During the 2025 legislative session the hot topic for Rio Grande Foundation and the business community was another round of push back against an onerous paid family leave program.  We won that battle. For what it’s worth, while these battles were fought in the Legislature, it was unclear what Gov. MLG’s views were and whether she would have signed that bill. As it turned out, MLG had her own plans for a brand new taxpayer-funded entitlement program that (as the courts would eventually decide) didn’t even need legislative approval: universal “free” childcare.

The Gov. outlined her plans for taxpayer-funded universal daycare in New Mexico on September 8, 2025. Acting on her own, the Gov. changed New Mexico’s childcare program from covering families up to 400% of the federal policy level ($132,000 in 2026) to make it “universal.” That program took effect on November 1, 2025. The Democrat-controlled Legislature ratified the program with a few additions and changes during the 2026 session.

But, between November 1, 2025 and the end of New Mexico’s fiscal year (June 30, 2026), the program was found to be running a deficit of approximately $83 million. Since then, two whistleblowers have come forward saying they were retaliated against for calling out these deficits. Carmel Pacheco-Aragon: The Early Childhood Education and Care Department’s chief financial officer filed a suit alleging she was placed on administrative leave after reporting an $83 million shortfall for fiscal year 2026 and warning about improper fund transfers without legislative approval. The Department’s former budget director filed a subsequent lawsuit claiming she was wrongfully terminated for publicly reporting that the department was facing a $258 million shortfall, partially due to the state’s new universal childcare program.

Clearly, MLG’s administration did not want the public to know the program she created was running massive deficits and took retribution on some of the best-placed people that she’d hired to manage the program. Those people can and likely will receive big payoffs (courtesy of New Mexico’s taxpayers) for their troubles. But, New Mexico’s Supreme Court simply ratified the Gov.’s seemingly unconstitutional power grab without so much as a hearing and from a policy perspective that’s all that matters. MLG is getting her way by clearly abusing her power (in multiple ways) and setting a precedent that allows future governors to engage in the same abusive behaviors.

The political and legal incentives to abuse the law in support of an unproven and at best questionable policy is one of MANY reasons why New Mexico is ranked poorly when compared with other states.

As free market advocates who believe in paying people a competitive wage for their work, we’re not opposed to paying legislators. But, that doesn’t mean that any and all plans to pay legislators makes sense.

This November New Mexicans will go to the polls to vote on a number of issues including a statewide constitutional amendment (set in motion by HJR 5) that, if approved, would result in legislators receiving an annual salary tied to the median household income in New Mexico which is about $67,800 annually (adjusted annually for cost of living). As you can see in this chart from the National Conference of State Legislators, this would make New Mexico’s Legislature the best paid in the region by far.

But, the real problem isn’t the proposed salary, it’s the fact that it would come on top of BOTH the existing per diem payments of $202 per day PLUS mileage reimbursement AND a very generous pension program.

While RGF believes the Legislature is in need of an infusion of new thinking and talent, the idea that New Mexico taxpayers should pay per diem, a generous salary, and a pension is simply too much. We recommend voters turn down this measure and that the Legislature commissions a study to consider eliminating per diem and the pension system in favor of a reasonable salary that will maximize the number of people willing to run for the Legislature.

New Mexico suffers from voters choosing legislators (and other elected officials) that do not understand basic economics and how individual freedom contributes to a successful state. It is unclear whether adding a salary would improve New Mexico.

Two big wins for RGF on local taxes and no public financing of county elections.

The stunning conclusion of “hoodie-gate”.

How could New Mexicans benefit from the federal school choice tax credit?

Is demography New Mexico’s biggest problem?

Alternative licensing for attorneys is a winner for New Mexico. Perhaps the Legislature will take notice?

A response to Stephanie Schardin Clarke on income taxes.

The RailRunner costs $150 per rider and it isn’t even “green”.

The Rio Grande Foundation spends quite a bit of time discussing economic development policies, especially New Mexico’s anti-business tax and regulatory policies. But, in many cases New Mexicans and their elected officials seem to prefer the declining status quo over economic diversification and prosperity. For starters, there is the ongoing controversy over Project Jupiter and other data centers.

While data centers have their issues (mostly water and electricity demands) there are ready solutions to both issues. In fact, New Mexico’s 2025 session saw the passage of a bill creating “microgrids” that would separate data centers off from the electrical grid, thus preventing rate hikes. New Mexico’s water challenges relating to data centers can be solved (along with numerous other problems) by treating and using water produced in the oil and gas extraction process. New Mexico’s oil and gas industry generates 2.7 billion barrels of “free” water annually.

Unfortunately, although the folks behind Project Jupiter HAVE made their share of mistakes in the process of getting their facility approved, politicians like Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard have attempted to  thwart the project at every turn. Radical environmental groups and their advocates have also pushed back since they don’t want ANY development, let alone a facility that uses large amounts of electricity or justifies the existence of the oil and gas industry through the use of recycled water produced by it.

Ironically, the best long-term solution to energy demands from data centers and society at large is nuclear energy. Widely acknowledged to be a critical tool in ANY effort to reduce CO2 emissions, nuclear power requires uranium mining. Of course, uranium mining back in the 40s and 50s was not regulated appropriately and was often detrimental to humans and the environment alike.

But we’ve come a long way since then. That hasn’t stopped opponents from pushing back against any and all proposed uranium mining operations in New Mexico. 

Finally, as New Mexico-based venture capitalist John Lonergan notes, “New Mexico has developed a habit — particularly in certain communities — of reflexive opposition to business and investment. Every outside investor is presumed to be a predator. Every corporate entity is assumed to have hidden motives. The default posture is suspicion and obstruction.”

Changing economic policy would require a change of attitude toward economic growth and success. New Mexico policymakers and many individuals and interest groups have looked toward oil and gas and the federal government to support the economy. But that hasn’t worked out. Nor has the taxpayer-funded film industry, spaceport, pre-K, free college, free childcare, Rail Runner, numerous capital outlay funded projects, and whatever else has been promoted as the “next big thing.” This doesn’t mean EVERY business that looks to come to New Mexico is worth having, but the immediate reactions shouldn’t be “no.”

At the Rio Grande Foundation we have been watching and waiting for Gov. Lujan Grisham to decide whether New Mexico will participate in the federal education freedom tax credit. You can see a map of all the states that ARE and ARE NOT participating here. In fact, we encourage YOU to take 5 minutes today and send the Gov. an email on the subject. 

Our friends at the American Federation for Children have created a fact sheet (see below) on the credit. Click on it for a printable version.

NEW MEXICO BY THE NUMBERS:

• If New Mexico taxpayers with $1,700 of tax liability redirect the full credit to an SGO, the dollars add up fast: $38.2 million in scholarships every year if 10% of taxpayers with $1,700
  of tax liability participate $114.6 million in scholarships every year if 30% of taxpayers with $1,700 of tax liability participate
• 310,281 New Mexico students are eligible for EFTC scholarships. New Mexico has not yet opted in. Its 310,281 eligible students can receive scholarships only if the state opts in.
• A first for New Mexico. The state currently has no ESA, voucher, or tax credit scholarship program, and so the EFTC would bring private school choice to New Mexico families for the first time.
• Most families qualify. The income limit is 300% of area median income, which averages about $268,000 for a family of four in New Mexico. Students in public, private, and charter schools are eligible.

The Albuquerque Journal has a VERY important article detailing the recent closure of two Catholic schools and two charter schools. It also asserts that Albuquerque Public Schools is closing schools, but there are still active websites for Duranes Elementary (now an early childcare center) and La Luz Elementary while Taft Middle School has changed to Coronado Dual Language Magnet Elementary School.

But, that’s not even the biggest problem. One of New Mexico’s biggest issues is the steep drop in our young population. Shockingly, according to the article, according to “APS Superintendent Gabriella Durán Blakey, the district is expecting a drop of about 1,500 students — as it has every year in recent memory — when the new school year starts Friday.”

That’s a loss of students the size of Sandia High School every single year.

The district is down more than 22,000 students in the last decade, from around 86,500 in 2015 to 63,700 last year. Combine a plummeting student population with unlimited funding thanks to the oil and gas boom and you get Albuquerque Public Schools spending an eye-popping $36,859 per student.

It is true that the decline in births is not JUST a New Mexico problem. Solutions to that are hard to come by. But, it doesn’t have to be this way. New Mexico policymakers including the next Governor (and legislators) need to come up with bold, innovative solutions to attracting and retaining families.

Gregg Hull’s plan to eliminate the income tax is a bold move. Cutting crime and improving education outcomes will also help. All of them are easily possible.

Deb Haaland’s plans are mostly “more of the same.”

On this week’s interview Paul sits down with Vern Lund, the CEO of Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC). You may have never heard of NTEC, but it is a big deal both in New Mexico’s energy sector as well as economically on the Navajo Nation.

What is NTEC and what does it do? What is its involvement in the Four Corners Power Plant (a coal power plant) and other current and future energy projects? If you care about energy (and if you have been using your AC this summer, you should) this conversation is worth it!

At the Rio Grande Foundation we sometimes joke about the predomination of trial attorney billboards all over, but that’s a function of our legal system and culture, not necessarily the fact that there are too many attorneys. In fact, we can attest to a distinct lack of attorneys willing to take important cases on our behalf. Apparently, according to a new report, “New Mexico officially qualifies as a “legal desert” under the American Bar Association’s definition, as two-thirds of its 33 counties have fewer than one lawyer for each 1,000 residents.”

For years the Rio Grande Foundation has pointed to New Mexico’s difficult professional licensing requirements as an obstacle to economic growth and employment in New Mexico. We have previously even engaged (successfully) with New Mexico’s Supreme Court to liberalize rules for out-of-state-attorneys who wish to practice in New Mexico.

So, we applaud New Mexico’s Supreme Court for this move to reduce unnecessary obstacles to attorneys practicing in New Mexico. A skills-based approach to practicing as an attorney makes sense.

Perhaps the Legislature will consider following New Mexico’s Supreme Court? We’re not holding our breath.

Recently, Stephanie Schardin Clarke, New Mexico Secretary of Taxation and Revenue, wrote an article slamming Republican efforts to eliminate New Mexico’s personal income tax. She makes numerous points, but they boil down to two: 1) We simply should not cut taxes, especially for the wealthy. 2) New Mexico cannot afford to do bold things to improve its economy and instead must be content to “smaller” policies like targeted tax credits.

Schardin Clark touts small, targeted policies that have been implemented over the past eight years but fails to note that the only thing truly propping up New Mexico’s economy is the ongoing oil and gas boom in the Permian Basin. That money has contributed to 75% spending growth under the current Administration, not to mention new entitlements like “free” college, “free” universal childcare, and “free” universal pre-K that will continue to drive spending in the future with questionable and unproven outcomes.

The economic impact of these programs is unknown. Spending is happening, but will these policies result in a better trained workforce, overall job creation, or anything that will make New Mexico and New Mexicans more successful? It is impossible to say.

But, in terms of Schardin Clarke’s approach to taxes, the fact is that even at a time of record oil and gas revenues, Lujan Grisham has raised taxes more than she’s cut them. Yes, reducing New Mexico’s GRT by .25% was a “win,” but she also signed an income tax hike, levied taxes on online sales, and increased corporate income taxes. Just this year the Gov. signed legislation increasing vehicle registration fees by 25%.

All of this at a time when Senate Finance Committee Chair George Muñoz (a Democrat) says “We have more money than we know what to do with.” Muñoz appears to have figured things out and recently wrote an opinion piece in support of eliminating the personal income tax.

The point is that under Lujan Grisham and Schardin Clark New Mexico has NOT seized the opportunity to truly diversify and grow its economy. They tout very narrow and short-term statistics, but ignore the fact that New Mexico remains the third-most impoverished state in the union and people are “voting with their feet” making New Mexico’s population stagnant and aging dramatically relative to our neighbors. 

Eliminating New Mexico’s personal income tax would lead to economic growth in New Mexico and would likely stanch the outward migration of our young, educated population. In fact, “Between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2023, high-tax states lost net 2.8 million residents to low-tax states. Zero-income tax Florida and Texas were the top two destinations for interstate movers, gaining 819,000 and 656,000 net residents respectively.” This isn’t an abstract issue.

New Mexico lost population last year according to the US Census Bureau. If you want your kids and grandkids to stay in New Mexico you need to do something big to make the State more attractive to people and business.

So, what should be done? Rather than eliminating the $2.1 billion generated by the income tax in one fell swoop, I recommend phasing out the income tax over a span of a few years. Already for the next session analysts expect no less than $850 million in “unforeseen” revenue thanks to rising oil prices. This number is likely closer to $1 billion given continued high oil prices. NO OTHER TAXES should be raised to eliminate the income tax!

So, reduce the income tax by approximately $1 billion. If revenues don’t keep up (say oil prices drop dramatically or the US goes into a recession) those tax cuts can be reversed or put on hold.  There’s no need to cut necessary programs although it is true that New Mexico government is far too bloated and many of these programs (like “free” childcare and “free” pre-K) SHOULD be targeted at those with lower incomes, not the wealthy.

For too long New Mexico has relied on oil and gas and federal spending. While we shouldn’t kill off oil and gas we DO need to diversify our economy. Eliminating the income tax would do that by bringing new businesses and taxpayers to New Mexico. It is high time to do something bold to improve our state.

On this week’s Tipping Point NM Paul and Wally discuss numerous issues facing New Mexicans.

Starting off, while RGF was “wrong” that ABQ City Councilor Bassan would make a third push for her massive GRT increase to put it on this fall’s ballot, in reality fellow Councilor Klarissa Peña is introducing the exact same plan.

NM Dems are shifting their primary, but who pays the bill? There are numerous additional logistical challenges.

In the spirit of a David Letterman Paul and Wally go through the Top Ten reasons to eliminate NM’s personal income tax.

New Mexico’s House GOP continues to ask (as do we) “what about the special session on rebates/income tax elimination?”

The Wall Street Journal covers NM’s $75 billion permanent fund in a thoughtful way.

People are talking about a state takeover of PNM. What’s the point?

After months of back-and-forth and multiple victories over Councilor Brook Bassan’s plan to increase the local gross receipts tax by nearly half-a-cent, the Rio Grande Foundation (finally) won the “war” over the proposed tax hike on Monday night. 

Incredibly, this particular battle wasn’t over final passage of the tax but whether it could be introduced at all. On a 7-2 vote Council (more or less) said “we’ve already voted on this issue, you can’t just switch sponsors and introduce the same tax hike once again.”

So, without enough time left for Bassan and her newfound sponsor Klarissa Peña (who happens to be the Council President), the tax hike WILL NOT appear on ballots this fall. Of course, this plan or other similar plans could be introduced next year, but for the time being this is a major win for taxpayers and RGF.

And, as if that’s not enough winning for this week, we have been notified by Bernalillo County Commissioner Eric Olivas that he plans to commission a study on public campaign financing rather than pushing it to appear on ballots this fall. RGF opposes public (taxpayer) financing of election campaigns and specifically points to Albuquerque’s mayoral race as a failed “model.” But, we will keep an eye on the situation and whatever study is done and will weigh in as appropriate.

In a text, Commissioner Walt Benson (the only Republican on County Commission) wrote, ” Hallelujah, I was told by several people it was a waste of time to fight this because the issue had 4 votes. So, I wrote the opinion piece, you put the topic on the air, and I think we got a lot of community support through emails and phone calls. Never give up!”

Needless to say, we are very pleased with these wins!

In what can only be described as “desperate,” Albuquerque City Councilor Brook Bassan has shifted strategies once again in her ongoing effort to raise taxes on average residents of Albuquerque.

As we noted recently, we had heard through the “grapevine” that Bassan was going to continue her quest to raise the gross receipts tax in Albuquerque by introducing the tax hike for a third time. Then, we found out that wasn’t the case. Now, we have a press release from Councilor Klarissa Peña announcing that SHE will be the one introducing the tax hike.

The amount is the same (nearly half a cent on the GRT 0.4875%) with the same theoretical sunset in 21 years. The tax hikes are: O-26-57 and R-26-58. They will receive a final vote at City Council on August 17 in order to be put on the ballot this fall.

Although the North Domingo Baca pool (estimated cost having risen from $17 million to $100 million) is not mentioned, that was only the appetizer on what Bassan and Peña are hoping will be massive infusion of cash to the tune of $113 million annually. This was NEVER just about a pool, it’s about massive growth in the size of Albuquerque government, heavier taxes on individuals and businesses at a difficult economic time, and the relentless desire of politicians to take more of your money.

Rio Grande Foundation will once again fight this tax hike at City Council on August 15. It is only sad that our local politicians won’t take “no” for an answer.

One of MANY problems with New Mexico sitting on $75 billion or more in its permanent fund is the fact that these dollars become a collection box for the hopes and dreams of all kinds of left wing social agenda items. We’ve already seen Deb Haaland and House Speaker Javier Martinez discuss using the fund for New Mexico government to create a “public option” for health care.

Now, as the sale of PNM comes before the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) and left-leaning activists push back, there is increasing talk about using the Permanent Fund to purchase PNM outright. The question is “to what end?” The PRC already regulates rates charged by the utility and the Legislature itself has PNM on track to provide 100% “renewable” electricity by 2045. What exactly are left-wing activists trying to achieve with government ownership of PNM?

It would seem that a heavily-regulated utility as is currently the situation with PNM provides the best of both worlds. Investors receive a steady, predictable return on their investments while Blackstone (the proposed buyer) will provide needed capital (at affordable interest rates) for the company to transform its distribution capacity and continue the transition to 100% “renewable” energy.

Yes, Farmington has a public utility and they are not uncommon across the country, but it is hard to see what the expected benefit would be to the political left aside from just the “socialist” urge to have the government own the utility. The $75 billion permanent fund should be used for something that truly benefits economic growth and diversification, not some ideological fever dream of government ownership of the means of production. In other words, we agree with Gov. Lujan Grisham on this one.

According to widespread news reports New Mexico’s Democratic Party is expected to move forward from June to February. The idea is to make New Mexico’s primary votes more relevant in the early stages of their party’s primary elections.

Most New Mexicans are likely okay with this move, but there is ONE major problem: who pays? That’s because it means the Party’s presidential primary and its other primaries would have to be split up thus creating TWO primaries (one in February and one in June). According to the Legislative Finance Committee New Mexico currently spends $15 million for its primary elections. Because the cost is in manning the polls and setting up the machines etc. a second Democrat primary would likely cost New Mexico taxpayers AN ADDITIONAL $15 million each time it is held (the plan is to do this in 2028, but future dates remain open to debate).

It is hard to justify New Mexico taxpayers of any party having to pay the costs of one party’s attempt at national relevance, but Democrats are in control of New Mexico and, so far, we haven’t heard who will be paying for this additional statewide election. Before the ink is signed on this deal New Mexicans should be told whether they or the Democratic Party are paying for this change.

There has been a lot of talk recently about eliminating New Mexico’s personal income tax and we are here for it at Rio Grande Foundation. We believe that eliminating NM’s PIT (probably phasing it out rather than in one fell swoop) would have profoundly positive impacts on New Mexico’s economy and that it would be beneficial to ALL New Mexicans.

1. Encourage work/reduce dependency:

• New Mexico has long struggled with low workforce participation rates. The Legislative Finance Committee has noted that, despite the billions New Mexico spends annually to fight poverty. Improving workforce participation rates would be the best way to fight poverty.

On this week’s episode Paul sits down with Democrat Bernalillo County Commissioner Eric Olivas. Olivas is the sponsor of a plan that would move the County towards public campaign financing.

Commissioner Olivas and Paul also discuss economic development including a major solar facility that will likely receive generous subsidies from the County. Finally, they discuss the County’s economic development rubric.

To be honest, anytime the national media does a thorough, well-researched report on New Mexico, we’re happy. That is the case with this new Wall Street Journal story about New Mexico’s permanent funds which now total $75 billion. We have discussed this issue numerous times and RGF president Paul Gessing spoke to the reporter for 45 minutes recently, but sadly was not quoted in the article. That said, the article is a good one and if you click on it (soon) you can read the actual article much easier.

Ultimately, New Mexico needs to be using its annual budget surpluses and permanent funds strategically to reduce tax burdens on New Mexicans and make our state more diversified and prosperous. Deb Haaland wants to pay for “universal” health care which is a terrible approach for a number of reason.

RGF would also note (and argue) that New Mexico puts too much money into these funds which were created on the assumption that oil and gas would “run out.” In reality, we keep finding more, but something MUST be done to take this money out of government and make New Mexicans more prosperous.

On this week’s conversation Paul and Wally discuss:

ABQ City Councilor Brook Bassan plans to (yet again) bring her half-cent gross receipts tax increase up before City Council. Meanwhile, RGF has it on good authority that  https://errorsofenchantment.com/abq-councilor-brook-bassan-plans-to-bring-her-tax-hike-back-yet-again/

New Mexico’s Supreme Court ratifies MLG’s “free” childcare overreach w/o so much as a hearing.

NM an island of outmigration in the fast growing southwest.

NM school enrollment decline driven by plummeting births.

According to the Wall Street Journal Albuquerque’s child population dropped third most among major cities between 2015 and 2024.

With recent news coverage of the 20th anniversary of the New Mexico Rail Runner Express commuter rail train, we were asked what the actual cost of the train is to average New Mexicans. Because that cost includes both fixed (capital) costs and ongoing (operating) costs, it can be difficult to make those calculations….but we found THIS report from Rio Metro which manages the train. The report notes on page 7: The “FY2027 Rail Runner budget incorporates… $95.3 million in costs (Operations & Maintenance $47.5 million; capital (building the system amortized over time) $47.0 million; and Positive Train Control debt service (thanks to a 2008 federal mandate) $0.8 million). Once you eliminate $1.4 million and $2.8 million from the fare box and BNSF payments to Rio Metro you arrive at $91.2 million in annual costs to taxpayers.” 

Given the annual ridership numbers which for 2025 were 607,295 (requested directly from Rio Metro) that works out to an eye popping $150 per RailRunner rider covered by taxpayers. 

Of course, some would claim the train is a “success” based on its supposed environmental impacts, but that’s not a route to salvation for the train either. As the Legislative Finance Committee pointed out in 2024 (and ridership has rebounded only slightly since then) “At current ridership, the Rail Runner generates more carbon dioxide than if the passengers had driven their own vehicles, and weekday ridership would need to increase by 23 percent for the train to reduce emissions to a level equivalent to the individual car trips.”

The problem and why our politicians do not care is that New Mexico is awash in cash. There are numerous wasteful government spending programs that New Mexico SHOULD reconsider that simply won’t be until New Mexico faces some kind of financial pressure. The Rail Runner’s obscene per-passenger cost is one of them.

According to a well-placed source we expect that Councilor Brook Bassan plans to bring her near half-cent gross receipts tax hike back before Albuquerque City Council once again. We assume the plan is to put it on voters’ ballots this fall, but don’t know the details. Her latest attempt to get it on the ballot was rejected on a 5-4 “strange bedfellows” vote by Council earlier this summer with conservatives: Lewis, Champine, and Grout being joined by progressives Tellez and Fiebelkorn. Has Bassan successfully moved someone in that coalition to vote for her precious tax hike? Only time will tell.

We expect the tax hike to be introduced on August 3 and for a final vote to be held on August 17.

Needless to say, the latest plan to raise a regressive tax (impacting the poor the most) and that hits businesses hard at a time of great economic turmoil is not something the Rio Grande Foundation or anyone should support for that matter. The proposed tax is estimated to bring in an additional $113 million ANNUALLY to the City meaning that it takes precisely that much out of  OUR pockets (every year).

We ALSO have good information indicating that the true and expected “FINAL” cost of the swimming pool which was originally expected to cost $17 million and was estimated to cost $70 million, is NOW estimated to have a final price tag of an eye popping $100 million.

Stay tuned for further details on this massive tax hike and boondoggle.

In what can only be described as a case of shocking dereliction of duty by New Mexico’s Supreme Court, the Court recently refused to even hear the case brought by Duke Rodriguez and former Democrat State Senator (and attorney) Jacob Candelaria over the legality of Gov. MLG’s decision to create a massive new taxpayer funded universal childcare program before such a concept was even considered in the Legislature.

It is hard to understand HOW a the Court could justify allowing one person to create a massive new taxpayer-funded entitlement program, the cost of which is expected to start at $850 million annually and rise from there.  As Candelaria said in the wake of the Court’s refusal to even hear the case, “future governors could use the Supreme Court decision to exercise broad executive power without legislative approval, that’s terrifying.” We agree with Candelaria.

How can supporters of limited government use this newfound power to impose their vision on New Mexico? We have some ideas, but mostly we’re concerned that future Democrat governors can and will come up with even more creative ways to waste our tax dollars without legislative approval.

On this week’s interview Paul sits down with Republican gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull. They discuss efforts around rebates, eliminating the personal income tax, and other aspects of tax reform. They also discuss data centers and other hot button issues in the 2026 campaign for governor.

This is another pitch for the excellent website Votewithyourfeet.net. The website is a trove of resources for anyone interested in comparing economic and demographic information among US states. It is worth the time just to look around and check out all the information available. One of the more important relating to New Mexico is the map below which shows the movement of Americans (not foreigners) from state to state during the period from 2012-2023. You can toggle the map to “latest year” 2022-2023 which ALSO shows New Mexico to be losing people to other states.

Why is this a problem? Well, growing states are healthy states. That’s not just an economic issue, it’s also an indicator of what your policy climate looks like. Yes, there are other reasons people might move from (say Alaska or Kansas) to another state (like weather), but taxes, jobs, education systems, crime, and broader opportunities have driven humans to move from place to place for eternity. It is perplexing that New Mexico, a state blessed with great weather, oil and gas, and natural beauty, is seeing outward migration while ALL of our neighbors are seeing an influx of people.

RGF recommends tax reform (including eliminating New Mexico’s income tax), education reform including school choice AND the Mississippi model, all while keeping New Mexico’s oil and gas flowing.

On this week’s Tipping Point conversation. Paul and Wally discuss the fact that Bernalillo County WILL consider public campaign financing at August 11 meeting (a vote will be held that night although if adopted it will wind up on local ballots in November).

Football stadiums are good enough for the world cup, but not NM United and Lobos.

LNG exports are bringing trillions of dollars to US economy (as we predicted).

RGF has provided and encourages YOU to provide public comment against the current, arbitrary Chaco Canyon buffer.

Trump plans to impose 50% tariffs on various Canadian goods using tariff language from the Smoot-Hawley days.

Former Las Cruces Mayor Ken Miyagishima endorses Gregg Hull for Gov. Also, according to KOB 4, a televised debate between the two WILL happen.