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.

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.