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 voted for it.

On the other hand, Curtis, a trial attorney, is running in opposition to 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:

The following is a guest column from Charles Sullivan. Sullivan is a retired attorney who has lived in NM for 47 years and is a long time supporter of the Rio Grande Foundation.

This November, New Mexico voters are being given the “opportunity” to amend their state constitution (Amendment 4) to authorize salaries for their legislators, replacing the long-standing per diem reimbursement system. If approved, legislators will begin receiving a salary of approximately $67,800 per year – a figure far higher than legislators in any of the surrounding five states. I am unaware of any current New Mexico legislator who has offered to give up his legislator retirement plan in return for a salary. You will soon see why.

The New Mexico legislature is the only one in the country that does not receive an annual salary. Instead, it receives a daily per diem based on the IRS travel reimbursement rates for Santa Fe. Through September 2026, the amount is $247.

The primary statutes controlling legislators’ retirement pay are contained in New Mexico  Statutes at Large (NMSA) 10-11-43.1 to NMSA 10-11-43.5. It is an extraordinarily generous defined benefit plan. Unlike any other state legislator pension plan in the country, a legislator in New Mexico can retire after only 10 years of service and immediately start receiving a pension regardless of his age. It is not uncommon for ex-legislators in their 30s and 40s to start receiving lifetime pensions.

To show the generosity of the plan, I will use the following hypothetical. A 28- year- old man is elected to the New Mexico legislature and serves for 10 years from January 1, 2016 until December 31, 2025. He starts receiving his pension in 2026 when he is just 39 years old.

His life expectancy in 2026 is 38.55 years. Per statute, he has made the following plan contributions during his 10 years in the legislature: 2016,$600; 2017,$600; 2018,$600; 2019,$1000; 2020,$1000; 2021,$1000; 2022, $1000; 2023,$1000; 2024,$1000 and $1000 for 2025. The payments total $8800.

The formula to determine the retirement benefit after ten years of service is the per diem for Santa Fe in 2026 ($247) times (14%) times (90) times years of service (10). Calculation: $247 * .14*90*10 = $31,122 annual pension. When the annual pension is multiplied by the life expectancy of 38.55, the total comes to an astonishing. $1,199,753.10. That figure is 136 times the $8800 pension contribution amount made by the “hypothetical” legislator.

But wait. Cost of living increases are permitted in the pension two years after the pension begins. Here are the figures assuming a 3% cost of living increase beginning in year 3 and each year thereafter until the end of the 38.55-year actuarial period.

With an assumed cost of living increase of 3% per year beginning in year 3, the total comes to the extraordinary sum of two million dollars, one hundred eighty- three thousand, seven hundred twenty- five dollars after 38.55 years This is 248 times the original contribution of $8800.  Mexican drug cartels would be envious of the numbers. Gluttony, thy name is the New Mexico state legislators’ pension plan.

On one hand it is worth praising the Santa Fe New Mexicans‘ coverage of a recent national poll showing that overwhelming numbers of New Mexicans support school choice. Too often stories like this that run contrary to the left wing paradigm that dominates New Mexico are simply buried.

As the article rightly notes, there is broad support for school choice — “74% of GOP respondents, 61% of Democratic respondents and 69% of swing voter respondents supported the idea. Some 56% of people across political leanings who responded also supported the idea of state and local funding following students to the school of their choice.”

Of course, anytime a topic like school choice comes up, the unions are given the chance to defend their monopoly. This article was no different. Whitney Holland, union president of the American Federation of Teachers of New Mexico made a number of specious claims including that school choice “would lead to the defunding and closure of schools seen as less desirable.”

By “less desirable” she really means the worst performing schools in the worst performing state when it comes to education. Giving kids a ticket out of the worst performing schools in New Mexico is obviously popular with New Mexicans, but the unions care only about THEIR bottom lines. They want more members and more dues. Letting kids escape is bad for their business model.

Deb Haaland proposes a data center moratorium while taking $87,000 from folks behind Project Jupiter. Hull has received nothing.

NM’s Supreme Court has allowed Project Jupiter permitting to continue. Did they dodge the environmental groups’ best shot?

Deb Haaland has seemingly backed out of the October 8 KOB TV debate. What’s next?

Paul sat down w/ KOAT Channel 7 to discuss our opposition to Amendment 4 (paying legislators).

Also, if adopted the amendment would allow APS employees like former Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton to triple dip.

Paul recently sat down w/ Daniel Chacon of the New Mexican to discuss tax hikes for roads and other tax issues facing NM:

APS is (finally) talking about closing schools. Paul Has some ideas for how to address the issue, even belatedly.

Left wing author Nikole Hanna Jones sent their daughter to a “bad” school in NY. Their experience offers insights for policymakers.

While Michelle Lujan Grisham has taken her victory laps in the media on her taxpayer funded universal childcare program. Touted as “free” and “universal” and first of its kind in the United States, the Legislature DID include a few safeguards. You can read the bill (final passage) for yourself here. Specifically, on page 11 it includes possible co-pays (and other measures) if “the twelve-month average percentage change in the annual consumer price index for all urban consumers exceeds 3 percent.”

Guess what? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data for August of 2026 the 12 month average percentage change in CPI for all urban consumers is 3.4%.

So, copays are on the way for at least some participants in the “free” childcare program.

After many years of steep enrollment declines (According to KOB 4, APS dropped from 84,000 students in 2018 to just under 64,000 at the end of the 2025-26 school year) the APS school board recently launched “right sizing” talks in order to build public support for and ultimately carry out some much-needed downsizing.

This is welcome and long-overdue news. You obviously need far fewer school buildings to house 64,000 students than 84,000. Also, considering the District’s constant struggle to cool classrooms in the heat of August and early September, it would behoove the District to have fewer AC units to maintain.

You even had two school board members recently in the Albuquerque Journal discussing how returning underutilized land owned by the District to the private sector economy has helped boost local economic growth and business development.

So, when it comes to closing schools and rightsizing the District’s footprint, we’d like to help. We suggest the District model its approach on the most successful federal spending reduction effort (possibly ever) called a BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure). A BRAC uses set goals (savings, number of closures etc. set by Congress or in this case the School Board) to empower an appointed board that then makes recommendations which are ultimately voted up or down by the Congress/Board. That helps take some of the politics out of the process and leads to decisions based on what is best for the mission rather than political concerns.

Such a process might need a few minor tweaks at the school district level, but it is the best model for closing unnecessary facilities in government that we’ve run across.

The Rio Grande Foundation has made its concerns over Amendment 4 (on this fall’s ballots) clear. You can find details on other concerns like public employees double dipping here. Channel 7 did a fair story about the amendment and included RGF’s concerns. You can find the story here. There are numerous reasons to oppose the amendment, not the least of which is that it would make New Mexico the highest paid in the region with a generous per diem and pension.

There is zero evidence that the Legislature will actually

Or, you can click on the image below:

When former Rep. (and Albuquerque Public Schools) employee Sheryl Williams Stapleton was convicted, we noted that she had ALREADY broken District rules regarding paying legislators out of the District budget for time served in the Legislature. As a result of her receiving pay from the District contrary to District policy, the policy was changed to give APS employees paid time off for their time served in the Legislature. 

“Board member Barbara Petersen told the Albuquerque Journal the new policy could inspire more Albuquerque district employees to become lawmakers, which would serve as a benefit to school districts.” So, far from being embarrassed by this clear policy that created dual loyalties, the District doubled-down (and Stapleton was later convicted on a different fraudulent use of taxpayer dollars).

Now, New Mexico voters will be asked to vote on Amendment 4 which would result in legislator pay of nearly $68,000 annually (on top of per diem AND a generous pension). There has been no indication that APS plans to change its policy on paying legislators their District salaries for time spent in the Roundhouse, so unless something happens, APS employees will soon (if voters approve Amendment 4) be able to receive 1) Full pay from the District, 2) Legislative pay of $68,000 annually, 3) $247 per day plus mileage for per-diem, 4) a generous pension.

Paul talks with Peter Rice, editor of Downtown Albuquerque News, about the challenges and issues facing the area’s businesses and residents.  They also address proposed projects including the Rail Trail and the Rail Yards.

RGF’s president sat down this week to talk taxes with the Santa Fe New Mexican’s Roundhouse reporter Daniel Chacón. They discuss Democrats in New Mexico’s Legislature pushing for gas tax increases and broader infrastructure funding. They then turn to tax reform including discussion of eliminating New Mexico’s personal income tax, the GRT, and the overall economic situation in New Mexico. Check it out!

Deb Haaland has proven elusive when called upon to share her plans for New Mexico on a debate stage. She debated Bregman once and went on to crush him in the primary.  Now, after having seemingly committed to a single debate with Republican Gregg Hull on October 8 sponsored by KOB Channel 4, she seems to be backing out of it. Hull, by the way, agreed to participate in as many as 5 debates.

A lot of New Mexicans (including the author) believe that regardless of her policy positions, Haaland is simply not capable of being governor. She is hoping to be elected without being exposed as an intellectual lightweight or an extremist (both of which seem to be the case).

With headlines like the New Mexican’s “gubernatorial debates up in the air” and others, it is an open question whether Haaland will ever debate Hull and whether the media will ever call her to account for her unwillingness to share a stage with Hull. Will the public vote for someone who is unwilling to share her vision for the future of New Mexico and be challenged on them?

At RGF we have often said that voters will only get better outcomes when they demand more from their political leaders. Willingness to debate (multiple times) should be a prerequisite for the State’s top political job. 

Corporate political giving is an interesting creature especially when the industry in question is relatively new and the business is unfamiliar to New Mexico. The latest is Oracle and its components which is currently building the massive and very controversial Project Jupiter in Santa Teresa, NM. The Santa Fe New Mexican reported that donors associated with Oracle have “made sizable donations to Haaland amounting to at least $74,800 — even though Haaland has been critical of their industry on the campaign trail.” Her counterpart, Republican Gregg Hull has received NOTHING.

We can also verify that, while the Rio Grande Foundation is a 501c3 organization that broadly supports data centers and (unlike politicians) can work to refute anti-data center arguments on both sides of the political aisle without disclosing our donors, has received no support from Oracle or other aligned funders.

Why?

It is hard to say. Perhaps the folks behind Oracle believe the election is a lost cause (it clearly isn’t). Perhaps they know Hull already is broadly supportive of data centers and don’t care to help him? How about working with non-political but aligned groups like RGF to simply correct the public record? It’s impossible for us to say what their logic is.

We know Deb Haaland’s “progressive” base is the most anti economic development group in New Mexico. They don’t JUST opposed data centers, but generally don’t care about economic development. No amount of political contributions will make her support them or any other economic growth in New Mexico. Will Haaland’s base which supports Haaland in spite (or because) of her manifest shortcomings be moved because she is taking big checks from Oracle? Only time will tell.

The Rio Grande Foundation has long had a close relationship with NewsRadio KKOB 96.3FM, 770AM. Now you can stream KKOB no matter where you are by clicking on the KKOB “widget” at the top of the RGF and Errors of Enchantment pages.

Quite often you may hear a familiar voice. The Foundation’s president appears every two weeks from 9 to 10am on “Rio Grande Foundation Fridays.” This week Paul will appear on Thursday morning with Bob (9/17/26)

He also appears on “The House of Strauss” typically at 7pm (and for 45 minutes) on Tuesdays although Lobo games and other programming can sometimes move the schedule.

Finally, the RGF is pleased to announce that our Tipping Point NM interviews will now air every Sunday from 5 to 6pm on KKOB. That begins THIS Sunday!

All of this content is available whether you listen to KKOB on the app, through the RGF/EoE websites, or live over the air! Tune in and tell a friend.

According to the Santa Fe New Mexican large the group supporting Amendment 4 to pay New Mexico’s Legislators a salary raise $1.8 million during the latest filing period, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Secretary of State’s Office on Monday. Of that, $1.2 million came from the Western Futures Fund of Sheridan, Wyo., on Sept. 3.

Other big backers of the initiative include the Albuquerque-based Center for Civic Action and Center for Civic Policy, which contributed $350,000 and $150,000, respectively.

Why would national “progressive” groups support a plan for New Mexico taxpayers to pay legislators an additional $7.6 million annually (starting out)? It is a good question. Here are a few thoughts:

1. Progressives instinctively support a more powerful government. Paying legislators further empowers government and gives New Mexico’s left-wing Legislature more resources and power;
2. Paying legislators is a significant step towards longer legislative sessions which means time for more big-government mischief in Santa Fe. Of course, the “progressives” love that.
3. Paying legislators under this scheme does nothing to actually improve serious systemic problems with New Mexico’s Legislature: corruption issues like the Sheryl Williams Stapleton and Andrea Romero issues would not be addressed and legislators employed by school districts like Albuquerque Public Schools would still be allowed.

No matter WHY they are providing funding for this measure there is no question that big money interests, including those from out-of-state, are on the side of paying legislators.

New Mexico’s politicians do a “great” job of wasting taxpayers’ money. The Rio Grande has compiled a list of the State’s 10 biggest boondoggles. First and foremost, these are all physical items. While Hollywood film subsidies are a boondoggle, they are a different kind and not included here. Some boondoggles “just” waste money while others have outright negative impacts (like the Rail Runner’s CO2 emissions and ART’s construction impacts on businesses along Central.

Anyway, this is OUR list. Do you have other ideas?

1. The Rail Runner: The brainchild of former Gov. Bill Richardson, the Rail Runner has turned into a costly tourist train. At a current cost to taxpayers of $150 per ride with $95.3 million in annual costs and plummeting ridership, the Rail Runner is not “green” and it has done nothing to impact motor traffic between Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Simply put, NONE of the promises of this train have panned out. If New Mexico politicians were responsible or faced serious budget constraints the train would have been ended a long time ago.
2. The Spaceport: Another Bill Richardson creation, the Spaceport was “purpose built” for Virgin Galactic’s space tourism business. The original cost was $225 million, but it has required consistent support and improvements (at taxpayer expense) over the years. Having been completed in 2011, the Spaceport has hosted a total of 12 Virgin Galactic launches. That’s less than one launch annually since it opened. Virgin Galactic claims to be planning its next launch (after a 2+ year hiatus) in the first quarter of 2027, but whether even a return to space will salvage the considerable investment New Mexicans have made in Spaceport America is very hard to tell.
3. Camino Real Visitors Center: Promoted by consultants who falsely projected 100,000 annual visitors and a $10 million local economic boom, the $4 million facility (built with your money) was doomed from the start. Due to negligible visitors and high upkeep, it closed its doors after barely a decade. After years of neglect, mold, and vandalism, the state determined that repairing the structure would cost $3.5 million. Lawmakers ultimately spent nearly $1 million to demolish it completely. Among other things it is a monument to New Mexico’s haphazard capital outlay “process” and politicians’ misguided belief that people will automatically want to visit a museum on an obscure topic that is located off the beaten path.
4. ABQ Mayor Tim Keller’s Rail Trail. Although still under construction and the price tag could go up (or the project could be scaled back), the rail trail is expected to cost $80 million for a 10 mile “rail trail.” That’s $10 million a mile for a trail that typically costs $500,000 per mile (on the high end).
5. Albuquerque Rapid Transit: With the support of then Mayor RJ Berry, the $136 million ART bus system with its dedicated bus lanes required massive construction along Central in Albuquerque provided a 1-2 punch against businesses along that route (along with forced COVID-era closures in 2020 and 2021). Despite all of this money and pain for businesses along Central, ART ridership remains well below 2019 levels. 

We’ll have the next 5 boondoggles later on this week.

On this week’s Tipping Point NM interview Paul sits down with Stephanie Slade. Slade is a journalist and author who works for Reason, a libertarian publication. Slade discusses her new book “Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right” which highlights the need for virtue and liberty. Stephanie was recently in Albuquerque for a Rio Grande Foundation sponsored event.

RGF has a few copies of the book available if you’d like to reach out: info@riograndefoundation.org

Check out the conversation here:

New Mexico’s deteriorating roads is a big problem. This is true despite fact that New Mexico is awash in money AND the fact that the Legislature passed and MLG signed legislation last session with the intent of increasing transportation spending. The Legislature and Gov. are relying on debt and fee (tax) increases to fund the $1.5 billion in increased spending.

Unfortunately, according to Source NM, New Mexico Department of Transportation identified $7.5 billion in needed projects to address the problem. Furthermore,

According to a 2026 report by TRIP, a national transportation research nonprofit, 56% of all major locally and state-maintained roads in New Mexico are in “poor or mediocre condition.” Driving on rough roads costs the average New Mexico driver $1,043 annually in additional vehicle operating costs — a total of $1.6 billion statewide, according to the report.

The current funding gap remains nearly six times higher than in 2017, when NMDOT identified $1.3 billion in needed but unfunded projects.

What is to be done? There is (of course) always an interest in raising the gas tax. Rio Grande Foundation has advocated using general fund or even permanent fund revenues to address New Mexico’s road issues as well. But there MAY be an even simpler solution:

According to a separate Source NM report New Mexico ironically has just about enough unspent capital outlay money to address the issue. According to a new Legislative Finance Committee analysis. “About $7.6 billion intended for more than 6,400 big-budget projects across New Mexico remained unspent at the end of last fiscal year.”

While shifting ALL of the $7.6 billion in unspent capital outlay money may not be possible, it is hard to believe that perhaps half of those dollars couldn’t be shifted to actual road projects. $3.8 billion or so would go a long way to improving NM’s roads.

In what amounts to a pathetic attempt to divert attention from decades of policy failures, Democrats are expressing feigned “outrage” over comments by Republican gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull. Those comments focus on the fact that New Mexico’s poor outcomes and outsized levels of government dependency despite New Mexico’s massive budget infusions from the oil and gas industry.

Hull noted Mississippi and New Mexico used to be tied for the lowest reading scores in the country, but Mississippi has pulled ahead. Hull said Mississippi’s former governor, Phil Bryant, told him that achievement was based on education reforms that came from New Mexico’s former governor, Republican Susana Martinez.

The amount of money that continues to pour into New Mexico’s budgets is stunning. A recent report from Tax Foundation highlights just how rapidly New Mexico’s state and local tax collections have risen in recent years. The chart below is for FY 2023 (we are currently in FY 2027, so this is somewhat new data, but delayed by nearly 4 years). New Mexico has the 7th-most state/local tax collections among US states.

But then you realize that just two years earlier in FY 2021, New Mexico ranked 29th in the same category, you realize that New Mexico has no excuses for its ongoing economic failures.

Also worth noting is the fact that federal and state tax collections have jumped from $5,173 to $8,953 per capita. We are also 4 fiscal years further into the oil and gas boom which has seen New Mexico tax collections rise quickly.

New Mexico’s gross receipts tax has been a target of the Rio Grande Foundation since day 1. We have always believed that New Mexico should shift the tax to resemble a sales tax rather than one that includes taxes on top of taxes and also includes numerous business-to-business taxes (like on construction or contracted services including medical). The revamped NAIOP (now CREDA) group recently polled its members and found that businesses overwhelmingly agree that the GRT is a big problem.

“93% — said the state’s GRT makes business harder, with 60% saying it makes business ‘significantly’ more difficult. Meanwhile, less than 10% said they weren’t sure or felt the tax is reasonable or has little to no impact.”

Allen Sigmon (a local developer) developed projects in Denver and Albuquerque around the same period last year. Without GRT, Sigmon said the Denver hotel cost his company $4 million less than the Albuquerque hotel.

“The fact that New Mexico taxes construction projects and our neighbors immediately around us don’t makes us absolutely less competitive,” Sigmon said.

Mackenzie Bishop, co-owner of local homebuilder Abrazo Homes (and a guest on the Tipping Point NM podcast), agreed. He said GRT has always been tough for the construction industry — but because of increased costs of labor, materials and borrowing, it has become an increasingly heavy burden.

“When things get tight, our disadvantages become more profound, and GRT is probably one of our most profound disadvantages as a state,” Bishop said.