The following is a list of some of the more impactful ballot measures being voted on, mostly across the American West, but especially in neighboring states. A full list of ballot measures nationwide was compiled by our friends at National Taxpayers Union.

For New Mexicans ballot measures are relatively rare because we lack the initiative (ability to put things on the ballot) and referendum (ability to overturn things the Legislature does). So, New Mexicans rarely have the chance to vote on substantive issues (unless the Legislature wants a pay raise, for example). But in many places including neighboring states (especially in the West), voting on major policy questions is a regular occurrence. Check out some of the important issues on this fall’s ballots:

Arizona

Proposition 141: Prohibits both state and local governments from imposing any tax or fee that is a function of vehicle miles traveled.

Proposition 316: Prohibits local governments from enacting sales taxes on groceries above 2% of the base price.

Proposition 320: Mandates that school districts with 7,500 or more students or that are located in counties with at least 500,000 residents spend at least 60% of their budget on “direct instructional expenses.”

California

Proposition 40: Imposes a one-time, retroactive wealth tax of 5% on individuals and trusts with a net worth of over $1 billion.

Proposition 42: Prohibits the enactment of new taxes on personal property. This measure also restricts retroactive taxation on activities before the tax took effect. This measure would block Proposition 40 if it receives more votes.

Colorado

Proposition NN: Allows the state to keep revenue collected above the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) limit to be used for K-12 education and other services for children.
Taxpayer Impact: This proposal would not directly raise tax rates, but would reduce future TABOR refunds by allowing the state to hold funds that could be returned to taxpayers. Analysis by the state of Colorado predicts taxpayers would forfeit approximately $4.6 billion in refunds over the first 10 years.

Amendment 82: Creates a constitutional right for consumers to buy natural gas for cooking and heating and for utilities and distributors to sell it.

Utah

Constitutional Amendment: Requires citizen-led ballot measures that create a new tax, raise taxes, or add a property tax to receive at least 60% of the vote to pass, instead of just a simple majority.

Washington

Initiative 645: Repeals a 9.9% tax on individual and household wage income above $1 million per year and prohibits future taxes on income.

RGF participates in debate over Amendment 4.

Albuquerque Public Schools is looking for input on school closures.

$456 MILLION in overruns from various New Mexico IT projects.

Is Voices for Children coming around to our perspective?

Why can’t/won’t New Mexico Democrats bring prosperity to NM?

Trump touted the benefit of high oil prices (gasoline) over the weekend. Here’s why Americans and New Mexicans benefit from lower oil (gasoline) prices.

New Mexico is awash in cash, but the State’s politicians just can’t figure out how to do something as basic as repairing the dilapidate roads. Check out the following story from SourceNM which covers the Legislature’s inaction on one of the few ways in which the State could spend its horde of cash to actually benefit the economy and everyday New Mexicans. For starters, New Mexicans overwhelmingly want solutions:

Franklin Garcia, a lobbyist for the trade organization Asphalt Pavement Association of New Mexico, presented the new poll to lawmakers on the Transportation Infrastructure Revenue Subcommittee in Albuquerque on Friday. The poll, conducted by Albuquerque-based Research and Polling Inc., found that 83% of voters statewide believe road construction and maintenance should be a top priority for state leaders and 42% rated New Mexico’s road conditions as poor or very poor.

Currently, the state imposes a 4% tax on car sales (that tax was raised a few years back), minus the value of a trade-in. About 60% of that tax goes into the state’s general funds, while the rest goes toward road projects. Over a five-year period dedicating all of that money to roads would generate about $850 million. That’s a good start but similar ideas have been proposed in the past and the Legislature has not acted. RGF has offered other solutions as well:

1. Spend some of the massive surplus revenue on roads;
2. Set up a “permanent fund” like the one for free childcare and other purposes, but for roads;
3. Focus on cutting costs including permitting, Davis-Bacon labor rules, and other unnecessary costs.

How are we doing in New Mexico? The Rio Grande Foundation believes that we should eagerly contrast and compare various policy data against (especially) our neighboring states, but also consider national and even international comparisons where applicable. This helps us understand whether our Legislature and Gov. are making good decisions or not. This is NOT a view shared by everyone. In fact, some, including a former KOB-TV reporter and New Mexico’s House Speaker believe that New Mexico so special that it can’t possibly be compared to other states. 

Thankfully the Albuquerque Journal shares our view and has even produced a scoreboard that compares New Mexico against its regional peers and the nation as a whole. Categories include “Quality of Life,”  “Economy,” “Safety,” “Healthcare,” “Education,” and “Population.” It is definitely worth a look and we’ll offer a few thoughts here:

1. The only major category New Mexico is “winning” is “quality of life.” There are some good metrics in quality of life like commute times and cost of living. New Mexico does well in 14 of 16 categories, but some of them may not be particularly valuable to people in New Mexico or considering New Mexico.
2. On the economy (not surprisingly) New Mexico fares far worse with 1 positive and 12 negative metrics. It remains baffling to us that neither the public at large nor their elected officials seem to care about the State’s poor economic performance even with massive oil and gas revenues thanks to a booming oil and gas industry.
3. On safety, it is no surprise that New Mexico does poorly on 11 of 12 metrics.
4. While SOME effort has been made to improve the availability of medical professionals in New Mexico healthcare remains a concern for New Mexicans with only 3 of 12 metrics listed as positive.
5. New Mexico’s education system spends a lot for terrible outcomes. We’ll soon have a new round of NAEP test scores to provide a further update as to where New Mexico stands, but absent ambitious reforms it is hard to see New Mexico dramatically improving its education outcomes. New Mexico scores well in 1 of 8 education categories.
6. Perhaps the most shocking and important metric is the fact that New Mexico’s population situation is the most dire of ALL the categories with NO positive outcomes (12 of 12 are negative).

The information is presented in easy to understand graphics (like the ones below showing New Mexico’s plummeting public school enrollment and high child poverty). Ultimately New Mexico scores well on 19 metrics and poorly in 40:

Over the weekend the Rio Grande Foundation participated in a debate over whether to adopt Amendment 4 (which would pay legislators a $68,000 salary).

RGF’s president Paul Gessing was one of four debaters which included two former legislators (one on either side) Bob Perls in support and Mark Boitano opposed. Also, RGF was joined by a grassroots activist for Common Cause (they support Amendment 4 while RGF opposes it).

The ABQ Journal article does a good job covering the back and forth between Perls and Boitano.

Gessing’s remarks are below:

My view is that paying legislators is something worth considering, but the proposal in Amendment 4 of a $68,000 annual salary for legislative sessions lasting 30 or 60 days annually and in the absence of systemic reforms is NOT a good approach. Voters should reject Amendment 4 when they go to the polls.

The New Mexico Legislature needs serious reforms. We’d like to see elimination of the very generous legislative pension system, term limits, and a prohibition on voting on your own paycheck as an employee of an entity (like Albuquerque Public Schools) which is funded by appropriations from the Legislature.

None of these (or other reforms) are even contemplated in Amendment 4 or on this Fall’s ballots. New Mexicans should be given the opportunity to vote on at least some reforms as the Legislature moves itself toward “modernization.”

Instead, we have a plan to pay our part-time 30-60 day legislature a $68,000 salary equivalent to the median wage of a family of four. It will be adjusted for inflation into the future. If adopted New Mexico’s legislators would be the highest paid non-full time legislature in the nation and Wisconsin which DOES have a full time Legislature would pay its legislators less than New Mexico’s

According to NCSL, Colorado pays its legislators about $45,000 annually for sessions lasting 120 days per year.

Arizona legislators receive a salary of $24,000 for sessions lasting 100 days per year.

Texas legislators receive salaries of $12,000 annually for sessions lasting 140 calendar days over the span of two years.

My personal favorite is New Hampshire, which has zero income tax, no sales tax, some of the best outcomes across all measures in the nation and technically has a “paid” Legislature. The annual salary is $100.

Each of these states outperform New Mexico on nearly every metric. Is a fat paycheck with no other reforms going to magically improve New Mexico’s outcomes?

It is true that for some New Mexico legislators the job is full time, but many legislators hold down jobs when the Legislature is out of session. There’s nothing in this amendment prohibiting legislators making $68,000 from continuing their work in other fields. Such a prohibition COULD be added to a revised future amendment to pay legislators which might be worth supporting.

While advocates claim that a paid legislature would more broadly represent New Mexicans I’d argue that the issue isn’t the pay, it is the flexibility of their primary employment that determines whether people can become legislators.

The main obstacle to a firefighter or a single mom with a young child serving in the Legislature isn’t money, it’s flexibility to take the time off to spend long days and nights in Santa Fe session. A paycheck may help bring some new faces into Santa Fe, but it might (along with the generous pension) also lead to old faces sticking around past their sell by dates. The current system DOES act as a form of term limits. A highly-paid Legislature could lead to a lack of turnover.

Think about Sherly Williams Stapleton. She was an APS Administrator who also served in the Legislature. Before the big scandal where she was stealing money from APS, she was caught violating APS policy by taking a paycheck from the district (which receives most of its funding through the Legislature). This is inherently a problem and contributed greatly to the corruption scandal.

Under this proposal, she (and others like her and there are several APS employees who are in the Legislature) could get elected to the Legislature, take home per diem of $247, a $68,000 salary, her APS salary, her legislative pension, and her APS pension. All while voting for the interests of herself and her employer while in Santa Fe.

Nothing in this amendment will result in better outcomes or representation for the people of New Mexico.

That’s why the Editor of the Albuquerque Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican, all Republicans in the Legislature, and a handful of prominent Democrats in the Legislature, not to mention former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish (a Democrat) oppose Amendment 4.

Financial supporters of Amendment 4 are primarily out of state “progressive” groups. The left-leaning Wyoming nonprofit Western Futures Fund spent $1.2 million and Delaware-based Contours Inc. put up another $800,000. Why?

Vote no on Amendment 4.

As we discussed recently on this site, Albuquerque Public Schools are beginning the process of possibly closing some schools. We view this as absolutely necessary given the District’s plummeting enrollment. As we’ve argued, we believe the best way to undertake these needed closures is through something resembling a federal BRAC process like that used to close down unnecessary military bases in recent decades.

The list of opportunities to attend meetings and speak to the APS Board on the issue is below. RGF plans to be in attendance and speak at one or more of these. Hopefully you can as well.

• Eldorado High School, cafeteria, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 6 p.m.
• Highland High School, cafeteria, Thursday, Oct. 29, 6 p.m.
• Berna Facio Professional Development Center, Meeting for those who speak Arabic, Dari, Kinyarwanda, Swahili and Vietnamese at 6 p.m. and Spanish  at 6:30 p.m. Monday, Nov. 2.
• Manzano High School, cafeteria, Tuesday, Nov. 10, 6 p.m.
• Rio Grande High School, cafeteria, Thursday, Nov. 12, 6 p.m.
• Valley High School, cafeteria, Thursday, Nov. 19, 6 p.m.
• Albuquerque High School, theater, Tuesday, Jan. 5, 6 p.m.
• Atrisco Heritage Academy High School, cafeteria, Thursday, Jan. 7, 6 p.m.
• Sandia High School, cafeteria, Monday, Jan. 11, 6 p.m.
• Volcano Vista High School, cafeteria, Tuesday, Jan. 12, 6 p.m.
• West Mesa High School, library, Thursday, Jan. 14, 6 p.m.
• La Cueva High School, performing arts center, Thursday, Jan. 21, 6 p.m.

After 20 years at the Rio Grande Foundation there isn’t much in New Mexico government that surprises me, but this Albuquerque Journal story in which we learn that “the state’s four currently largest information technology projects have exceeded their initial budget estimates by roughly $456 million according to a new legislative report.

One might mistakenly believe that the entire cost of these IT systems would be roughly $456 million (nearly half a billion dollars), but no, that’s just the cost overruns.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of the most problematic projects has been at CYFD. According to the article:

A new Children, Youth and Families Department case management system, was undertaken in 2017 in response to a federal rule change with an initial completion target of October 2022. But the project has been repeatedly delayed and is now not scheduled to be fully completed until October 2027, the Legislative Finance Committee report found.

It’s as if the State told Albuquerque City Councilor Brook Bassan (she of the massively overbudget swimming pool) “hold my beer.”

For as long as the Rio Grande Foundation has been active in New Mexico our ideological opponents (in the think tank world) have been New Mexico Voices for Children. They might summarize it differently, but our view is that they have always sold the proposition that New Mexico is one more government program away from success. That’s why this recent opinion piece from the organization is quite interesting.

It has a lot of the same old, but it has some new statements that we’ve never heard before like “New Mexico has made historic investments in children. But investments are promises, not outcomes.” In other words, spending money and achieving positive outcomes are two different things.

The article further states, “The standard by which we judge our government’s effectiveness should be: Are children and families better off because of the follow-through on investments?” We agree!  

Will Voices ever come around to the view that New Mexico’s welfare programs are generally ineffective in fighting poverty? We doubt it. Will they advocate for sweeping tax cuts or reform of New Mexico’s gross receipts tax? Not likely. Will they enact policies (including but by no means limited to: the Mississippi Model for education reform, school choice, and work requirements) in order to boost New Mexico’s abysmal workforce participation rate? We wish.

But, it IS interesting to see for the first time a far-left organization actually talking about outcomes rather than just more inputs in the form of taxpayer dollars for more government programs. We’ll see how the upcoming election impacts Voices vision. Haaland will undoubtedly have a lengthy agenda of new government programs. Hull will likely evaluate those programs carefully while working to return money to taxpayers.

Recently the Rio Grande Foundation sat down with some of the folks behind a new website that tracks and rates New Mexico judges who will appear on YOUR ballots right now. The site is called JudgetheBench.com and it uses a combination of readily available and requested information on judges (not appeals court or NM Supreme Court) to give voters a better understanding of which judges are worth keeping and which should look for another line of work.

Directly from the site:

From 2020 through mid-2026 we followed more than 5,000 cases involving 150 repeat offenders who cycled through New Mexico jails. A disposition is treated as problematic when the charge is not resolved on the merits — including findings of incompetence, failure to prosecute, State notices of dismissal (nolle prosequi)*, and deferred dismissals.

*A formal statement by the prosecutor that the State will no longer prosecute a pending charge or case.

Valid reasons can exist in a single case. The record below is about pattern: how often those non-merits endings appear in a given courtroom, and what the featured defendants were charged with next.

Explore the site for yourself. It is worth spending some time with. It is NOT easy to make informed decisions about the judiciary in New Mexico. One important note: judges with lower percentages are the ones releasing fewer repeat offenders. This site is a work in progress for the future as citizens work to both inform the public on the role of the judiciary in its important role in crime.

As RGF has discussed and will continue to discuss moving forward, New Mexico’s economic growth remains anemic. That’s not our statement, rather its the view of the chief economist of the Legislative Finance Committee.

It is hard to believe that with massive oil and gas revenues available that even Democrats who don’t necessarily understand taxes and their impact couldn’t do a bit better with all that money, but they haven’t.

A great example of their misguided approach is found in this Channel 13 KRQE story:

Representative Derrick Lente (D- Sandia Pueblo), Chairman of the house taxation revenue committee said a proposal like Hull’s would not benefit the lowest-income earners the most. “When we talk about eliminating personal income tax, it seems to me that based on the numbers that were presented by the legislative finance committee, that those that were millionaires, those were at the upper echelon of income earners in the state were to benefit the most.”

Lente has been chair of the powerful House Tax Committee since the start of 2023. If he wanted to eliminate taxes for low-income New Mexicans he/they could have done that. More importantly, while Lente and his Party focus exclusively on those of modest means, his entire approach to economics misses the symbiotic relationship between business owners/ job creators and those who want and need those jobs.

New Mexico doesn’t have to “only” cut taxes on those with higher incomes. Gregg Hull’s plan to eliminate the income tax entirely starting from the bottom up is exactly what New Mexicans of all income levels need. But, wasting money and wasting opportunities is how you get to 50th and it seems like he’s more than happy to keep us there.

Recently we commented on the important Albuquerque area legislative race between Republican Nicole Chavez and trial attorney Democrat Lisa Curtis. There is another Albuquerque legislative race, this one is in District 27 where moderate Democrat Marian Matthews was defeated in a primary by a far-left “progressive” Abby Foster.

Rather than endorsing her “progressive” heir apparent, Matthews, an opponent of the far left’s “paid family leave” plans which were narrowly defeated in the Legislature a few years ago, has endorsed Republican Jahnelle Garcia. As if that were not enough, Retired State Senator William Tallman who represented District 18, also in the Northeast Heights, who is also a Democrat, has also endorsed Jahnelle Garcia. Tallman is definitely more commonly aligned with the “progressive” wing of his own Party, but he DID appear on the Tipping Point NM podcast when he was still in office.

New Mexico’s recent medical malpractice reforms are at the heart of the race. Jahnelle Garcia works in the medical field. Foster, on the other hand, has been heavily funded by the trial lobby. Tallman noted in a recent email, “I’m voting for Jahnelle Garcia. Her opponent is backed by the trial lawyer lobby, the same lobby fighting for unlimited payouts while our doctors walk out the door.”

What are some takeaways from this?

1. Trial attorneys are well-funded and upset that they lost last session. They’re going to be working to defeat vulnerable Democrats in primaries and Republicans in general elections for years to come in an effort to overturn medical malpractice reform;
2. If Deb Haaland wins the race for Gov. and the trial attorneys win these races things could get dicey for the future of medical malpractice reform. Columnist Sherry Robinson has a detailed prognosis for the future of medical malpractice reform here.

It’s no secret that New Mexico has plenty of money:

$75 billion in its sovereign wealth fund,  

$1 billion in unexpected surplus revenues with more anticipated before next legislative session;

$7.6 billion in unspent capital funds.

But, it’s also no secret that real New Mexicans and businesses are struggling. New Mexico’s population is stagnant and aging. Our youth are leaving to find better opportunities elsewhere. MLG’s 8 years of left-wing economic policies (big spending, costly regulations, and narrow, small tax cuts combined with other tax increases) haven’t worked. Don’t believe me?

Take it from the Legislative Finance Committee’s Ismael Torres who recently told lawmakers, “We’re still seeing an economy that I would describe as either tepid or maybe stuttering.”

Gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull has put forth a bold plan to eliminate New Mexico’s personal income tax. One can easily quibble with whether the income tax or the gross receipts tax should be reformed first, and the Democrat-controlled Legislature will ultimately determine what happens, but Hull has made it clear that he wants to do bold things with New Mexico’s massive budget surplus.

He does have at least one powerful Democrat legislator, Senate Finance Committee Chair George Muñoz, on his side. Muñoz, more than anyone else in the Legislature, has a thorough understanding of New Mexico’s finances and what can be done with the considerable resources available.

Deb Haaland’s agenda is more of the same policies we’ve seen over the last eight years except slightly further to the left. She wants to raise the minimum wage and expand various targeted tax credits, but beyond that her plans are vague and of questionable utility in growing New Mexico’s economy or putting money back in families’ pockets.

On this week’s interview Paul sits down w/ former New Mexico Rep. Bob Perls and current chair of the NM Forward Party for a friendly conversation/debate on Amendment 4 which will be on ballots this November. If passed the amendment would pay legislators an annual salary of approximately $68,000 annually.

Bob and Paul agree about many reforms needed for New Mexico’s Legislature and electoral system, but disagree on the merits of Amendment 4 and paying legislators. Don’t miss this important conversation about one of the most important issues on this fall’s ballot!

In our continued efforts to educate New Mexicans on the various issues on the ballot this fall, we look here at TWO measures that have been placed on ballots ONLY in the City of Albuquerque.

Question 1 reads as follows:

Shall the Charter of the City of Albuquerque be amended to repeal Article XI, Section 7, which requires voter approval before the City may appropriate more than $10 million for a performing arts center so that future funding of any amount would no longer require a separate vote? [YES/NO]

Analysis: So, it is currently law in Albuquerque that if Council wishes to spend $10 million or more on a performing arts center that they need to go to the voters. Question 1 would repeal that requirement. A “no” vote simply keeps the law in place for a time if/when the city chooses to spend $10 million of our money on a performing arts center. Our view is that voters should ALWAYS have the final say on major capital projects (we never got a vote on the ART buses, for example). This City and State have a long history of spending big on wasteful building projects (Rt. 66 Visitors Center is one local project, ART is another). Why would voters forego the ability to have a final say IF Council plans something?

Question 2 reads as follows:

Shall the Charter of the City of Albuquerque be amended to designate the Director of Albuquerque Community Safety as the “ACS Chief” and require that this position be
appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council, subject to the same confirmation, employment agreement, and removal terms currently applied
to the Police Chief and Fire Chief? [YES/NO]

Analysis: Albuquerque Community Safety (ACS) acts as the city’s third branch of first responders alongside the police and fire departments. It provides a civilian, public health-focused response to non-violent, non-medical, and non-criminal calls for service. The total budget for ACS is $19.8 million. RGF is NOT a fan of a third public safety department. We should adequately fund and train the police department and put violent criminals in jail. Giving ACS even greater status is unwise.

Question 3 reads as follows:

Shall the City of Albuquerque amend the Public Safety Gross Receipts Tax to divide funds amongst updated city services? The money would be divided as follows: Police
35%; Fire 38%; Albuquerque Community Safety 8%; Health, Housing, and Homelessness 8%; Prisoner Transport 6%; and Code Enforcement 5%. This would not increase the tax rate. [YES/NO]

Analysis: This is an attempt to divert Public Safety resources away from Police and Fire and instead allocate it to: Albuquerque Community Safety 8%; Health, Housing, and Homelessness 8%; and Code Enforcement 5%.

Our view is that the Public Safety Tax should remain with public safety and not ACS, the homeless, or code enforcement.

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 have a chance to act until the 2026 session. In fact, the Legislature added a provision on inflation that means the program won’t be “free” to everyone anymore.

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.