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.

Our friends at Reason just released an interesting report dealing with various school enrollment data. Long story short, New Mexico (not just Albuquerque Public Schools) is seeing declines in enrollment. Specifically, New Mexico’s school enrollment declined by 7.3% (the 5th steepest decline) between 2019 and 2014. Births in New Mexico dropped 11.9%, a worse decline than any state except Vermont, Wyoming, and Alaska.

Net domestic migration dropped as well, but international migration was significant.

What can New Mexico do to keep more young people? Several of the top performing states in terms of a growing youth population (Florida, South Dakota, and Texas) have a zero income tax. Economic growth drives population shifts.

On Saturday, July 18, OAK NM (a project of the Rio Grande Foundation) tabled at the Family Festival sponsored by the New Mexico Family Action Movement. The event was a big success with families stopping by all afternoon to play ping pong toss, receive school supplies, and learn about the work OAK is doing to bring school choice to New Mexico. Specifically, we shared the fact that Congress has created a $1,700 tax credit for school choice. Whether New Mexico will participate or not is up to Gov. Lujan Grisham.

Thanks to Jodi Hendricks and the NMFAM team for putting on a great event! If you want to send the Gov. a note in support of the federal school choice program, click here. 

As if New Mexico’s $850 million unforeseen revenue surplus weren’t enough, the Iran War is back “on” and gas prices are on the rise again having jumped from about $65 a barrel a few weeks ago to close to $85 a barrel. This means the pain at the pump (and for the economy) is not over, but it also means that the $850 million “extra” that New Mexico collected in oil and gas revenues due to that war is going to grow closer to $1 billion or even more when all is said and done.

While we support bipartisan calls for reducing/eliminating the personal income tax that is going to be a task for the 2027 Legislature and new Governor. NOW is the time for a special session to provide impactful rebates ($500 or more, not $250) to New Mexico families. New Mexico’s financial position continues to grow stronger at the expense of average New Mexicans who are facing higher costs.

The comment period is open from now until July 29, 2026. Submit your comment by clicking here today.

Acting arbitrarily, the Biden Administration, led by Deb Haaland (who is running for Governor) adopted a 10 mile moratorium AROUND Chaco Canyon in 2023. The moratorium would prevent any development in the 336,400 acres surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

While New Mexico’s leftist-dominated political establishment has repeatedly claimed that overturning the buffer would “destroy” Chaco Canyon, the reality is that this  buffer was imposed very recently and with no scientific justification. Also, contrary to what is often portrayed, the Native community in the area OPPOSES the buffer and protested Deb Haaland when she came to the region to celebrate it.  

The following is the Rio Grande Foundation’s comment:

As president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a non-partisan, free market public policy research think tank based in Albuquerque, I urge you to undo the 10 mile “buffer zone” around Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Simply put, there has never been a scientific justification for the 20 mile barrier. Rather, the buffer seems to be based on the preferences of radical environmental groups that want NO oil and gas (or mineral development) anywhere near Chaco Canyon or anywhere else.

Preventing development on the 336,404 acres near Chaco Culture National Historical Park would negatively impact Navajo leaseholders and New Mexico’s economy as a whole. Simply put, the moratorium is based on the political preferences of well heeled “environmentalist” advocacy groups, not the best interests of average New Mexicans or Native groups that have economic interests in the area.

The Bureau should make decisions based on science, not simple politics. If science shows that a 2 or 5 mile buffer zone is the best decision for protecting Chaco Culture National Historical Park then it would be simple to do that in the future, but any and all buffer zones should be based on science, not politics.

No one is “drilling” Chaco. New Mexico’s political leadership are quite simply lying about the situation. This is a buffer zone AROUND the Park. I strongly encourage the Bureau to eliminate the current 10 mile buffer zone.

The first 20-30 seconds of this video (which I have conveniently set up to start at the 7:20 mark) are taken along Route 66 which turns 100 years old this year. A foreign couple has come to visit and let’s just say they probably aren’t going to tell their friends to visit “Burque.” They specifically check out this mural with the silly “Burque” image, can’t quite seem to figure out how to pronounce the strange contraction, and then discover human feces all over the sign and area around the sign.

Fresh off of that misadventure they walk down the street (also Central) and hear screams which cause them to adopt the mantra “don’t make eye contact.”

Just another day in Tim Keller’s Albuquerque. Free buses, sure, hand out “free” money to some, and waste millions on a bike path, but heaven forbid you make the sign look nice and clean off the poo.

On this week’s Tipping Point interview Paul sits down with Erica Ramirez, New Mexico native and Independent Women’s Network spokeswoman. They discuss the crisis in New Mexico’s schools—especially the issue of pushing gender ideology on kids, why the organization is active in New Mexico, a recent Supreme Court decision on the issue, and more.

At the Rio Grande Foundation we have talked a fair amount over the years about the potential economic benefits of the US exporting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). While New Mexico’s booming production is a very big part of that equation and many economic benefits and a great deal of money has flowed to the Land of Enchantment, this is truly a boom for the entire nation.

A new S&P Global Energy study (as reported by Reuters) estimates that US liquefied natural gas exports could contribute $1.4 trillion to US GDP through 2040 and rank as the country’s second-largest net export industry within five years.

The industry is expected to attract more than $1 trillion in investment across the supply chain and generate $2.9 trillion in revenue, $206 billion in tax receipts and nearly $630 billion in labor income through 2040.

U.S. ​LNG can account ​for a ⁠third of the global market in five years, it added.

The US LNG export boom is beneficial to other nations as well. Prices in Europe ​and Asia could jump by 50% if ​the ⁠new U.S. export capacity is not realized, the study predicted.

It added that U.S. LNG exports could help ⁠stabilize ​domestic markets during peak demand, ​while infrastructure constraints remain the main driver of regional price volatility.
 

If you’ve watched any of the World Cup soccer tournament you may have noticed that all of the games being played on US territory are in NFL football stadiums. Some of these stadiums have turf while some of them don’t, but that’s not the point.

What IS the point is that due to a judge’s opinion the New Mexico United stadium MAY be built at Balloon Fiesta Park after it looked like the project would instead be built at the fairgrounds.  We don’t really care WHERE the stadium is to be built because we don’t think the team needs a NEW stadium at all. The same can be said for the UNM Lobos football team which have seen a lot of talk over a potential new stadium as well. Both stadiums will be costing predominantly state taxpayer dollars.

The Lobos play just 6 home games this year.  The United play a few dozen. Why not build or revamp ONE grass stadium for both teams? If the World Cup, the VERY highest level of soccer can be played in a stadium used by the Dallas Cowboys, Atlanta Falcons, and San Francisco 49ers, can’t the Lobos and United share one nice stadium?