The following article ran in Santa Fe New Mexican.

Five years ago on March 11, 2020, New Mexicans’ lives changed dramatically. Gov. MLG issued the first of what would wind up being dozens of emergency health orders relating to COVID 19. It is hard to believe it has been five years now. It is also hard to believe that New Mexico’s Legislature (even with Democrats in charge) has done NOTHING to reform New Mexico’s excessively broad public health emergency laws. But MLG liked the power of an “emergency” and subsequently used New Mexico’s broad “emergency” powers to further consolidate power (by essentially banning guns in Bernalillo County, for example). This power grab was recently ratified by New Mexico’s Supreme Court.

MLG’s lockdowns failed (as we believed they would at the time).

• Despite some of the strictest lockdowns in the nation New Mexico’s COVID death rate was 3rd highest in the nation.
• Masks, social distancing, “outdoor” dining, forcing New Mexicans to wait outside to buy groceries, vaccine mandates, and numerous other schemes were simply made up on the spot with no scientific data to back them up.
• Numerous businesses closed for good and crime and homelessness skyrocketed especially in our cities.
• Perhaps the biggest negative impact of MLG’s lockdowns was their impact on New Mexico school children who have now compiled the worst scores in the nation on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in both 2022 and 2024.

We are pleased to report that HB 417 which would have raised alcohol taxes dramatically, is dead for the session. The bill was itself a compromise between two “progressive” factions in the House  and it got caught up with further disagreement over various provisions that seemed to “ruin” the compromise and resulted in the bill being killed on a 6-6 basis in the House Taxation Committee on Monday, March 10.

We certainly hope and expect that the concept of raising taxes on alcohol is dead for the session, BUT there is always the possibility that something relating to alcohol tax hikes could be included in the final tax package that is (unfortunately) negotiated behind closed doors. This was done just last year. This is one of MANY aspects of the process in Santa Fe that is anti-democratic and anti-good government. We’ll be keeping an eye out when that tax package becomes public in a few days.

Of course, it is worth noting that if Democrats WANTED to dedicate alcohol taxes to treatment to address our State’s alcohol problems they’d likely have nearly unanimous bipartisan support for THAT. Instead they want to pair allocation of the funds with a major tax hike.

The name of HB 11 has changed. It is now the: “Welcome Child and Family Wellness Leave Act” (formerly Paid Family and Medical Leave). But, the bill is up for a hearing on Saturday in the Senate Tax, Business & Transportation committee. You can find details on the hearing including a link to testify online here. 

The bill remains seriously problematic, especially in terms of future solvency and tax increases and possible budget implications. It  now provides 6 weeks per year, except for welcome child leave, which allows for up to 12 weeks.

The revised bill ADDS a $3,000 welcome child refund, to be paid to one of the child’s parents each month for the three months immediately following the birth or adoption of the child for a total of $9,000.

This bill remains an expensive and dangerous tax hike on New Mexicans and New Mexico businesses. Here are the members of the committee along with their office numbers and emails and priority for contacting them. This is a committee that COULD kill this harmful bill. The main Roundhouse switchboard number is 505-986-4300 the extension is listed under office number:

As thoroughly documented and explained by Albuquerque Journal reporter Dan Boyd New Mexico’s Supreme Court affirmed the legality of Gov. Lujan Grisham’s public emergency orders which involved her overturning the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution (without so much as a legislative vote). The emergency ALSO targeted drug use, but the Gov.’s declaration primarily eliminated the ability to conceal OR open carry a gun in Bernalillo County. Thus, MLG (and the Supreme Court by ratifying her actions) are directly attempting to overturn the US Constitution by executive fiat.

Sadly, despite repeated efforts since the start of the COVID 19 pandemic and the Gov.’s first public emergency declaration on March 11, 2020, efforts by GOP legislators (and assisted by RGF) to reform New Mexico’s public emergency laws by giving the Legislature a “seat at the table” have been fruitless. A bill that would reform New Mexico’s public emergency laws has been introduced in the past by Republican House member Greg Nibert (now a PRC commissioner) and has been introduced (HB 535 as well as  an amendment HJR 21) by Republican House members Stephanie Lord and John Block only to be left unheard as the session is now two weeks from its conclusion.

Sadly, whether the issue is EV mandates imposed (without legislative input) by MLG or her abuse of emergency orders, New Mexico’s Democrats utterly refuse to stand up to this Gov. and assert their rightful powers. Even anti-gun activist David Hogg stated clearly that the Gov. was acting illegally. Does this mean New Mexico’s Democrat Supreme Court is to the left of Hogg on guns?

This morning in the House Energy Committee HB 270 was heard. The bill would have overturned the Gov.’s 43% EV mandate (set to take effect later this year) and would remove the authority of the Environment Department (NMED), the Environmental Improvement Board, local boards and entities, and counties and municipalities from adopting or enforcing similar rules.

A robust and informative debate took place, but sadly NO Democrat was willing to buck the hard-left of their party and support the freedom of New Mexicans to purchase the vehicle of their choice (of course they’d also be standing up for the Legislature to enact such sweeping laws as opposed to the Gov.).

But, Democrat Reps. McQueen, Sariñana, Abeyta, Meredith Dixon, Yanira Gurrola, and Miguel Garcia all refused to support the legislation.

RGF has been a leading voice in support of both federal and state efforts to restrain and reform Medicaid spending. Of course, with New Mexico’s massive budget surpluses driven by oil and gas we have ALSO supported all manner of efforts to reform New Mexico’s unnecessarily high tax burden and return money to New Mexicans.

Sadly, New Mexico’s Senate just passed SB 88 (unanimously) which sets up a $2 billion “permanent fund” (in part) to keep New Mexico’s Medicaid program afloat if the Trump Administration cuts Medicaid funding. This is DEEPLY unfortunate.

Medicaid is in desperate need of reform. Ideally, the federal government would block grant Medicaid to the states. Whatever happens to Medicaid in the near future, the LAST thing that anyone, let alone Republicans in New Mexico, need to do is to create a fund that sucks up money and helps New Mexico maintain its bloated Medicaid rolls.

RGF had a chance to testify in the Legislature on Tuesday, March 4, before the Energy Committee in the House.

We spoke against SB 23 which, if adopted, will raise “royalty rates” on oil extracted from certain state managed tracts of oil and gas rich land in Southeast New Mexico. The bill barely made it through the committee on a 5-4 vote (a few Democrats were absent). The RGF sees tax hikes as unnecessary (and told the Committee as much) because New Mexico already gets the highest percentage of revenue from oil and gas extraction of any state.  This is thanks to other taxes besides royalties such as the gross receipts tax.

Also, New Mexico is sitting on $61 billion and massive annual budget surpluses thanks to oil and gas. Little of this money is being returned to taxpayers. Instead it is either funding future or current government spending.

A second bill, HB 273 was introduced by Rep. Randall Pettigrew (R-Hobbs). Pettigrew’s bill would add “combined cycle natural gas plants” to the stable of “renewable” energy sources under the 2019 Energy Transition Act. Testimony, was, but a vote was not taken. That will presumably happen on Thursday. The ETA never made sense in the absence of the use of natural gas which is MUCH cleaner and a 50-60% lower source of CO2 relative to coal. Of course, natural gas is cheap and expected to be so for a long time and it is produced right here in New Mexico.

Needless to say, so-called “environmentalists”: HATE the bill.

Another bill was scheduled but not heard. HB 270 would have repealed the Gov.’s EV mandate and prohibited unelected boards like the unelected Environmental Improvement Board from passing such mandates.

On this week’s conversation Paul and Wally discuss the latest on the newly renamed paid leave bill and other issues in the Legislature.

How are things looking in terms of the Freedom Index?

Paul recently wrote a blog post that was picked up by the Santa Fe New Mexican that the process in Santa Fe stinks.

MLG plans a special session to deal with Trump cuts, but Medicaid is in dire need of reform. What does it all mean?

Paul will be discussing tax reform at an event this weekend w/ AFP. If you have a chance to come out on Saturday Paul will talk state taxes and there will be a separate presentation on the Trump tax cuts.

President Trump and his Administration are taking a hatchet to unnecessary government spending in Washington. This effort was clearly going to have an impact on New Mexico which (according to USA Facts) is the 2nd-most federally dependent state in the nation. To that end, Gov. Lujan Grisham has ALREADY stated that she plans to call a special session to address federal cuts, particularly to the Medicaid program.

The President is 100% correct to target Medicaid for cuts. For example, New Mexico plans to increase Medicaid spending in the FY 2026 budget alone by “$3.3 billion to $15.5 billion, a 27% jump” according to this recent AP article. The federal government picks up approximately 72% of New Mexico’s Medicaid budget while the State’s share is about 28%.

This federal subsidy has led to New Mexico politicians to “scam” Medicaid for many years. For example, in 2024 New Mexico adopted the “Health Care Delivery and Access Act.” Under the law, “The state law will assess a tax on hospitals — a larger tax on big hospitals — pool it, leverage those funds for a federal Medicaid match, then bring about $1.5 billion in total funding back to New Mexico to provide sustainable reimbursement to our state’s hospitals.” In other words, by manipulating the Medicaid formula the State of New Mexico will fleece taxpayers in the other 49 states out of $1.5 billion.

It is no surprise given New Mexico’s political inclinations that the State would have a positively huge Medicaid population. Indeed, according to the Legislative Finance Committee 47% of the State’s population is on Medicaid. Other analyses place New Mexico as the highest Medicaid receiving state in the nation. But some in the Legislature would like to expand Medicaid eligibility in New Mexico even more. The health care benefits of massive Medicaid spending are

It is time for the Trump Administration to prevent states like New Mexico from misusing the Medicaid system to take advantage of taxpayers in other states. If that means New Mexico using a portion of its massive oil and gas budget surpluses to pay for Medicaid at least New Mexico won’t be fleecing taxpayers in other states (as badly).

Data for the following chart can be found here and here and in the AP article mentioned above (here). The $15.5 billion figure for FY 2026 is an estimate taken from the AP article. 

After being the stumbling block for Paid Family and Medical Leave in 2024 the New Mexico House passed a somewhat scaled back but potentially insolvent plan (HB 11) on Friday afternoon. While a thorough financial analysis is still lacking the LFC’s analysts found that the “high” and “moderate” update scenarios would result in deficits (see page 6). In other words, the tax hikes contained in the bill are only the start under the most likely scenarios and that is barring some kind of negative stock market shock since the funds collected will be invested in the stock market.

The vote board is below and this bill will be scored “-8” in the Foundation’s Freedom Index.

On this week’s interview Paul sits down with attorney, activist, and author Ilya Shapiro. Shapiro worked at the libertarian Cato Institute for more than a decade and attempted a career change to Georgetown Law School. Sadly, a factually accurate but “controversial” post on social media got him into hot water and caused nationwide controversy including at Georgetown Law. The dustup caused Ilya to look elsewhere for employment and also resulted in his new book “Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites.” You don’t want to miss this informative conversation!

Under its current leadership the Rio Grande Foundation has been involved in the Legislature for many years. there have long been serious problems with the process, but those problems seem to be getting worse. These legislative processes used in Santa Fe hinder public involvement in the process and leave legislators uninformed about the impact the bills being considered in Santa Fe will have on citizens.

Whether this is by design or not, it is important to understand that the public is not really welcomed to the process.

Here’s the situation:

Committee chairs are clearly under pressure from leadership to move bills along as quickly as possible. Among their tactics is dramatically limiting public comment. Repeatedly and in nearly ALL committees on very controversial bills, Democrat committee chairs often limit comment to a handful of individuals or a very limited time period. This is the case whether the testimony is being done in person or online.

• More than once the chair has limited testimony to “the first 10 people” in line at the microphone or some number. One committee chair on HB 11 (paid leave) limited testimony to 10 people after seeing 42 hands raised in opposition setting off a dramatic and potentially dangerous rush to the microphone. Imagine being elderly or disabled and traveling to Santa Fe to testify on a bill only to be literally outrun by younger participants.
• In addition to limited numbers testimony is often limited to as little as one minute.
• Zoom testimony is both limited AND participants are ignored. While Zoom testimony is one of the best things to happen to the legislative process in Santa Fe, being on the call on time and raising your “Zoom” hand to testify but never being recognized. Zoom testimony is also extremely limited on the most important bills.
• Bills are shifted around the calendar. You’d think with all of the time limits and efforts to move the process along that bills would be heard in a relatively timely fashion in a manner that respects the time of those who travel to Santa Fe to participate in the democratic process. Sadly, bills are continuously “rolled” to the next meeting and meeting times are changed at the last second.

These are just a few of the significant issues relating to the process for people who attempt to testify in Santa Fe. The rules are set by the majority party. If the Democrats who have run Santa Fe for decades actually care about “democracy,” they need to act to solve some of these process to really serve the people of New Mexico.

Originally placed in Los Alamos Daily Post. By Paul Gessing, President, Rio Grande Foundation.

New Mexico’s Legislature continues to meet in Santa Fe. Sadly, it continues along the same trajectory it has been on in recent years where the government spending grows while also keeping more of our money and (often) adding an ever-increasing number of taxes for us to pay.

For starters, the House recently passed a budget that increases spending across all areas of New Mexico government. An amendment was offered by Republicans to rebate a portion of the money ($600 each) to average New Mexicans. The plan was rejected by Democrats.

That’s by no means the only plan offered in Santa Fe to reduce burdens on New Mexico families. I had the opportunity to present expert testimony on HB 275 which would have eliminated New Mexico’s personal income tax. Nine other states have no income tax. Two states (Alaska and New Hampshire) have no income or sales tax. Having no income tax would instantly make New Mexico competitive with other states for investment, business relocation, and economic growth.

Sadly, plan after plan to return some portion of New Mexico’s current budget surpluses has been rejected by Democrats in the Legislature. This, despite New Mexico having $13.5 billion in general fund revenues with the House-passed budget totaling “only” $10.8 billion.

Clearly, New Mexico has plenty of money, but where is it going? Aside from 6 percent spending growth this year and 70% growth since Michelle Lujan Grisham took office, the State is simply hoarding cash. According to a recent article in the Santa Fe New Mexican the State Investment Council now has a mind-blowing $61 billion under its management.

This may seem like a good thing, but it isn’t.

For starters, New Mexico has plenty of serious problems that could be addressed by returning some of this money to taxpayers. The State’s economy is widely known to be too dependent on oil and gas revenues. New Mexico’s population is among the poorest states in the nation with nearly half its citizens on Medicaid.

New Mexico also has a rapidly aging population that has not grown much (especially relative to its neighbors) for years. This is unique in the fast-growing American southwest which is home to some of the fastest-growing states in the nation. Clearly it is driven by public policy decisions out of Santa Fe.

Specifically, one of the bills that seems likely to become law this session is HB 417. The bill would impose a new “point of sale” tax on alcohol of 6% on top of numerous other taxes. The bill is being pitched as a way to reduce the harms of alcohol abuse, but it was amended in committee to exempt New Mexico brewers, distillers, and winemakers. Exempting in-state producers from a tax increase that is supposed to reduce alcohol abuse makes no sense.

Many bills moving in the 2025 legislative session would impose further taxes on New Mexico individuals and businesses at a time of unprecedented prosperity (and spending) for the State.

At the Rio Grande Foundation we support the oil and gas industry and think it will continue to supply jobs and tax revenues to New Mexicans for decades to come. But if you believe that oil and gas are on their way to irrelevancy, shouldn’t we use these revenues to diversify our economy now?

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, a research and educational organization dedicated to limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

For more than a decade the Rio Grande Foundation has rated bills in the New Mexico Legislature based on their impacts on constitutional freedoms, tax burdens, education choice, regulations, whether they are pro/anti-energy, and numerous other factors relating to whether they make New Mexicans freer or less free. You can find the full Freedom Index here. Click on the votes of individual legislators. Votes are happening every single day of the session, so these numbers are changing and will wind up very different by the end of the 2025 session which will be on March 22nd (and can’t come soon enough).

You can find out which legislators are yours (you’ll have one in the House and one in the Senate). If you see specific votes that you disagree with, please consider sending an email to your legislator. 

Here is a screenshot of what the Freedom Index looks like. You can click on it to go to the Index itself:

Paul and Wally share the latest from the Roundhouse. Paid Family Leave is revised and heading for the House floor. HB 417 a revised alcohol tax of 6% has passed through the House Tax Committee on partisan lines.

Free speech is under attack in Santa Fe: In a bit of good news SB 4 (net zero) was tabled in the Senate Finance Committee.

RGF’s president had an article in National Review about the disaster that would be Deb Haaland as Gov. of New Mexico. Former Las Cruces Mayor may run for Gov. He says he’s “do things 90% differently than MLG.” Will changes to New Mexico voting law impact this race? Paul and Wally discuss.

Despite numerous dire challenges facing New Mexico the Legislature has no solutions besides shoveling money into various “permanent funds.” New Mexico now has $61 billion under SIC control.

Another fabulous Trever cartoon highlights (just some) of the good bills that get no love from the hyper “progressives” in Santa Fe. Sadly, plenty of bad bills ARE moving quickly.

The event is all about tax reform at both the federal and state levels. RGF’s President Paul Gessing will be discussing how to reform New Mexico’s tax code given the fact that the State has massive budget surpluses. What can be done to improve New Mexico’s tax structure? How should we think about taxes and tax reform? Are there realistic solutions given New Mexico’s status as a “blue” state?

Additional discussion will take place involving the Trump Tax Cuts, their economic importance, and what New Mexicans can do to get them done!

It is being put on by Americans for Prosperity New Mexico. Details below:

Date: Saturday March 8th.

Time: 11:30 a.m.-1:30 pm.

Location: 3339 Central Ave SE suite G, Albuquerque, NM 87106

This is a Protect Prosperity Event sponsored by Americans for Prosperity.

Enjoy a delicious catered lunch.

* RSVP to Bobbi Curtis @ 505-385-5564 by March 6.

HB 476 is another in a long line of bad ideas that have been put forth in legislation during the 2025 session here in New Mexico. Thankfully, to date, it has received little interest, but that could easily change in the 2nd half of the legislative session.

This bill would prohibit interchange fees on electronic payment transactions in New Mexico. Thus, the State of New Mexico would be in charge of controlling the price of operating a credit card network – risking higher costs for consumers in a time of continued inflation.

The bill mirrors federal attempts to impose price controls on operating credit card networks (these have been opposed by the Rio Grande Foundation). Analyses of federal bills, such as the federal Credit Card Competition Act, consistently find that consumers will not benefit from future savings under these policies. A report from the Government Accountability Office, for instance, stated that if similar regulations that apply to debit cards “had not been implemented, 65 percent of noninterest checking accounts offered by covered banks would have been
free.” Additional regulation on credit interchange will affect fees and interest in the credit market, thus increasing costs for consumers.

Additionally, a Federal court partially granted an injunction to banks in an Illinois case which held that the state prohibition on interchange fees applies to Illinois chartered financial institutions, but not other banks. While state-chartered institutions received no injunctive relief, larger banks managed to successfully argue against interchange fee regulation. States that pass analogous laws will only hurt local banks chartered within their borders while leaving larger financial institutions with an unfair
advantage.

Price controls levied on interchange fees are diametrically opposed to free market principles. All legislators should oppose such laws and any attempt at price controls for credit cards.
Under HB 476, the government would insert itself into this functioning system and try to make one party bear the full burden of the costs of operating a card network by preventing payment processors from applying the usual interchange fee to the full amount of a transaction. Like every government attempt to control the market, there will be unintended consequences. If processors are forced to create new systems, software, and even new equipment, costs for small businesses and consumers in New Mexico

would rise. These added costs will be placed on the processing system, merchants will pass them down to consumers, and everyone will lose.

Schrödinger’s Cat is a famous thought experiment that demonstrates the idea in quantum physics that tiny particles can be in two states at once until they’re observed. What does that have to do with public policy in New Mexico? Simple, yesterday the New Mexico House voted to pass a $10.8 billion budget. Republicans attempted to reduce spending somewhat while offering $600 rebates to ALL New Mexicans. While we would rather have permanent tax cuts rebates are superior to keeping ALL the money in government coffers or spending it.

The kicker is that Democrats claimed (as reported by the ABQ Journal) that rebates were a violation of the State’s anti-donation clause.

That’s laughable because Democrats are CURRENTLY pushing for $3,000 payments to new parents under HB 11. Not to mention the fact that Democrats have given New Mexicans rebates during both the Lujan Grisham and Richardson administrations. Now, rebates are suddenly against the law?

Instead of helping New Mexicans with a small portion of New Mexico’s amazing oil-and-gas largesse we are now told that the State is sitting on a mind-blowing $61 BILLION under control of the State Investment Council alone. Awhile back on the pages of National Review we noted that New Mexico is a rich state with poor people. This session is only reinforcing that reality.

The Albuquerque Journal’s John Trever remains the best political cartoonist New Mexico has ever seen and his latest cartoon from Sunday’s paper is no exception. The following illustrates how New Mexico’s Legislature consistently kills off good policy ideas for no apparent reason. Of course, the electorate continues to accept/embrace the same bad policies pushed by so-called “progressives.”

Trever could have easily added several bills including school choice or education accountability, spending restraint and reducing government waste, limiting the Gov.’s “emergency” powers, and preserving traditional/affordable energy (to name just a few).

SB 4 would destroy New Mexico’s economy if it becomes law. It would impose “net-zero” policies on New Mexico’s economy ending the State’s oil and gas industry and pretty much ever aspect of New Mexico’s economy, thus making the state a complete economic basket case. If you don’t think “net zero” will have a profound, negative impact on New Mexico, check out this from energy expert Robert Bryce who recently was in London where “net zero” is the law of the land:

The letter RGF signed is below. Read the full text by clicking here or on the letter:

Paul recently sat down with Americans for Prosperity’s new state director for New Mexico Sarah Hetemi.They discuss what AFP does and is doing here in New Mexico especially during the ongoing legislative session (and how you can help) as well as what their plans are nationally in terms of issues like the Trump tax cuts and education choice. Paul and Sarah then move on to discuss Sarah’s personal journey from Norway to Alaska and now to New Mexico.

AFP is one of the Rio Grande Foundation’s most important partner organizations. You don’t want to miss this conversation!