An article, backed up by a San Francisco Federal Reserve working paper claims that the massive shift in recent decades from colder climates to warmer places in the Sun Belt is reversing itself due to climate change. That seems to be a stretch based on Census Bureau data showing that 6 of the 10 fastest-growing states last year would be considered “southern.” 

If true, the shift back to the Rust Belt and other northern states would have profound implications for American politics and the economy. However, as the Yahoo Finance article about the report notes:

Southern states might still be gaining population for reasons other than weather. Some have no state income taxes and friendly regulatory policies that draw businesses and workers. Elon Musk, for instance, recently said he’s relocating the headquarters for his companies Tesla (TSLA) and Space X from California to Texas. Labor unions are less entrenched in the South, which has drawn many foreign automakers and other types of manufacturers.

Anyone who knows anything about New Mexico would agree with that. Virtually AL of New Mexico has plenty of sun. We also have warm places like Las Cruces and cooler ones like Santa Fe. New Mexico should be one of the best places to be, right?

What we don’t have is a strong economy (or a good education system and low crime). So, perhaps the issue all along that has prevented New Mexico from taking off is actually our bad policies and not the inherent attributes of our State?

Regardless of climate change I think the most economically-free states and counties will do just fine. Perhaps more interesting is that Americans just aren’t moving as much as they used to? 

Ford Motor Company had a very tough day on July 25, 2024 when it announced its earnings had plummeted by 35% due to the company’s EV losses. The company which is attempting to move to manufacturing electric vehicles (per mandates pushed by the Biden Administration, the State of California, and other states including New Mexico). Unfortunately, the shift to EV’s is not going well for Ford and their stock price plummeted over 18% today alone.

While New Mexico doesn’t have any Ford manufacturing facilities that doesn’t mean that EV’s financial challenges won’t impact average New Mexicans. It and other auto companies will have to shift costs from those money-losing EV’s onto the backs of the rest of us who buy and drive gas powered vehicles. Of course, this is just one of many ways in which the costs of EV’s are shifted onto the backs of taxpayers and consumers alike.

Taxpayer-financed charging stations, a lack of taxes levied for road repairs on EV’s, generous tax credits for EV’s, and numerous other subsidies hidden and not are going to take money out of YOUR pocket to pay for EV’s because they are inferior technology (in most cases) and consumers won’t buy them willingly at market prices.

The Gov. and Legislature are clearly not on the same page when it comes to adopting changes to New Mexico laws relating to crime. Democrats who have overwhelming majorities in both houses were completely opposed to what the Gov. attempted in the special session and thus essentially scuttled the whole thing. For her part the Gov. says she may bring the Legislature back for ANOTHER special session.

There are numerous issues here including the Gov. largely ignoring crime (and GOP solutions to it) for her first 6 years in office, but I want to focus more broadly on crime because the causes of crime are more complicated than just passing more laws in Santa Fe. For starters, the Gov. needs to lean on Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller to enforce existing laws on crime. She could also nominate “tough on crime” judges to the bench. That’s not my conclusion, rather, that’s the conclusion of the Legislative Finance Committee which recently published a 37 page report on crime in Bernalillo County

Among the report’s findings was that “the criminal justice system in Bernalillo County has an accountability gap where arrests,
criminal convictions, and prison admissions do not keep pace with trends in criminal activity.” Duh. Anyone who lives in (mostly Albuquerque, not the County) recognizes that laws are not enforced, police don’t show up, and judges give light sentences of dismiss crimes in the first place.

But, there are even broader solutions that may take years to fully take effect, but will do more than laws to address New Mexico’s crime issues. They are: getting people (especially young men) into the work force and (of course) improving our education system. Here is a paragraph from an April 2024 LFC report:

If the Gov. really wants to address crime, she needs to propose and push legislative ideas that would improve New Mexico’s abysmal workforce participation rate. Republicans and Democrats will undoubtedly have different ideas for solving New Mexico’s workforce participation issues, but it is time to put that issue on the agenda in a serious way if we’re really going to address crime.

But, that would require the Gov. to ALSO have a serious discussion about New Mexico’s failing education system and its outsized role in failing New Mexico children. Sadly, MLG has expressed little interest in tackling education reform which would be unpopular with her union base. Instead she’s spent a great deal of time and energy attempting to force relatively successful rural districts to adopt 5 day school weeks.

Fresh off yet another 50th ranking in the annual Kids Count report and the left-wing Voices for Children’s attempt to pawn the results off as being due to the “poor performance of minorities on standardized tests,” another report, this one from Wallethub, gives New Mexico poor marks for child outcomes.

Unlike Kids Count, Wallethub ranks New Mexico “just” 49th beating out Louisiana, but overall it is not good news. New Mexico has large numbers of “disconnected youth.” As the time-chart map shows below that means 18-24 year olds not attending school or working.

Given New Mexico’s education shortcomings it is not a surprise that we have the highest percentage of youth without a high school diploma. What is somewhat shocking is that while New Mexico’s overall obesity rate is relatively low, the rate for youth is 4th-highest in the nation. The reasons for this are undoubtedly complicated, but MLG’s harsh COVID lockdowns cannot be dismissed as a cause.

Check out what Wallethub’s analysts had to say about New Mexico here:

The Rio Grande Foundation recently hosted Corey DeAngelis for a series of events in New Mexico. DeAngelis is one of the most prominent voices for private school choice in the nation, and at events located in Albuquerque and Alamogordo, he discussed the shortcomings of government-operated educational systems and the strategic methods of the left used to gain control of America’s schools.

DeAngelis’ solution to our failed education system is outlined in his new book, “The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools.” Among other things, the book dives into the effects of COVID on our education system and how private school choice is rapidly spreading across America in response. The book is not only an informational resource for parents all over the United States, but a tool that equips them to fight back against the left’s constant push for ideological dominance. Under the phrase “fund students, not systems,” Corey DeAngelis is helping lead the charge in private school choice.

The COVID shutdown highlighted the tremendous control teacher unions have over our schools. Even as students fell more and more behind, unions continued to protest any notion of schools reopening, prioritizing “science” over students despite studies that proved schools were a low-risk environment. The National Assessment of Educational Progress taken in 2022 showed that test scores had fallen back to 1990 levels, yet unions ignored the growing disparity in student’s abilities. Their actions made it clear that they care little for students, but rather focus on making the system more beneficial for themselves.

By controlling educational systems, political progressives can efficiently spread their ideology and churn out more Democratic voters, making it in their best interest to create a system where parents have very little liberty to put their children into schools not controlled by the government. President Biden has even said: “There is no such thing as someone else’s child,” a frightening statement that neatly sums up the left’s beliefs.

Private school choice, on the other hand, allows for educational tax dollars that would be spent in a public school to be allocated to families looking to send their child elsewhere. That money is put into an ESA, or Educational Savings Account, giving parents more financial freedom to choose a school for their kids and determine what their child is learning, instead of a faceless government official. Parental involvement in their child’s education is an ideology that acts in direct opposition to the separation of parent and child that the left fights for, which should raise concern among parents.

Private school choice also encourages public schools to perform at a higher level, since it evens the playing field and makes for greater competition between schools. Parents, now having more options, will naturally choose better performing schools over others. Basic economics dictates that competition encourages innovation, so not only does private school choice help families, but also helps schools improve the quality of their education. Sadly, unions and so-called progressives will continue to fight against private school choice because it limits their power over students; but despite their protests, the movement continues to grow.

In just three years, 12 states have adopted universal private school choice: Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Utah, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, Iowa, and Arkansas. In Arizona alone, 80,000 families have signed up for ESAs. The short time frame and large number of states passing these policies makes for a massive victory for private school choice, and other states are close to joining the list. Private school choice is an effective response against the constant push for dominance in education by the left, and funding students is a far more beneficial alternative to funding systems.

The latest edition of Kids Count provides more devastating news about New Mexico and the condition of our children. The report, created by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (a center/left non-profit that works nationwide) analyzes and ranks all 50 states based on 16 variables relating to childhood outcomes.

Surprising absolutely no one, New Mexico again was at the very bottom at 50^th overall. I analyzed the report and counted 7 variables that improved, 7 that got worse, and 2 that stayed the same relative to last year’s report. Based on this it is hard to point to any trend line pointing towards improvement.

That’s a problem for New Mexico’s left-wing politicians like Gov. Lujan Grisham, a majority in our Legislature, and the vast network of organizations that reflexively support big government schemes as the path to improving conditions for New Mexico kids.

For decades New Mexico has struggled to provide good outcomes for children. For decades we were told that New Mexico is a “poor” state and that if only we poured more money into government pre-K, K-12, and numerous other taxpayer-funded programs that improvement would come.

But, for the last decade the money to improve New Mexico has been available thanks to record-setting growth in oil and gas production. Despite massive spending growth in education and the creation of taxpayer-funded universal pre-K, our kids still face the worst outcomes nationwide.

If you cannot blame a lack of funding or failure of government programs to “move the needle” for our kids, what do you do instead? If you are New Mexico Voices for Children you blame “racist” standardized tests! In response to New Mexico’s poor performance on Kids Count, the organization wrote,

“New Mexico’s ranking in the education domain is heavily impacted by national standardized test scores, including fourth grade reading proficiency,” said Emily Wildau, KIDS COUNT Coordinator at New Mexico Voices for Children. “Reading proficiency is critical for students to succeed academically and as adults. These scores do not reflect the ability of our children, but rather an education system that is not designed with our multicultural, multilingual students in mind.”

Set aside the fact that standardized tests only account for two of the 16 variables contained in the Kids Count report. Also set aside that numerous other states with large minority populations outperform New Mexico (Texas and Maryland are two) or (like Mississippi) are showing dramatic improvement on Kids Count and other education performance indicators.

It isn’t just our education system that has failed to “move the needle” on difficult challenges facing New Mexico children. A December 2023 Legislative Finance Committee report found that “In FY23, New Mexico spent over $10.1 billion of state and federal funds on income support programs – $2.6 billion more than in FY19. Over the same time, poverty levels have remained stubbornly high with poverty rates staying around 18 percent.”

Rather than pursuing the failed government-driven model of more spending and more programs, New Mexico needs to change direction. Adopting educational choice costs nothing while empowering families to make the education decisions that work best for them. And, of course, with the massive budget surpluses available to them the Legislature and Gov. could and should embrace tax reforms and other policies that would diversify New Mexico’s economy and get more people involved in the best anti-poverty program we know of, a job.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

Sen. Heinrich and Rep. Vasquez BOTH told Biden to step aside before the weekend. That is simply worth noting as they are in competitive races and had the most to lose from a Biden disaster in the election. Biden said a “health issue” might cause him to withdraw. Then he came down with COVID.

Biden did this over X via a letter without a press conference. Biden hasn’t even been seen on TV or in public. Why?

If Biden is unfit to run for office is he really fit to be president for the next 6 months through January of 2025?

Who will Democrats choose to be their candidate? Who will be the VP?

Does the Democratic Party have any credibility at this point given their propping up Biden whose mental capacity had clearly deteriorated until it was exposed at the debate?

Will they choose immediately or go to the convention? Will replacing Biden be an open or closed process?

How are Democrats credible as defenders of “democracy” when Kamala Harris has never one a single delegate in a national primary?

Will Trump debate Kamala Harris? Should he?

Is Harris legitimate? Will she be seen as such by Republicans IF she were to win? Will Democrats and independent voters go for this or completely abandon democratic principles?

Is this a new way for the parties to game the system? What if the situation were reversed party/candidate-wise? Would the media or Democrats accept a Republican withdrawing at the last minute from the presidential race if their polling was bad?

Is Biden the worst president in American history or is Woodrow Wilson even worse?

A report from Learner.com ranks US states on education spending. But, it doesn’t stop with K-12 spending. Rather, they also include higher education. New Mexico has “free” college, but it has ALWAYS spent a great deal on higher education. Plus, due to a failing K-12 system New Mexico’s higher education system also needs to engage in remedial education.

New Mexico is ranked 4th-highest with a total-spend of $45,717 per-student. All of this spending has done little for New Mexico’s workforce readiness.  This report from the Department of Workforce Solutions highlights many of New Mexico’s issues which include low workforce participation rates.

Regardless of the merits of each of the bills and whether New Mexico’s crime challenges can be solved by passing more laws (as opposed to enforcing them) New Mexico’s GOP legislators were able to position themselves as “willing to work” with Gov. Lujan Grisham on crime. And, as she made clear in her post-session statement Gov. Lujan Grisham placed blame for the session’s failure (rightly) squarely at the feet of Democrats who control the Legislature.

Among other strongly-worded points, MLG wrote, “The legislature as a body walked away from their most important responsibility: keeping New Mexicans safe. But it is noteworthy that a majority of Republicans would have passed many or all of these bills — they were blocked.”

Does this mean thawing relations with the GOP or that MLG is might be willing to push some moderate GOP priorities (like GRT reform or tax cuts)? It is doubtful. But, with just months to go in the campaign, it would seem that GOP legislative campaigns have a ripe political issue in the form of the Democratic Party’s inaction on crime.

Two interesting aspects of the situation:

1. Gov. Lujan Grisham has had six years in office to address crime issues and make them a priority. Why call a special session NOW?
2. The Gov. and her allies have spent six years (including the 2024 Democratic primaries) working to make New Mexico’s Legislature as “progressive” as possible. But it is these very “progressives” (including Speaker Javier Martinez and Majority Leader Wirth) who remain unwilling to address crime. With the Democrats having moved even further to the political left in June (thanks to MLG’s efforts) how does she expect to get action on crime?

The case of the recent, failed assassination of former President Donald Trump is only the latest case of government incompetence. We don’t know ALL the details yet, but the mere idea that a shooter could gain access to such a nearby location from which to carry out a shooting is nothing short of inexcusable. Does the “Buck” stop at Director Kimberly Cheatle or not? So far, it seems not.

Ironically, in their recent debate Trump took Biden to task in their debate for not firing people saying:

“that the president should have fired the military leaders who were involved (in the disastrous 2021 withdrawal debacle.”

“No general got fired for the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country, in Afghanistan,” Trump said. “He doesn’t fire people. He never fired people.”

Even more troubling is the fact that as it enters (potentially) its last 6 months in office, the Biden Administration is attempting to make it MORE difficult to fire federal government workers. Of course there is the border situation and don’t get us started about Dr. Fauci and the federal health establishment!

And the trend certainly is not limited to the Biden Administration. Here in New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham certainly hasn’t held state government accountable (sadly, neither have voters). Our education system is 52nd nationally, crime is out of control, and of course there’s COVID and New Mexico’s awful performance. Yet, no one is fired.

We should ALL demand more from government employees (and the politicians who put them in their jobs). Firing people for doing their job poorly is not easy or fun, but it is part of running a good organization. Rather than having an entitlement mentality when it comes to a government job, government employees should truly live up to the title “public servant.” It is time to make firing government employees common again.

Paul went out of town for one of the momentous two week periods in American history.  The debate was a disaster for Biden. An assassination attempt against Trump. JD Vance was named his VP pick, Biden appears to be staying in the presidential race. Also, the Secret Service received a massive black eye due to their incompetence (which will be analyzed further in the weeks ahead). Where does all this leave us here in New Mexico?

The Congressional SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship to vote. Democrats including Gabe Vasquez and NM’s other Democrats voted no.

The special session kicks off on Thursday. Progressives and liberal Democrats are NOT happy. What is being discussed in the session? Are these policies concerning? Will they be effective in addressing crime? What should Republicans say and do about the session?

PNM has asked the PRC for a 23% rate increase to pay for ETA

Everything the left doesn’t like is a “power grab.” Specifically, we’re talking about the left’s reaction to some basic election related changes to City of Albuquerque elections.

Paul and Wally also provide an update on the status of election changes.

Las Cruces voters will vote on a massive tax hike this fall. 

Recently the Albuquerque Journal had an article discussing the need for a new contractor at the West Side homeless shelter. The article included one noteworthy line which we have highlighted below. According to it on June 20, 2024 the West Side shelter had 170 open beds. Now, thanks to a recent US Supreme Court decision cities are confirmed nationwide to be allowed to clear “homeless” off public rights-of-way and parks and other public spaces.

Sadly, Mayor Keller has never been serious about getting the “homeless” out of these public spaces. But, clearly, the problem is NOT a lack of beds.

This week’s podcast is a recent talk in Albuquerque given by Corey DeAngelis. Corey is one of the most prominent and effective advocates for school choice. He is also the author of the new book  “Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining our Schools.” Corey visited Albuquerque and Alamogordo to discuss his book and the growing movement for school choice on June 17, 2024.

In what can only be described as a “tone deaf” move the Las Cruces City Council this week adopted a proposed ballot measure (to appear on City voters’ ballots this November) to decide whether to increase the City’s gross receipts tax rate by .5625% from the current rate of 8.0625% to 8.625%. Las Cruces’ GRT is already higher than either Albuquerque’s or Rio Rancho’s. More pressing is the fact that the proposed GRT increase would (if adopted) put Las Cruces’ rate above that of El Paso (which has a sales tax rate of 8.25%). 

Albuquerque’s rate is 7.6250%

Santa Fe’s is: 8.1875%

Rio Rancho is: 7.4375%

The Gross Receipts Tax is a “regressive” tax which hits the poor hardest.

It is also hard to justify such a tax when the State has been piling up multi billion dollar surpluses every year but inflation has hit New Mexicans’ bottom lines. 

Considering that Las Cruces currently taxes its citizens at 1.5625% (the state rate is 5.0% while the County is 1.5%) we are talking about a 36% tax increase for Las Cruces government. That is a massive and unnecessary blow at a time of record state budget surpluses.

The Gov. has declared a special session of the Legislature which will kick off on September 18. There are many reasons to complain about this on both sides of the aisle (too many complicated issues and no agreement on them and taking precious time out of the campaign calendar). Republicans and Democrats have both complained.

But, it is so-called “progressives” and their special interest groups who are most adamantly opposed to a special session. They a “who’s who” of those philosophically opposed to addressing crime because they are typical “soft on crime” liberals. For too long the Gov. and Democrats in the Legislature have ignored Albuquerque’s (and our State’s) serious crime issues in favor of policies that allow and encourage crime. It’s not JUST the Legislature and Gov. Judges need to be called out and electorally targeted and Mayor Keller and his policies along with the DOJ need to be addressed as well.

So, what’s my advice to the GOP which doesn’t have much in the way of real power unless the Gov. is willing to really put the heat on the Democrat-controlled Legislature (this may be happening)? Simple:

1) Stop the bellyaching (at least in public) about having a special session.

2) State clearly that where there is common ground on the issues, the GOP is willing to work with the Gov. (where there is not, make the case why).

3) IF “progressive” Democrats in the Legislature refuse to act, make sure to call them on it as we head into November.

Darren White, former Bernalillo County sheriff, agrees that lawmakers should get tougher on felons committing gun crimes, telling @KOAT it “could go a long way to getting the worst of the worst off of our streets.”

This Can’t Wait. Tell lawmakers to act.https://t.co/Nr895tS9S7

— Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (@GovMLG) July 3, 2024

One of the great joys (and frustrations) of running the Rio Grande Foundation is laughing at environmental advocates who make audacious (and very non-specific) claims about “transitioning” from oil and gas to some other basis for New Mexico’s economy (not to mention the world’s energy demands).

The latest contestant in this game is Thomas Singer of the Western Environmental Law Center writing in the Albuquerque Journal. Singer (with degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and George Washington) accurately notes that New Mexico is poorly run (he fails to mention that it has been “progressive” Democrats for decades) and too reliant on oil and gas, but his path to wean New Mexico off of oil and gas is laughable.

His “solutions include” some unspecified recommendations of the “Sustainable Economy Task Force.”

Using state funds to leverage Inflation Reduction Act funds.

“Diversify and strengthen our state’s revenue base away from its current dependence on volatile, boom-and-bust oil and gas” with zero specifics.

Eliminating supposed tax subsidies to oil and gas (again, undefined and there are real questions as to what actual “subsidies” are given to oil and gas.

The problem for these leftists is that REAL solutions to diversifying New Mexico’s economy are politically-unpalatable to the political left which is populated by so-called environmentalists like Singer. New Mexico COULD use its oil and gas wealth (including massive permanent funds) to reduce taxes and bring new businesses to the State, embrace educational choice to improve our lagging workforce, and embrace “right to work” and other necessary, pro-free market labor reforms.

Sadly, the only thing more unrealistic than the so-called “energy transition” is the willingness of New Mexico’s left to reduce their control over New Mexico’s economy.

As we’ve said from its inception back in 2019, the Energy Transition Act is going to reduce reliability and increase electricity prices. According to news reports PNM has requested rate increases totaling 23% from 2025 to 2026. According to the ABQ Journal article, “many of the costs associated with PNM’s new proposal are focused on infrastructure needed for a state-required renewable energy transition.”

This is hardly a surprise. The Energy Transition Act’s demand for ever-increasing amounts of “renewable” electricity are unrealistic and simply won’t happen despite reassurances to the contrary.

A recent report from Wallethub ranked New Mexico as having the 2nd-least expensive electricity bills in the nation. But, that is a function of our favorable climate, not low electricity prices. New Mexico’s per-KWh electricity prices are neither among the 10 cheapest nor are they among the 10 most expensive.  New Mexico is by no means the ONLY state to have embraced anti-energy policies. California is among the states with the highest electricity prices (thanks to their “green” energy policies). Just give New Mexico time.

Dale Dekker is unquestionably a pillar of our community. He is actively involved in numerous aspects of public policy and attempting to boost New Mexico and the local economy. His recent opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal asks a lot of questions about which direction New Mexico will go.

Sadly, New Mexico is NOT in need of more planning on the part of chambers of commerce or politicians. We simply need to “do the thing.” That thing is to make New Mexico an attractive destination for jobs, capital, and economic activity. Politicians have done a lousy job (not just here in New Mexico, but nationally) of picking winners and losers. But, the Spaceport, Maxeon Solar (whose stock has tanked as their business model has been questioned), and numerous other government-driven economic development schemes have failed and will continue to fail.

Dekker and others who seriously want economic development need to realize that the current political leadership of New Mexico cares about maintaining power, not improving our State. If New Mexicans want a better education system, better economy, and less crime they have to vote differently.

With the weakness of Joe Biden in recent poll numbers and ALL of New Mexico’s 112 legislative seats up for election, November’s election will truly determine whether New Mexico follows the status quo or develops an abundance and prosperity mindset.

Calling the policy “without reason or logic,” a judge has overturned the Biden Administration’s “pause” on permits for liquefied natural gas. The decision comes just in time to force the Biden Administration’s hand on what could be the nation’s largest export terminal for liquefied natural gas which recently won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Administration. 

RGF has recently called Biden’s ban “absurd” so it sounds like the federal judge was of the same mindset. We don’t know exactly what the next move will be for the Biden Administration since he’s not exactly known for following the rule of law, but this is a good move by the judge and will help the US economy, reduce CO2 emissions and will help our allies wean themselves off of Russian oil.

There’s no question that President Trump absolutely obliterated Joe Biden in their recent debate. Considering the failed nature of Biden’s presidency there were many opportunities for Trump to attack Biden’s record on a whole host of issues. But, Trump was arguably the very best president in American history (certainly relative to his modern peers) on energy issues. It would have been nice to see Trump “flex” some very big

1. policy differences between him and the current President. Biden’s Liquefied Natural Gas bans. Had he to do it over again, I’d have loved for Trump to turn the “climate crisis” question asked by the moderators back on Biden by touting liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and how Biden is actually hurting climate change efforts by limiting exports. Biden will have another opportunity to act (either in favor or against LNG) again soon.
2. Trump ALSO missed an opportunity to point out how Biden’s EV mandates are unpopular, unworkable, expensive, and not all that great for the environment. 

The US Supreme Court spends much of June handing down decisions. Overall the Court with its 6-3 majority reflecting “conservative” judicial principals did pretty well and some of the Court’s biggest decisions could have profound, positive impacts on American society and the rule of law (not to mention the economy).

Unfortunately, the first decision to consider, Murthy v. Missouri is probably their worst decision. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but on a 6-3 basis said the plaintiffs lacked “standing.” I don’t know if anyone who HAS standing can get a similar case to the Court, but this decision will allow the US government to continue bullying and cajoling social media companies to limit or eliminate speech the government doesn’t like. It is hard to see how this doesn’t violate the 1st amendment, but the Court seemed to struggle with where to draw the line in limiting government contact with social media companies.

The Court overturned Johnson v. Grants Pass. The original decision had declared that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause to arrest people for sleeping on public property (like parks and sidewalks), unless the government had sufficient space in its own homeless shelters to house them. There is no right to housing in the US Constitution and this seems like an easy one, but it was “only” a 6-3 decision in favor of sanity.

The Keller Administration in Albuquerque has cited the overturned decision as a reason it cannot enforce laws against the “homeless” camping in public spaces. Hopefully this moves them and other cities toward enforcement.

The most important case of all may just be Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce which essentially overturns so-called Chevron Deference. Chevron Deference meant that regulatory agencies (part of the executive branch) could essentially write laws on their own by broadly interpreting laws passed by Congress in ways that apply to issues that were never even considered by Congress when the laws passed.

Congress will no longer be able to dump the majority of “legislating” on federal agencies, but will instead have to pass detailed and clear regulations. Of course many in Congress would prefer to avoid having to take that responsibility.

The following was a write up by RGF Policy Analyst Gabriel Higbie relating to the NM Environment Department’s Clean Transportation Fuel Standard Advisory Group. He is attending these weekly meetings and providing details on this site. Here are his comments on the first meeting.

June 21^st marked the first Advisory Committee Meeting discussing the regulations that will accompany the implementation of House Bill 41, a Clean Transportation Fuel Act passed by legislation on March 5^th, 2024. The bill makes New Mexico the fourth state to pass a Clean Fuel Act after California, Oregon, and Washington, and calls for the Environmental Department to create a program that achieves significant carbon emissions reduction in New Mexico. The Committee established two benchmarks for the program: a 20% CO2 reduction in comparison to 2018 levels by 2030, and an unstated, further reduction by 2040. Following the Advisory Committee Meetings, the Environmental Improvement Board will conduct public and tribal engagement, giving the people of NM an important opportunity to voice their opinions on the subject.

Efforts by the Environmental Department are being led by Claudia Borchert, a climate change policy coordinator, while the Committee itself is comprised of 30 members with experience in clean fuel, environmental policy, and oil and gas who will assist in rule development.

After the rule making process, the EIB will host a hearing and finalize a decision, with the hopes of implementing the Clean Fuel program by Spring of 2025. The team’s economist, Michael Ford, spoke briefly about incentivizing the use of biofuels with a credit system based on California’s energy credit model, which would “reward” citizens for making the transition to clean energy and save them money on their energy bills.

Taos Ski Valley, represented by Matthew Weyer, presented their plan to reduce carbon emissions and preserve the environment, but admitted that the technology to do so was limited, and purchasing biofuels was costly and inefficient for the company. The resort proposed using RD-99 as a replacement fuel for their machines, but due to its ineffectiveness in cold weather and high price – $8.50 per gallon – their goal of significantly reducing CO2 emissions seems to be hindered by the lack of technology available.

Towards the end of the meeting, it became evident that the 2018 carbon emission levels had not even been clearly defined, meaning that there will be no clear starting point or way of measuring progress. The lack of simple information necessary for success already hints that the program might be ill-equipped to make a positive difference.

It is important to remember the importance of Oil and Gas in New Mexico, and despite the NM government’s distaste for the industry it continues to play a vital role in our economy. The regulations imposed by House Bill 41 will likely have a vast impact on the Oil and Gas industry, and we encourage the committee to consider New Mexico’s economic prosperity in addition to reducing carbon emissions.

On this week’s Tipping Point conversation Paul sits down with former Congresswoman and current candidate for Congress Yvette Herrell. We discuss the fires that recently burned in Ruidoso and her work to reform federal lands policies. We also discuss the economy and various issues from free trade to inflation. Don’t miss this important conversation!

Democrats all over New Mexico are BIG MAD that City Council has voted to allow voters to decide whether to end expensive runoff elections in City elections. As a quick refresher Republican RJ Berry won the Mayor’s race in 2009 with 44% of the vote. He won in part because two Democrats split the vote. As soon as they had their chance, Democrats got a ballot measure passed by voters in 2013 to create a system of runoff elections to determine the ultimate winner in a two-way race.

On a 6-3 vote City Council just voted to put a measure on the ballot to allow voters to choose to go back to the prior system. The Mayor will veto that, but if all 6 remain committed to the idea, it will be voted on. From the way Democrats (and not just those in City government) are acting, it would seem that Donald Trump had been installed as Supreme Leader of Albuquerque for life.

State Sen. Bill Tallman decried the idea as a “power grab.” Of course, Tallman has been silent on MLG’s numerous actual power grabs (as have other Democrats) including: her abuse of emergency powers during COVID, her use of an unelected body to force us to drive electric vehicles, her plan to force school districts to adopt 5-day school weeks (despite bipartisan legislative opposition), and her attempt to nullify the 2nd Amendment in Bernalillo County.

In reality, Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver recently gave away the game for Albuquerque Democrats. They don’t want voters to be vote in November on shifting election requirements UNTIL THEY have the votes to push for convoluted and non-transparent “ranked choice” voting.

As I wrote in an op-ed recently, runoff elections are expensive and usually wind up with far fewer voters participating to the point that (even with fewer candidates in the race) the winner gets fewer votes in a runoff than they did in a four-way race. The left wants to keep its power. Anything else is a “power grab” to them.