidized film industry.

Prop. 1: Increases money available for public financing to $1.75 from $1.00

Prop 2: Democracy Dollars which will allow the creation of a new voucher system providing $25 vouchers for all “residents” of Albuquerque to contribute to various campaigns. Several aspects of this proposal are concerning.

Two APS bonds totaling $290 million (APS is poorly managed with high construction costs)

On this week’s interview, Paul sits down with Michael Johnson. Michael has a fascinating background in business and once studied economics under both Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson.

But Mike is also a car enthusiast and collector. And he has some serious questions about Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s plans to take New Mexico vehicles to 52 miles per gallon by 2022.

Mike is a wealth of information and provided numerous links to find out more details about the challenge of getting automobiles to run at such high efficiency while also satisfying consumer needs.

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/cars-with-the-best-gas-mileage

https://autoalliance.org/in-your-state/NM/

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/09/20190930-sivak.html

https://www.insidesources.com/n-m-business-leaders-call-state-plan-for-new-emissions-standards-devastating/

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/460496-electric-vehicles-wont-save-us-from-climate-change

It seems that left-wing advocates of the proposed “Democracy Dollars” ballot measure (proposition 2 on the ballot) would prefer to have as little public debate and discussion on the issue as possible. Rather, they seem to believe that the nice sounding name and generous ballot language (no tax increase!) will carry them to victory. It seems particularly odd that a group of advocates who claim to be so concerned about the influence of “dark money” is also trying to keep voters “in the dark” about the reality of their election changes.

If any leader from one of the myriad groups currently supporting “Democracy Dollars” please send us a note: info@riograndefoundation.org We want to have a public debate on the issues because we believe voters should know both sides of important issues like this one.

At the Rio Grande Foundation we have tremendous concerns about increasing the generosity of public election financing, especially when that involves distributing $25 vouchers to every “resident” of Albuquerque, whatever that means. The addition of even more tax money into the mix will do nothing to keep outside groups and other interests from spending money on election campaigns. In fact, the initiative will empower powerful (predominantly left-wing) groups that have the capacity to collect vouchers for their preferred candidates.

You can read more about the proposal on the Foundation’s website nowaynm.org which we have dedicated to educating Albuquerque voters on this important issue. On Election Day Albuquerque voters should tell local politicians “Go Fund Yourself.”

On this week’s podcast, Paul and Wally discuss the attendance of two of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s top staffers in New York at a radical anti-energy conference sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers Trust.

Proponents of “Democracy Dollars” which will appear on Albuquerque voters’ ballots won’t debate with opponents. The supposed proponents of good, open government want to use the muscle of the myriad left-wing “grassroots” groups to push the issue through on ballots.

New Mexico Economic Development Secretary Alicia Keyes makes a bogus case for film subsidies.

And in a special bonus segment, Paul talks with Cindy Glover, a data analyst with Crestline Promotional Products, about her study regarding whether consumers “shop in a manner consistent with their values.” You can see the study here.

Remember the battle over mandatory paid leave in Bernalillo County? We do.

Back on June 21, 2019 the Rio Grande Foundation filed the following request for public records including:

All records of Commissioner Maggie Hart Stebbins, Debbie O’Malley, and Charlene Pyskotty including, but not limited to emails, text messages, notes and voicemails occurring between March 1, 2019 and June 21, 2019 that include any of the following keywords:

Paid Sick Leave

• PSL
• Sick Leave
• June 25
• May 14
• June 11
• Defer
• Deferral
• OLE’
• OLE
• El Centro

Paid leave passed the Commission on August 19 and we’re still waiting for the County to fulfill our request.

On August 9, 2019 the Rio Grande Foundation filed suit against Bernalillo County for violations of the Inspection of Public Records Act.

On August 21, 2019 we requested an update from the County: “Are any more records available, and if not are my IPRA cases closed?”

On September 11, 2019 the County sent the following email: “The County is currently conducting an additional search which turned up more emails, approximately 11,000, and will provide you a status update on or about September 26, 2019.”

September 26, 2019: “The County requires additional time to complete. The County will provide you a status update on or about October 11, 2019.”

We just received the following:

October 8, 2019: “As your Request continues to be broad and burdensome, the Bernalillo County requires additional time and will provide you a status update on October 23, 2019.”

Will the County ever offer up this information? What are they hiding?

(Albuquerque) The Rio Grande Foundation today released documents obtained through an open records request by the nonprofit group Energy Policy Advocates (EPA), revealing that despite her public support of the oil and gas industry, political appointees of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham flew to New York and participated in a July 2019 closed-door conference with wealthy anti-fossil fuels foundations for the explicit purpose of discussing “policy opportunities to reduce and eliminate natural gas.”

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), convener and funder of the event, are best known for financial support in campaigns against the Keystone XL pipeline, fossil fuel divestment and climate litigation. RBF grantees including Colorado State University, Georgetown University, and the Rocky Mountain Institute were sponsors. The Georgetown Climate Center in particular receives substantial funding from numerous foundations aimed at eliminating fossil fuels.

The New Mexico officials who attended the two-day get-together include Sarah Cottrell Propst, Secretary of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and Sandra Ely, Director of the New Mexico Environmental Protection Division. The New Mexico officials’ travel and boarding were provided by Georgetown University, which receives grant money from the organizers of the conference.

Both the host organization, Georgetown Climate Center, and Interwest Energy Alliance, Cottrell Propst’s former employer, have received multiple grants from the Energy Foundation. Recall that Propst has already faced criticism from fallout from previous open records findings related to Interwest Energy Alliance.

The event was hosted behind closed gates at the Pocatino Center, which features “historic buildings, gardens, and collections of decorative and fine art” overseen by a Manager of Collections and Curatorial Projects. The center is “situated on the highest point in Pocantico Hills, overlooking the Hudson River at Tappan Zee,” with views of New York City 25 miles to the south.

The Meeting Agenda

According to the draft agenda, the meeting included “lead policy makers from trifecta (Blue) states taking action on climate change to share information on recent developments in their states and to strategize together on the most promising ways to accelerate the pace of implantation in response to increasingly ambitious climate goals being established by their governors and state legislatures.”

According to the “background memo” sent to the attendees prior to the event, “The top line Challenge-Opportunity is to move away from the use of natural gas in buildings as a first priority, then electricity, and industry, while simultaneously moving quickly to move transportation systems off petroleum” (emphasis added). The memo further states, “We are well past the point of using natural gas as a transportation fuel, and new policies and programs should explicitly avoid further ‘lock-in’ investments like natural gas fuel municipal buses or energy efficiency funding for natural gas equipment.”

The attendance of Cottrell Propst and Ely at this event contradicts the publicly stated positions of their Departments and the Lujan Grisham administration.

Lujan Grisham Administration’s Public Position on Oil and Gas

• Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham publicly supports the New Mexico oil and gas industry. “”I’m an advocate for the state of new Mexico, that means I’m an advocate for southeast New Mexico and all forms of energy including the fossil fuel industry.”,” she said last week.
• Cottrell Propst has echoed similar support in public: “New Mexico is an energy state, and oil and gas are an important part of our economy.” She has also pledged to collaborate with the industry: “And it’s really important to work with the industry. I don’t want them to think we are just going to start doing things to them.”
• Jim Kenney, Secretary of the Environment Department recently told a crowd, “It’s not about a ban on fracking, a moratorium on drilling, a stopping of oil and gas production at all.”

Importance of Oil and Gas to New Mexico

• Oil and gas extraction is New Mexico’s largest industry, according to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data compiled by 24/7 Wall Street. In 2017 – as the current boom was just taking off – oil and gas contributed $11 billion in GDP to the state economy. Industry workers make an average of $109,000 according to the analysis, which far exceeds the state’s median income. Additionally, the industry supports over 100,000 New Mexico jobs.
• The oil and gas industry accounts for more than a third of annual state tax revenue – and nearly 50% when permanent funds disbursements are included. Fiscal year 2019 revenues are exceeding expectations and the state is on track to collect a record $7.8 billion, driven primarily by oil and gas.
• Governor Lujan Grisham credited oil and gas for the allowing the state to increased public education spending and give 6% pay raises to teachers. “New Mexico is now leading the country in innovation and investments in public education. We called it a moonshot. You delivered the resources to make that a reality,” she told an industry gathering.
• Above the increased surplus spending approved during the last legislative session, this additional revenue “could allow for additional spending increases on public schools, roads, pension funds and other state programs,” according to the Albuquerque Journal.

Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing offered the following statement:

“Attendance at this event by staffers of the Lujan-Grisham Administration is puzzling. If the wealthy funders behind the conference are successful in their goal to end oil and natural gas development, it would be a near-fatal blow to New Mexico’s economy and would devastate the state’s finances. New Mexicans, especially those who work in the oil and gas industry or government (like educators) should be aware that their Governor’s highest staffers are pondering ways to eliminate the very industries that they rely on.”

This is a screenshot of the front page of 350.org, one of many prominent grantees of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Paul interviews Dick Minzner. Dick has been a long-time fixture in New Mexico politics for many years. He’s been head of the Tax and Revenue Department, a Democrat Legislator, and lobbyist to name just a few of his many roles. They begin by discussing a bit of that history as well as some of the policy decisions that have improved or harmed New Mexico’s economy.

Paul and Dick discuss tax reform and how to best leverage the $900 million surplus in ways that make New Mexico more competitive. Should we eliminate the income tax, reform the GRT (if so, how?), or should NM just ditch the GRT and go to a sales tax? What ARE the big problems with the GRT anyway? Why does it persist?

Finally, Paul and Dick discuss film subsidies and the economic reality of that program.

On this week’s episode of Tipping Point New Mexico, Paul and Wally discuss Gov. Lujan Grisham’s latest big-government proposal. She wants to force New Mexicans to buy cars averaging 52 mpg by 2022. That’s more aggressive than California! And, does she really have that power?

APS is asking for $290 million from voters this fall albeit with no tax hike. What should voters think about this?

Liberal groups won’t debate Democracy Dollars. Our new website is set up to educate people on this issue: http://nowaynm.org/.

RGF in the news on Gov.’s plans for free college.

A judge has banned logging, timber management, and firewood collection on Forest Service lands. What’s the story here?

Finally, Paul recently presented to a group from Europe on the work of the Rio Grande Foundation.

In taking a closer look at the Albuquerque Journal article detailing (because the Governor’s own website has less detail) Gov. Lujan Grisham’s fuel efficiency mandate, I noticed that the Gov. is putting New Mexico even further out than California when it comes to fuel economy.

The Gov. has proposed increasing the average fuel economy to 52 mpg by 2022.

California’s current clean car standard (which is being litigated currently) has a target of 51 mpg and they are giving themselves until 2025 to achieve it. So, poor, oil and gas producing New Mexico, where the Ford F-150 is the most popular vehicle, is supposed to compete with California where the top vehicle purchased is a Honda Civic?

The following article appeared in several New Mexico news outlets on September 30, 2019 including the Las Cruces Sun-News.

Gov. Lujan Grisham has put forth a plan (set for debate and possible approval in the 2020 Legislature) for “free” college for New Mexico residents. For many families this may seem like an unadulterated good thing. And, as the parent of three who is pondering (and already saving for) the college educations of his three children, I totally understand that reaction.

But, from the viewpoint of an economist or even someone who is simply concerned about New Mexico’s future, there are several serious problems with this proposal.

Currently, the Governor and Legislature are salivating at the prospect of a $900+ million surplus in 2020. That number may be even higher due to the recent uptick in oil prices. The plan is for “free” college to cost “just” $25-$35 million annually. Unfortunately, we have nothing from the Lujan Grisham Administration to justify that cost. Given the tendency of government officials to underestimate the cost of new programs (the Rail Runner and Spaceport come to mind) it would seem that the real cost even at the beginning will be much higher.

Worse, unless some cost restraints are included in this legislation, colleges and universities located in New Mexico will have no incentive to constrain costs. On the contrary, they have every incentive to grow their bureaucracies and increase spending dramatically.

Another big problem with the proposal is New Mexico’s low-performing K-12 system. By nearly all indicators New Mexico’s students in K-12 are among the lowest academic performers in the nation. Is higher education really the problem when the K-12 system is failing?

It’s worth noting here that according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) 2018 report on higher education finance, New Mexico already spends 2^nd most in the nation (as a percent of income) on higher education. If higher education spending is such a great “investment” for New Mexico, why do we remain one of the poorest and slowest-growing states in the nation (albeit with somewhat better numbers due to the Permian oil boom).

The fact that New Mexico’s already large investment in higher education hasn’t done much for our economy begs the next question: “Will there be jobs available for these expected graduates or are we training future workers in Texas, Arizona, Colorado, and other faster-growing, more economically-diversified states?”

If the Gov. does take substantive action to reform New Mexico’s economy by reforming the gross receipts tax and generally taking action to make New Mexico more economically dynamic and attractive, perhaps then we can keep more of these young, educated people in the State. However, the University of New Mexico’s falling enrollment and available population data indicate that New Mexico is losing its “best and brightest.”

Finally, as if all of these arguments are not enough, it is notable that “free college” is “regressive” in the sense that a vast majority of the benefits will go to people of higher incomes. Currently, 27% of New Mexicans have four year college degrees. Generally-speaking it is the middle and upper classes that can attain that level of education.

While the Governor’s plan may open the path to a few more needy students, how many of the bottom 25% of income earning students in the State can take the time to go to college? How many of them are academically-capable? While a middle-to-upper class parent of three stands to achieve a veritable windfall from “free” college, it is hard to align this with principles of tax fairness and “progressive” policies so in vogue in Santa Fe.

These are just some of the many problems with the plan. Hopefully the Legislature instead considers some of the many ways to improve K-12 education in New Mexico and engage in much-needed economic reforms that will make our State more prosperous and thus attractive for young workers from all walks of life.

Paul Gessing is the President of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.