There are two New Mexico Supreme Court justices on your fall ballots this year. They are David K. Thomson and Shannon Bacon and they are running for retention (not against another candidate). It is likely that they’ll be retained, but we have a bone to pick with them and New Mexico’s Supreme Court as a whole.

What’s the issue? We just can’t reconcile the fact that New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham usurped the Legislature’s role of (among other things) creating new government programs (in this case universal “free” childcare). The Gov. did this in November of 2025 but the Legislature didn’t act until the 2026 session.

The Supreme Court should have had a hearing (at least) and should have struck the Gov.’s clear abuse of power down. What would that look like? We don’t know, but the Court chickened out and refused to even hear the case. That’s unfortunate and unacceptable. We’d take issue with ANY Justice that would ratify this kind of abuse of government without so much as a hearing. It just so happens that Thomson and Bacon are up for retention this fall. Their cowardice in defending New Mexico’s constitutional processes SHOULD be punished.

On this week’s Tipping Point conversation.

Paul and Wally discuss the polling numbers in the Hull/Haaland gubernatorial race.

They also discuss the numbers in the Greg Cunningham/Gabe Vazquez numbers from the Albuquerque Journal.

Paul and Wally discuss the Haaland/Hull “debate.”

Hull’s simple plan for eliminating the personal income tax is eminently reasonable.

The “plan” for this November is for the Legislature to get massive pay raises, but for us to get nothing.

A hilariously bad article in the Santa Fe New Mexican highlights the terrible arguments against reducing taxes.

According to the New York Federal Reserve Bank prices would’ve dropped in the absence of tariffs.

The following article is by Kenneth Costello. Costello is an adjunct scholar on energy policy with the Rio Grande Foundation.

Senator Martin Heinrich’s support for The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) is commendable. The bill, which has yet been voted on by the full Senate, would
facilitate the permitting of energy projects. Senator Heinrich backs this bill while opposing an earlier legislation, the SPEED Act. The legislation, which passed in the House on December 18, 2025 with overwhelmingly opposing votes from the Democrats, has a similar goal of expediting the permitting of energy projects. The Senator contended that the SPEED Act fell short in addressing electric transmission barriers, delivering environmental protections, and overly restricts legal challenges to energy projects.

The chief reason for his and other Democrats’ opposition to the act apparently was their belief that it inadequately fostered clean energy projects. The BAAJA is a more comprehensive
legislation that speaks to data-center electricity costs and includes a number of energy-specific reforms (e.g., relaxing transmission barriers), among other things that lured bipartisan support.
Government has a vital role to play in approving energy projects. After all, these projects inflict external effects that often jeopardize the welfare of local communities and the rest of society.

Electric generation and transmission facilities, natural gas pipelines, oil refineries and other energy projects can affect air and water quality, in addition to public safety and health. Private developers on their own lack adequate incentives to consider these effects in their decisions, unless mandated by laws and regulations. Allowing public authorities to
determine whether developers comply with the relevant laws and regulations is a legitimate function of government.

Too often, however, we observe good intentions lead to bad outcomes. Permitting entails trade-offs, where it should balance different societal objectives: mitigating the environmental, public
health and other harmful effects of new projects while looking favorably on new projects that benefit society economically and in other ways.

Regretfully, what we have seen over the past 50 years are decisions that unduly delay or cancel socially beneficial energy projects. This has led to higher costs for new investments, the deterrence of innovation and the stifling of economic development. Consumers lose the benefits of new energy projects, including paying lower prices and enjoying more reliable and resilient
energy services. A major culprit in this story is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The most important benefit of the BAAJA comes from changes to the NEPA. This act, enacted in 1970, had the primary goal of ensuring that federal agencies would “assess the environmental
consequences of their decisions.” The intent of the NEPA was to ensure that any decision made by the relevant federal agency is aware of the environmental consequences of a new project. One
requirement is for the federal government to issue permits for projects only if they complied with relevant environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act.
The problem lies in how, over time, the NEPA has led to major energy projects being canceled or delayed because of groundless litigation and dubious interpretation of the act.

To the detriment of New Mexico and the rest of the country, the ongoing abuse of the act reflects “mission creep” rather than the original legislative intent.
Opponents of energy projects have weaponized and abused the NEPA to halt and delay projects that would benefit society. These actions have transformed the NEPA from a disclosure statute to
a litigation-driven morass. This has resulted in delays or cancellations of economical energy projects, like fossil-fuel, solar, wind and electric transmission facilities, and natural gas pipelines.
One energy research center commented that “If sued under NEPA, an energy project might spend a median of three years before obtaining a court decision that, based on historical data,
tends to uphold the reviewing agency’s original environmental analysis in around 3 out of every 4 cases.”

The costs of the NEPA are manifold: time delays and uncertainty for project completions, court proceedings, developers spending more on their projects to avoid litigation, and the stifling of
new technologies to replace old ones. Because of the NEPA, projects often expend additional costs to avoid litigation even when not cost-beneficial. The additional costs mean higher energy
prices for consumers and less diversified energy supplies.

The NEPA required federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before taking any major action that might appreciably affect the “quality of the human environment.”
Taxpayers have suffered from footing the bill for costly EIS reports (in 2022 the average EIS took more than four years to complete) and protracted, multiyear litigation before federal courts.
Perhaps most damaging, the NEPA creates a bias in favor of the status quo, which imposes its own environmental risks for example by extending the operation of existing less “clean”
energy facilities and denies society the economic benefits from new projects.

The status quo elicited by the NEPA has jeopardized the well-being of citizens throughout the country.
The NEPA needs reform the sooner the better. It has led to onerous delays and cancellations because of lawsuits and procedural challenges by groups whose agenda is to stifle new projects,
rather than to improve the projects for society. These groups often are well funded, external to and non-representative of the locales most affected by a project. Their engagements have tied the
federal permitting process in knots at a great cost to society.

A dose of common sense would tilt federal permitting of energy and other projects toward a more optimal balance between societal objectives: namely, a healthier, safer and higher-quality
environment against a more economical and consumer-beneficial infrastructure. Especially with the wide support for addressing the affordability problem, in addition to today’s availability of
promising new energy technologies and those on the horizon, the morass of federal permitting must end.

It’s high time to restore the act’s original intent to inform the federal government of the environmental effects of a project before approval, rather than as a bludgeon to halt or delay
socially beneficial projects. The bill backed by Senator Heinrich and others would move the NEPA back toward its original intent.

A few weeks ago we released our list of the top 5 worst boondoggles in New Mexico. These are physical government projects (so not programs). We promised a second list to round out our top 10 list, so here we go.

6. As Gov. Bill Richardson had big-spending tastes. One of his many wasteful spending initiatives was the purchase of a Super Computer  known as “Encanto.” The computer cost New Mexicans $20 million and was quickly deemed obsolete. Larry Barker of KRQE 13 did a full investigation on the computer. The Rio Grande Foundation criticized the purchase at the time.  Ultimately, there is not reason for the State of New Mexico to own a “supercomputer” and it is no surprise this was a boondoggle.

7. $2.4 million Oñate visitors center: Built during the 1993-1994 time period in the Northern New Mexico hamlet of Alcalde, this Center was supposed to honor the legacy of Spanish Conquistador, Captain Juan de Oñate. It never achieved its goal and is now the home of the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Center. It is one of many such “monuments” to New Mexico’s failed capital outlay “process.”

8. Berna Facio Professional Development Center is a facility owned and managed by Albuquerque Public Schools. It cost approximately $21 million to develop and construct. Opened in 2019, the facility features a large central meeting space for 500 people flanked by nine break-out rooms, a commissary, courtyard, and wide, flexible concourses serving as galleries and gathering spaces. The District continues to lose student population and desperately needs to downsize its footprint. 

9. The total taxpayer cost for Albuquerque’s Route 66 Visitor Center on West Central has grown to approximately $13 million to $14 million. The creation of this facility was political from day 1. New Mexico and Albuquerque have a tendency to spend big on public facilities that have a short shelf life due to the cost of staffing and maintaining them. We’ll see what happens with the Route 66 Visitor Center.

10. Geothermal power is a hot topic in New Mexico. A $43 million geothermal plant by a company called Cyrc Energy costs ratepayers lots of money according to a detailed Searchlight NM article.  The facility which sold its electricity to Public Service Company of New Mexico has proven to be a costly boondoggle with its own environmental issues.

The Rio Grande Foundation has taken a strong stance from day 1 against President Trump’s import taxes (tariffs). Among other things we signed multiple “friend of the court” briefs in cases pushing back against the tariffs. Read them here and here.

Our critiques have been based on:

1. The chaotic and constantly changing approach taken;
2. The fact that Congress was NOT involved which is a problem for both point 1 AND future administrations that may attempt to impose taxes without Congress;
3. We have been concerned that raising taxes on imported goods would raise costs for everyday Americans.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York produced the following report which makes the case that the cost of 67 categories of goods was 2.9 percentage points higher as of February thanks to tariffs.

Without the levies, the team found that prices for the products they studied would have pulled back by almost 1%.

On this week’s interview episode Paul sits down with former Reps. Janice Arnold Jones and Robert Aragon. Both are longtime Republican activists who have served in many roles over the years and are now on the Executive Committee of the Bernalillo County GOP.

The County Party just released a rather detailed “Affordability Agenda” which includes numerous detailed proposals, mostly relating to taxes and economic policy that could be enacted at the state level.

Paul and his guests discuss WHY the County party has taken this on and they go through each proposal and discuss their pros and cons. This is no softball interview. Paul has real questions and concerns over both the strategy of a County party pushing its own tax proposal AND several of the proposals. Check out the conversation here.

You can read the agenda for yourself below. What do YOU think? Share your thoughts at: info@riograndefoundation.org

The poverty mentality is strong in New Mexico. Even a cursory look at the State’s budget data points to the fact that the State is awash in money thanks to the ongoing oil and gas boom. But, when a Santa Fe New Mexican writer attempted to argue that New Mexico “can’t afford” to eliminate the personal income tax, their economic ignorance was dwarfed by their seeming unwillingness to do a simple fact check: Grover Norquist or Grover Cleveland?

Yes, both men have the relatively rare first name, but the writer claims that “Grover Cleveland of Americans for Tax Reform” supports a “starve the beast” strategy for reducing the size of government. The author then proceeds to make a series of weak arguments, devoid of any data or analysis, against eliminating the income tax.

This is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform:

Here’s a photo of Grover Cleveland who, until President Trump came along, was most famous for winning the presidency, losing, and then returning to the nation’s top office. Many conservatives and libertarians consider Cleveland to be among the most underrated and even greatest American presidents.

The lack of medical professionals remains a top issue in New Mexico. As the Rio Grande Foundation has argued many times, this year’s medical malpractice reforms were a first, necessary step, but by no means are they enough to bring enough medical professionals to New Mexico to solve our shortages. Deb Haaland has been light (to say the least) on policy details in her run to be New Mexico’s next governor, but she was recently asked what she’d do to bring medical professionals to New Mexico. Her answers are “enlightening” (scary) to say the least.

Watch the two minute video of Deb responding to this very simple question below. But, in summary her “plan” is:

1. Sell them on the outdoors;
2. I “hope” we won’t be 50th in math and reading if I’m gov, so we’ll tout our good schools.
3. Increase pay (somehow);
4. Provide government run health care “option.”
5. I wish we didn’t have to rely so much on Medicaid.

Needless to say this isn’t a plan at all. It’s not even a plan for a plan. It’s literally a wish and a prayer. What CAN New Mexico politicians do to improve access to health care? Rio Grande Foundation laid out a detailed plan here. End the GRT on medical services, reduce Medicaid dependency, and expand both scope of practice and telemedicine.

It is the height of irony that two of the biggest “issues” on the ballot so clearly reflect a fundamental problem in New Mexico politics. I highlighted that problem in a National Review piece called “Rich State, Poor People.” The issue is that New Mexico as a state is sitting on untold sums of money while New Mexicans as a whole are among the poorest in any state in the union.

Gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull has put together a realistic plan to return money to New Mexicans, but he faces opposition from Democrats including his opponent Deb Haaland and the Democrat chair of the Tax Committee, Derrick Lente. 

On the other hand, New Mexico’s Democrat-controlled Legislature is pushing along with numerous “progressive” groups, for Amendment 4 which would pay the Legislature a $68,000 salary annually in addition to per diem and a generous pension program. If adopted, New Mexico’s Legislature would be the best paid part time legislature in the nation. 

But, New Mexicans are “underpaid.” New Mexico has been awash in money for nearly a decade and the Legislature has been unwilling to give New Mexicans a raise.  It reminds one of a certain television character who jealously guarded his soup.

On this week’s conversation Paul and Wally Recap of the gala:MLG’s “free” childcare program won’t be “free” for everyone after all.

Federal school choice regs have been published. MLG is on the clock.

ABQ’s electric buses haven’t been on the roads since December.

More issues with Amendment 4 on this Fall’s ballots.
Paul and Wally take a closer look at the ballot.

The cost of Ozempic for Medicaid patients doubled between 2023 and 2025.

New Mexico Senate Democrats have made a few leadership changes. Linda Trujillo will be the new Senate Majority Leader and Cindy Nava the new majority Whip.

New Mexico is far to the left politically when it comes to economics. For most of New Mexico’s history our state has relied on a combination of federal dollars and oil and gas. Even at a time when oil and gas are booming at unprecedented levels and the State is awash in money, it is difficult to convince New Mexicans that the State is ACTUALLY wealthy and that it can afford to keep all the programs in place AND make New Mexico more competitive and a better place to both do business and live.

The 2026 election for Gov. will go a long way toward determining whether New Mexicans WANT to do better or if they are comfortable with high poverty, poor education, and the loss of our children and grandchildren to other states.

Gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull wants to eliminate New Mexico’s personal income tax. He has outlined his plan here. Quite simply, he’d use New Mexico’s ample oil and gas revenues to eliminate the income tax in four phases:

• Step One: The first $25,000 for single filers and $50,000 for married couples filing jointly.
• Step Two: The first $50,000 for single filers and $100,000 for joint filers.
• Step Three: The first $100,000 for single filers and $200,000 for joint filers.
• Step Four: All remaining eligible personal income.

This bold reform contrasts sharply with Deb Haaland’s “plan” which is really just more of the same. Haaland told KOAT that she opposes Hull’s plan because it is “out of the Trump playbook.” Instead, she plans to offer more welfare (in the form of refundable tax credits) and raise the minimum wage which can harm businesses and those who lose jobs.

Early voting kicks off today. The contrast between the two candidates could not be clearer.

This week’s interview is with Jonathan Williams, President and Chief Economist of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). They begin with a conversation about the organization’s “Rich States, Poor States” report which measures how all 50 states fare on various economic indicators. New Mexico ranks 35th. What would happen if New Mexico eliminated its personal income tax?

In the second part of the interview Paul and Jonathan discuss the federal budget situation and offer some concrete ideas for how to get the federal debt under control.

Will copays soon be required for New Mexico’s “free” “universal” childcare program? That’s what the law says. Does that mean it’s not “free” and “universal” that’s certainly what RGF and basic logic would say. Provisions in the law will kick in soon on this. Check out the full story here. Aside from Gessing there are interviews w/ Sen. George Muñoz and UNM economist Reilly White.

After months of waiting, the Trump Administration has just published regulations for the federal school choice tax credit.

Married couples filing jointly can claim up to $3,400 a year in federal tax credits for qualifying cash donations to K-12 scholarship organizations beginning in 2027 under proposed Treasury rules released Oct. 1, drawing praise from school choice advocates.

The clarification would allow each spouse to claim the $1,700 credit available to an individual taxpayer, resolving concerns that married couples filing a joint return would be limited to a single credit.

The Treasury estimated that, by 2030, more than 11 million taxpayers could contribute nearly $26 billion annually to 600 to 700 scholarship granting organizations (SGOs), supporting as many as 2.2 million scholarships a year.

This is money that Gov. Lujan Grisham can choose to retain in New Mexico for the benefit of increasing educational options and even pumping money into charter and traditional public schools (in addition to non-public schools).  Lujan Grisham has said she would decide once the regulations have been created. We hope she’ll decide in the affirmative. She has until she leaves office to make her choice. If you are inclined, you can send a brief email to the Gov. here. 

As the map below highlights New Mexico is one of the states that has NOT embraced the program to date while Colorado with left wing Gov. Jared Polis has signed on as has New York under left wing Gov. Kathy Hochul.

The City of Albuquerque started purchasing electric city buses back in June 2022 as part of its push for cleaner transportation, with plans to eventually transition to zero-emission vehicles by 2040. We wrote in December of 2023 that the manufacturer, a company called Proterra, had filed for bankruptcy and that several other cities with Proterra buses were having problems finding replacement parts and doing basic maintenance.

Well, according to the website NMNews.com the very same issue has now hit Albuquerque’s 5 bus electrical fleet. Those electric buses haven’t been used since December. No estimates are provided in the article as to when or if the electric buses will return to service.

On this week’s Tipping Point New Mexico conversation.

Paul and Wally discus how New Mexico’s slight poverty improvement is hardly an accomplishment.

The most interesting of New Mexico’s legislative races this fall is between trial attorney Lisa Curtis and Nicole Chavez.

RGF opinion piece in ABQ Journal: Amendment 4 is a cash grab, not reform. Guest column: gluttony thy name is NM pension plan.

Poll: New Mexicans overwhelmingly support school choice.

Free Childcare will soon require copays for some.

NM education department asks for a record $5.9 billion for fiscal year 2028, a 2.9% increase from the year prior (despite dropping enrollment). A federal film tax credit is a terrible idea. Deb

Haaland officially refuses to debate.

Sorry, no video on this episode due to technical issues. 

Did you know that according to the National Conference of State Legislators, if Amendment 4 is adopted by voters this November, New Mexico’s legislators will have annual salaries (starting at $68,000 annually and rising from there) higher than all but just 9 states nationwide? Those states with LOWER paid Legislatures than New Mexico’s (if Amendment 4 passes) include:

Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Guess what? If you cross reference that with a list of the 10 states that have full-time legislatures, it matches completely although Wisconsin DOES have a full time legislature, but they STILL wouldn’t make as much as New Mexico’s if Amendment 4 passes. New Mexico’s proposal to pay legislators is completely out-of-whack with a legislature that meets 30 and 60 days every other year. Of course, Amendment 4 really is meant to push New Mexico’s Legislature to meet longer than they currently do which would mean more time for mischief in Santa Fe.

Oh, and shouldn’t New Mexico’s legislative salaries be in line with the median individual’s wage, not median household income?

The following is a list of ballot measures and bonds that appear on ballots this November. The process of compiling this information involved downloading a sample ballot (West Side of Albuquerque) and looking through arguments for and against from a free market perspective.

Statewide Constitutional Amendments

Amendment 1 would require a veto message from the Gov. when a bill is vetoed. We have no views on this matter.

Amendment 2: Repeals the requirement that school district elections be held exclusively in odd-numbered years. Currently, New Mexico school districts can only hold statewide elections in odd-numbered years, when many local governments hold elections for city council seats. This would eliminate that requirement if approved. If a school district needs to put a bond question on the ballot to get funding for big projects, they would rather do that during a bigger general election when voter turnout is higher.  School districts could avoid having to pay for expensive mail-in elections in some circumstances. We are generally supportive, but not strongly.

Amendment 3: would require that the governor appoint university regents from a pool selected by a nominating committee created by the Legislature. There have been arguments about cronyism and political payoffs over regent appointments over the years. The Legislature is attempting to insert itself into the nomination process. We are generally supportive, but not strongly.

Amendment 4: would pay legislators a generous salary starting at $68,000 adjusted annually for inflation over time in addition to per diem payments of $247 daily, and a very generous pension.

We strongly oppose this measure (click to see why).

Statewide Bonds: Bonds are debt paid off by YOUR property taxes. RGF generally recommends voting against bonds 

Bond Question 1: $21 million for senior centers.

Bond Question 2: $19 million for libraries.

Bond Question 3: $352 million higher education

Bernalillo County Bond Questions:

$2.5 million for libraries

$9 million for county buildings and vehicles

$20.3 million for recreational facilities including aquatic centers

$6.2 million for transportation facilities including buses and bike lanes

$6 million for public housing

Ballot Issues

Repeal the requirement for a public vote on spending over $10 million on a performing arts center; This was supposed to be on ballots in 2025, but was accidentally omitted. Opposed as the current law simply gives voters the final say on how their money is used.

Amend the Albuquerque Charter to designate Albuquerque Community Safety as “Chief.”

Advocates say it puts ACS leader on same level as APD (police) and AFR (fire) with a goal of legitimizing the department as the City’s official third pillar of public safety. Unlocks federal and state money. We generally oppose this measure as it will likely lead to bigger budgets and government growth.

Coming soon: judges.

New data shows that New Mexico’s poverty rate has improved somewhat faster than the national average and that we have gone from 50th to 48th in poverty. Any time poverty goes down here in New Mexico and nationwide is a cause for celebration, but Gov. Lujan Grisham predictably took to social media to claim credit. Of course, she is full of it. Her policies have done nothing to address poverty. Instead, they have held back what COULD be a major shift away from New Mexico’s scarcity mentality and policies to that of abundance, but she and the Democrats who control the Legislature prefer to keep New Mexicans poor and at the bottom when it comes to education.

It’s not hard to pinpoint what has really created improvement in New Mexico’s poverty situation: the massive infusions of oil and gas revenue that we’ve been experiencing. New Mexico’s oil and gas industry generates over $13 billion annually in total state and local revenue. Between 75% growth in the general fund and a sovereign wealth fund that has at least $75 billion in it, it would take “skill” to NOT witness at least some improvement in New Mexico economically-speaking. Even wasteful government programs like pre-K, free childcare, and Hollywood subsidies do create some amount of economic activity even though they are VERY sub-optimal.

The difference is that New Mexico’s economy is more dependent NOW on oil and gas than ever before. The massive flow of oil and gas money has done nothing to improve New Mexico’s workforce participation rate (falling from depressed COVID levels), improve our failing education system which remains dead last nationally, our roads have worsened under this Gov., and despite record revenue growth New Mexico’s economy is considered “stuttering” in terms of overall growth.

The Rio Grande Foundation has called for broad based tax and economic reforms for years, but MLG and the Legislature have preferred a big-government approach with new programs controlled by them. Alas, their method has failed miserably. 

The following article appeared in the Albuquerque Journal on Sunday, September 27, 2026.

This November, New Mexico voters will consider a constitutional amendment to pay each of the State’s 112 legislators an annual salary of just under $68,000 annually with that rate to rise with inflation in the future.

New Mexico’s Legislature is said to be the only “unpaid” legislative body in the nation, but that’s not quite true. Our legislators receive a “per diem” (daily pay when they are in Santa Fe or at committee hearings of $247) which does not include mileage reimbursement.

Legislators have also created a very generous pension for themselves. As Milan Simonic of the Santa Fe New Mexican recently wrote, “A legislator leaving office after 12 years qualified for a pension of $35,000 a year. A member with 25 years of service will collect a pension of almost $73,000 annually.

“Nearly all the money for legislative pensions comes from taxpayers.”

If Amendment 4 passes legislators will be paid nearly $68,000 annually on top of these other benefits. For some that could put them over $100,000 annually and that doesn’t include the pension which kicks in after they leave the Legislature.

Notably, legislators in New Hampshire, widely considered to be among the best run states in the nation, receive a whopping $100 annually (no pensions or per diem). Utah, another well-governed state closer to New Mexico, pays its legislators $301 per legislative day and has no legislative pension.

Amendment 4 is being billed as a step toward “democratizing” or “professionalizing” our Legislature. There is simply no evidence that paying them such an exorbitant amount of money will improve governance or outcomes in our state. New Mexico fails because we elect economic and policy illiterates, not because we don’t pay them.

To be clear, the Rio Grande Foundation isn’t completely opposed to paying the Legislature, we just think Amendment 4 is the wrong approach. At the very least, paying legislators should result in elimination of the pension and per diem and possibly other reforms to improve governance in New Mexico.

Another reform is term limits. Having to sacrifice pay by taking time away from your full-time job while in office is a limiting factor in how long most legislators are willing to serve in the Roundhouse. Paying legislators will likely result in more “career” politicians lured by paychecks that match the state’s median income, not to mention per diem and a rich pension.

Would you leave a safe legislative seat as so many in New Mexico are for such a generous payday? Yes, being a good legislator can be a full-time job, but it is not a full-time job. The Legislature formally meets 30 or 60 days out of the year. Interim and constituent meetings are optional.

That’s why the Rio Grande Foundation believes that in addition to elimination of their pensions, the Legislature should adopt term limits (eight years in each house is reasonable). Also, government employees who collect paychecks voted on by the Legislature should be prohibited from serving in the Legislature entirely.

This means Rep. Andrea Romero, D-Santa Fe, couldn’t vote to fund and work for the Santa Fe District Attorney’s Office and disgraced former-Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton, D-Albuquerque, wouldn’t be able to take a check from Albuquerque Public Schools while serving in the Legislature. Not all state-funded employees who serve in the Legislature are corrupt, but being able to vote on your own pay is corrupt.

Worse, APS currently gives district employees who serve in the Legislature paid leave. Nothing in this amendment will remove that pay which would make it possible for APS employees to really cash in when they are in Santa Fe.

Nobody wants a better Legislature more than the Rio Grande Foundation but adding a generous salary on top of per-diem and a sizable pension isn’t the way to do it. We stand ready to work on real reforms with legislators, but this plan is nothing but a money grab.

Paul Gessing is president of the Rio Grande Foundation, an Albuquerque-based think tank that advocates for individual freedom and limited government.

There have been bills introduced and ample discussion in the media over the possibility of some kind of takeover of the utility known as PNM by the State of New Mexico. Shanley is sympathetic to the idea and certainly opposed to Blackstone as the next potential owner. Paul and Jaemes have a cordial but pointed conversation about these plans.

Rarely has there been a clearer contrast between legislative candidates on ONE specific issue, especially an issue that just saw overwhelming bipartisan agreement in the prior legislative session and was a top priority of the Governor. I’m referring to the District 31 face off between Republican incumbent Nicole Chavez and former legislator and trial attorney Lisa Curtis. The issue in question is medical malpractice reform (HB 99) which passed the House in 2026 with just 3 dissenting votes in the House. Chavez cosponsored the bill and voted for it.

On the other hand, Curtis, a trial attorney, is running in opposition to the bill. She was one of the biggest opponents of the bill and testified against it. She also put 100K of her own money into the trial attorney funded group NM Safety over profits which ran a huge campaign in opposition of the bill. She makes a number of frankly bizarre statements in a Facebook post relating to medical policy issues. We’ll consider a few of them here.

Curtis writes, “What good is health insurance if you can’t find a doctor?”  True enough, that’s why New Mexicans clamored for years about medical malpractice reform. There is certainly more to be done (like eliminating the gross receipts tax permanently on medical professionals) but this is why there was bipartisan support of reforms.

Voters need to demand Curtis tell them whether she supports the bipartisan malpractice reforms passed earlier this year. 

She then goes on to note, “That’s the reality too many New Mexicans face. Months waiting for an appointment. Doctors leaving the state. Specialists not found. And healthcare professionals spend too much of their day fighting paperwork instead of caring for patients.” Of course there are. We’re still NOT a doctor friendly state! The Rio Grande Foundation has outlined an array of reforms that would attract more doctors and health care professionals to New Mexico. Curtis doesn’t discuss any of these ideas. Instead her focus is on ideas that are often impossible to carry out at the state level. “Push back against corporate consolidation” is not a policy.

The following really tips Curtis’ hand: “I believe healthcare is a right.” We should be moving toward universal healthcare where every New Mexican is covered and cost never stands between you and the care you need. While Curtis is tacitly supporting “single payer health care” like Canada’s, she fails to understand that when the government is paying the bills it is going to be MUCH more restrictive of malpractice cases than a more private system like the US. Suing your doctor is NOT easy in Canada and awards are strictly limited.

Of course, who pays for “universal” health care? That’s the real question. We’re talking about programs that have failed repeatedly in other states and would likely consume New Mexico’s $75 billion permanent fund IF it were used to pay for such a scheme.

Canada also has long lines for specialists. Your appointment may be paid for by taxpayers, but actually seeing a doctor is a challenge: In 2025, physicians across Canada reported a median wait time of 28.6 weeks between a referral from a GP and receipt of treatment. Is this really what Curtis wants here in New Mexico?

For nearly two decades (since the Richardson Administration) the Rio Grande Foundation has fought the insane New Mexico film tax credit. The program was “just” a 25% back in those days and New Mexico wasn’t awash in oil and gas money like it is now, so then Gov. Susana Martinez and the Legislature imposed a $50 million annual annual payout cap. That created a backlog of several hundred million dollars in payments to Hollywood that were then paid off when Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham took office. She and the Democrat controlled Legislature also raised the credit to as much as 40%.

So, film could receive as much as 40% of its filming expenses back from New Mexico taxpayers. This has NEVER been good economic policy. The Legislative Finance Committee (and other legislative analysts nationwide) have consistently found that film incentives are a waste of money. As the chart below shows New Mexico’s has a -86% return on investment. All states have negative returns, but some are slightly better or worse than others.

President Trump and a bipartisan group of legislators are now pushing for the federal government to get into the money losing film subsidy game. According to the story 9/24/26:

The effort involves an unlikely mix of figures — Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Laura Friedman of California, red-state lawmakers, Trump and the president’s Hollywood ambassador, Jon Voight. South Carolina Republican Tim Scott is expected to introduce the legislation in the Senate, and Texas Republican Nathaniel Moran will do so in the House. And it has the support of Trump, who has called for the incentive in recent weeks.

Hollywood is in the dumps due to their own misguided decisions and broader industry forces. With the federal government in dire financial shape it is critical Washington NOT jump into paying out millions annually in film subsidies.

The group Braver Angels is hosting a debate over Amendment 4 which, if passed, would result in New Mexico legislators being paid salaries of $68,000 annually (adjusted in the future based on inflation) on top of a $247 per diem AND a generous pension.

Rio Grande Foundation opposes the Amendment and, while we’re not opposed to the idea of paying legislators, take the position that broader legislative reforms are needed.

The debate is scheduled for October 24 from 2 to 4pm at the Taylor Ranch Public Library. It is free and open to the public. (sign up here)

Gessing will be debating Bob Perls Chairman of the NM Forward Party and former state rep. Paul recently had Bob on the Foundation’s podcast (and they will have a cordial debate) but this issue didn’t come up in their conversation. You can also sign up by clicking on the image below: