Laws supporting good government in New Mexico are few, far between, and often ignored or ineffective. One of the few provisions in New Mexico law that are meant to protect taxpayers and the public from ill-advised government policy is the “anti-donation clause.” The idea was placed in New Mexico’s Constitution due to abuses between politicians and the railroads which received large tracts of state-held land to lure them to New Mexico (and other states).

The clause has been weakened in recent years, but we are currently in litigation over the clause and whether the Albuquerque City Council can donate OUR money to a private interest (Planned Parenthood). We believe the answer is “no.” We’d love to see it harder for New Mexico governments to donate OUR tax dollars to private entities (especially for supposed “economic development” which is of course why we have an anti-donation clause in the first place).

What changes are in store? We don’t know yet. Here’s an article from the Santa Fe New Mexican outlining the plans albeit with few specifics.

Will recreational vehicle sales be prohibited in New Mexico by 2027? That’s what the industry is saying (thanks to New Mexico following California’s “clean car standard.” The ban in California could start as soon as January 1, 2025. Read articles directly from the RV industry about the issue here and here. There is also a map showing the states (including New Mexico) that plan to follow California’s ban on RV sales below.

The good news is as follows:

1. New Mexico will be able to see what happens in California and a handful of other states (in red below) as soon as this January before our ban is implemented.
2. There is a very real possibility that President Trump will eliminate or alter California’s broad authority to dictate the sale of electric vehicles (and the ability of other states like New Mexico to follow California’s policies).

Tom Clifford has an extensive background in taxation and fiscal matters for New Mexico. He was Cabinet Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration in the Martinez Administration, Tax Policy Director at Taxation and Revenue Department, and Economist at Taxation and Revenue Department, Department of Finance and Administration, and the Legislative Finance Committee.

Tom and Paul discuss the issues affecting taxation in New Mexico, discuss some strategies to improve the economy of the state through tax policy as well management of the large permanent funds that exist in New Mexico.

As the Albuquerque Journal reports MLG’s favorite solar panel manufacturing company Maxeon has finally announced their plans for a manufacturing facility in Albuquerque. But, they’re NOT breaking ground at a new facility at Mesa del Sol. Instead, they are moving into the former Honeywell facility.

Whether the move is a win for MLG or New Mexico is an open question, but the move takes Maxeon from a proposed a brand new 1.9 million-square-foot facility down to just a 110,000 square foot facility. That’s a shrinking of their New Mexico footprint by nearly 95% (a number which approaches the steep decline in the company’s stock price). Will the generosity of New Mexico’s massive taxpayer subsidies shrink with their shrinking footprint?

Despite the recent election of President Trump Maxeon’s stock price has rebounded slightly in recent weeks which is likely related to the company’s dramatic changes in management and focus.

NM House speaker says “Trump Could Learn from NM”: how’s that?

MLG claims New Mexico’s child poverty rate dropped from50th to a ranking of 17th. What’s the REAL story?

NM’s stark decline in public school enrollment is set to accelerate. .

Economic ignorance of those “leading” New Mexico is a real problem.

The US Constitution should be amended to keep the Court at 9members. 

Heritage Foundation finds New Mexico election integrity ranked 36th.

MLG’s symposium on transportation omits the dominant transportation technology and other important issues.

NM State auditor finds numerous instances of wasteful spending at WNMU.

The front page of the Albuquerque Journal has an article highlighting the potential for the Legislature to adopt “Medicaid Forward” in the 2025 legislative session. Most of the article is glowing in its reporting on the potential for yet another expansion of government dependency in New Mexico. The idea behind Medicaid Forward is to allow New Mexicans above the 200% federal poverty thresh hold to receive Medicaid.

The estimated cost of the plan is $88 million, but we know this is a lowball number based on past experience. Even more importantly, New Mexico is ALREADY massively dependent on Medicaid whether you take the data from World Population Review or New Mexico’s own Legislative Finance Committee’s slightly higher 47% estimate. Vast numbers of New Mexicans are on government welfare and that hasn’t done much for our outcomes (health or otherwise).

Further expanding Medicaid is yet another way to fritter away the State’s oil and gas surplus. Hopefully the Trump Administration prevents this and perhaps reforms Medicaid to make it less costly as well.

New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham recently went on leftist cable TV channel MSNBC to make her opposition to the Trump Administration crystal clear (use the link to watch the full 10 minute interview). There were two interesting items:

1. MLG claimed that “New Mexico went from 50th in child poverty to 17th.” No such improvement happened. As we have written, New Mexico’s “improvement” in child poverty is driven by the use of a different data set (the Census Bureau’s “supplemental” poverty measure). Volumes have been written about the myriad issues with this “supplemental” measure. We don’t take a position on whether the traditional or supplemental is better but MLG is being her usual disingenuous self in claiming this massive improvement in child poverty (especially when ALL other reports show New Mexico to be NOT doing a good job with child outcomes). You can read an article here that is VERY sympathetic to the Gov. that explains what is happening.

2. It is both hilarious and a sign of the media’s extreme bias (especially MSNBC) that they would include New Mexico’s Gov. as an “expert” on education policy considering New Mexico’s worst-in-the-nation outcomes and ongoing failure. The idea of eliminating the Department of Education (as Trump is considering) is certainly worth looking at (MLG’s protests not withstanding). The Department has done nothing to improve New Mexico’s education outcomes in New Mexico or anywhere else. But, it is laughable to value MLG’s opinions on an issue where she has failed so miserably.

The Albuquerque Journal recently had an article about the impending return of Trump to the White House. The interviewed numerous New Mexico politicians including Speaker Javier Martinez. Needless to say there is going to be a lot of back-and-forth between Trump’s Republican Administration and New Mexico’s left wing politicians.

But what REALLY stuck with me is the following quote from Speaker Martinez:

The hubris of a politician who has a real position of power in a State that is last in education, highest in poverty, has one of the highest crime rates, and is almost entirely dependent economically on a combination of oil and gas and federal spending takes “cajones” to say the least. New Mexico is blessed in many ways: weather, vistas, natural resources, and cultures (to name a few), but governance is most definitely where New Mexico is weakest (and among the weakest in the nation). In fact Wallethub places New Mexico 3rd-worst in return on investment despite the fact that our tax burdens are kept (relatively) low thanks to the aforementioned oil and gas revenues.

Perhaps Speaker Martinez and the rest of New Mexico’s Democrats should go to Washington to meet and learn from Trump? The following images are from the annual Kids Count report of the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

RGF has for years been raising concerns about the State’s rapidly-aging population and declining youth population. There have always been challenges like: the State’s high poverty, poor education system, crime, lack of jobs or a diversified economy, and more.

But in recent years another issue of concern has cropped up and that’s the “birth dearth” that has seen a decline in babies being born both in the US and in many other industrialized countries. The issue (along with New Mexico’s manifest education failures) has already caused public school enrollment in New Mexico to plummet.  But you haven’t seen anything yet. With an accelerating trend toward fewer births, New Mexico’s population of young people is about to plummet even faster.

The following charts use data from the National Center for Education Statistics.

The first shows that while New Mexico’s public school enrollment peaked at nearly 340,000 it has declined somewhat since then, but is projected to decline far more quickly as we head to 2031.

Using the same data, New Mexico’s projected decline in public school enrollment is expected to be far greater than the national average of 5.5%. It is worse than all other states besides California and Hawaii. New Mexico’s student enrollment decline far outpaces any of its neighbors. The youth are New Mexico’s future. If you think that things in New Mexico are going well, this should disabuse you of the notion.

New Mexico is hemorrhaging young people DESPITE “free” statewide pre-K and “free” college.

KRQE Channel 13 recently did a podcast on the State’s declining population. It is worth a listen below:

On this week’s interview Paul talks to Carol Gessing. Not only is Carol his mother, but Carol worked the two weeks of early voting this fall as well as over the summer during the primaries. They discuss the various jobs of election officials at polling places, the processes used to verify the accuracy of the elections and other issues involved in conducting New Mexico’s elections. Carol lived in Ohio and has some comparisons with the way things work in that state as compared to NM.

The US Supreme Court has been under attack in recent years (almost entirely from the left). Efforts have been undertaken (during the Biden Administration) to increase the number of justices. A simple constitutional amendment would lock in nine justices on the Nation’s highest court.

Check out and sign the petition here. If we need more justices in the future for some reason we can always change the number, but politically-motivated court packing shouldn’t be a constant threat from one side of the aisle that wants to transform the court for their own purposes.

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver loves to tout the State’s high ranking in one national report. You can find their metrics here. Having looked at them, they are wanting and don’t really study the integrity of elections, but just basic processes.

The Heritage Foundation on the other hand has a far more relevant index that ranks states based on what we truly care about which is election integrity. In that index New Mexico scores a mediocre 36th. It’s not as bad as some really bad states, but it is nowhere near the top. What does Heritage look at?

They consider whether states have voter ID, accurate voter lists, don’t allow ballot harvesting, and manage absentee ballots effectively. It is a much more relevant to the concerns of voters in both parties than the MIT report referenced by the SoS.

You can click the image below to check out the Heritage Foundation Election Integrity Scorecard. FYI: Tennessee is the top performing state while Hawaii is worst.

Check out this opinion piece from Democratic Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth. It is the height of economic ignorance as it depends corporate income taxes on the grounds that they take on “out of state corporations.” (His piece is a response to this from Tom Clifford and Richard Anklam)

While opinions can differ regarding which taxes to cut in New Mexico, Wirth doesn’t focus on ANY tax cuts. He simply asserts that keeping the job-killing corporate income tax (which raises just $325 million annually) in place makes economic sense. New Mexico has had massive budget surpluses (thanks to oil and gas) in recent years, but has done nearly nothing to reform/improve its tax structure.  This leaves New Mexico as the poorest state in the nation while the State has grown MORE dependent on the left’s hated oil and gas industry.

As the Cato Institute notes:

Economists Christina and David Romer (who once served in the Obama Administration) found that a $1 tax increase in the United States has historically decreased GDP by about $3. Entin notes that widely accepted estimates of labor’s share of output imply that labor pays about $2 of the total economic cost or 200 percent of the $1 tax increase. Corporate income taxes are even more economically damaging than the average result from Romer and Romer, which lumps many types of tax increases together.

Would reducing or eliminating New Mexico’s corporate income tax be the BEST tax reform for the Legislature to enact right now? Economists believe it would do a lot of good at a low cost to the treasury. But so would reform of the GRT. So would cutting or even eliminating New Mexico’s personal income tax.  Sadly, Wirth is emblematic of a Legislature that prioritizes attacking businesses and productive taxpayers, not growing the economic pie and diversifying New Mexico’s economy.

The Tax Foundation notes that “Many economists, including those at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), agree that the corporate income tax is one of the most harmful and least efficient ways to fund our priorities.” Check out their brief explainer video below:

New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham isn’t giving up on her EV agenda in the wake of Trump’s presidential win (and the likelihood that Trump will abandon the left’s push for EV’s). EV sales in New Mexico currently account for less than 5% of overall vehicle sales, but they are MLG’s top priority regardless. That clearly shows in the agenda for her recent “Symposium on the Future of Transportation in New Mexico”

The first three panels were as follows: Grid Modernization & Resilience, Charging Network & EV Infrastructure, Electrification of Transportation Fleets.

Other panels included a useful panel on procurement and then two which claim to address various aspects of “climate change.”

What about New Mexico’s deteriorating roads and infrastructure? Should New Mexico be taxing EV’s a a means of generating revenue for road maintenance? What about the costly and carbon spewing Rail Runner and its future? What about the existing technologies like the internal combustion engine and how it is continuously being improved to be cleaner?  What about hydrogen vehicles and other non-electric cars?

Nope. Nothing on any of that. Just more obsession with EV’s and “climate change.” Next time you drive over a pot hole or are stuck in traffic, blame MLG.

The following short video of Chris Wright Trump’s nominee for Energy Secretary is a great synopsis of the way the Trump Administration sees energy policy and the case for energy freedom and prosperity. The Agency which Wright will lead has a massive impact in New Mexico with our two national labs (Sandia and Los Alamos) under its jurisdiction.

Here’s to the pro-energy shift in Washington.

WOW: Chris Wright, President Trump’s nominee for Energy Secretary, dispels the “climate change” propaganda with straightforward facts and common sense.

Restoring American energy dominance is a key to prosperity for *all* of us.pic.twitter.com/Owk0JzBRyT

— John Strand (@JohnStrandUSA) November 18, 2024

For over a decade New Mexico has received a waiver from the federal government that has allowed able-bodied adults without children to continue receiving food stamps (SNAP benefits) whether they worked or not. Due to falling unemployment rates in some areas, residents of Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Eddy and Los Alamos counties along with San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Santa Clara and Laguna pueblos will no longer be exempted from the requirement that people who are 18 and 54 years old, single and don’t have dependents now have to prove they’re working at least 80 hours a month to keep getting SNAP benefits.

Getting people to enter the work force when they are of prime working age and don’t have kids and are living in an area of the state that has low unemployment is as minimal a requirement as one can imagine for the 11,939 who fit into the categories outlined above. Nonetheless, left-wing activist are opposed to even this work requirement.

As the Rio Grande Foundation and LFC have noted, New Mexico has a poor workforce participation rate. Getting New Mexicans to work would go a long way to solving many of our State’s most serious problems. It is simply outrageous that able-bodied working age adults without children are not expected to work a mere 80 hours a month to receive SNAP benefits (regardless of where they live).

President elect Trump is often portrayed by his Democratic opponents as being a downright Hitlerian figure. Among other things Hitler was known to be quite vindictive towards his enemies. In his first term Trump was hardly vindictive at all, most notably in his behavior towards Hillary Clinton. Will that change in his 2nd term?

Trump owes “deep blue” New Mexico nothing. We have no Republicans in any position of significant power for him to be concerned about.  And, when Trump came to town for a rally, our Gov., Land Commissioner, and Mayor of our largest city (Keller) all conspired in an attempt to prevent the speech from happening (at least smoothly).

If Trump DOES decide to punish his enemies, New Mexico could be in trouble. The State is consistently ranked among the most dependent on federal spending. It is also the only state (California is sort of an exception) with national nuclear labs. Dozens of sanctuary cities are found throughout New Mexico. Trump has already stated that he’ll take on these cities. Could he withhold federal funds in some way?

Trump seems much more serious about restraining spending than he was in his first term. He could specifically target New Mexico while ALSO reducing government spending. Will he?

On this week’s interview Paul sits down with Daniel Turner the Founder and Executive Director of Power the Future, a pro-energy activism organization that works nationally and in New Mexico. Paul and Daniel discuss the role energy issues played in the 2024 election and why New Mexico failed to embrace pro-energy, reform-minded candidates. Also they discuss what Trump will do on energy issues in the near future and over his four years in office as well as where things are headed in New Mexico.

Don’t miss this thoughtful, forward-looking conversation!

New Mexico has not implemented, but HAS adopted (as of the 2024 legislative session) a California-style “clean fuel standard.” A RGF analysis found that (contrary to statements by the MLG Administration) the fuel standard will dramatically increase gas prices paid by New Mexicans.

Well, California just revised its “clean fuel standard” to make it more stringent in terms of its CO2 reduction benefits and, guess what? According to a report by Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, the State’s gas prices are expected to increase by 65-cent per gallon under the revised standards. Furthermore, the report notes that “If LCFS credit prices reach their maximum allowed levels, as has occurred in the past, then retail gasoline price impacts could be $0.65 per gallon in the near term, $0.85 per gallon by 2030, and nearly $1.50 per gallon by 2035.”

The GOOD news for New Mexicans is that even the initial round of cost increases has not occurred yet. We haven’t heard plans (yet) to follow California in further increasing our standard and therefore our gas prices. This DID Happen with New Mexico’s EV mandates which ALSO follow California as that state further increased its EV mandate so did New Mexico. This is one to keep an eye on.

On this week’s conversation Paul and Wally discuss the election results. Specifically each of them made predictions about the election and potential outcomes. How did they do?

Ultimately this conversation wraps up the election outcomes and looks forward to some big issues and races looming in the months and years ahead for the United States and New Mexico alike.

While New Mexico’s Democrats mourn the results of the 2024 elections nationally, we at the Rio Grande Foundation are frustrated that a majority of New Mexicans seem to have doubled-down on the State’s poor performance economically, educationally, not to mention crime and the loss of numerous young people to other states.

When voters continue to send far left legislators and governors to Santa Fe (especially when oil and gas money is flowing freely) it is going to be difficult to stop the myriad bad ideas that are pushed regularly in the Legislature. That said, with all of the oil and gas money available, even our leftist Legislature MAY decide to offer a bit of relief to taxpayers. We don’t expect gross receipts tax reform. We don’t expect big tax tax cuts (and we do expect tax cuts to be paired with tax hikes). So, here’s what we’ll be working on this session:

1. Maximizing the benefit and size of tax cuts while minimizing/eliminating tax hikes;
2. We want to lock in gross receipts tax elimination for medical providers (the current exemption sunsets in 2028) and further improve New Mexico as a destination for medical professionals.
3. Stopping economically-harmful paid family and medical leave. There are ways to make this economically-benign, but not the bill pushed in the 2024 session (or prior years);
4. Baby bonds are not the worst idea, but they need work. We plan to engage on this issue and raise concerns if the idea goes “off the rails.”
5. Oil and gas setbacks are a terrible idea lacking in scientific backing. If adopted the LFC says they’d cost New Mexico $800 million annually for years to come.
6. It looks like criminal justice and crime fighting will be discussed (perhaps not in ways that will be effective). We plan to engage in that debate in support of ideas that will positively impact crime issues;
7.  Any effort to reduce regulatory burdens will help New Mexico’s economy. One bipartisan idea is known as “regulatory sandboxes.” This idea was introduced by Democrats in 2023. We hope such an idea will gain traction in the 2025 session.

On this week’s interview Paul talks to Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation is a prominent center/right taxpayer research organization based in Washington, DC. They often testify in New Mexico’s Legislature on issues relating to taxation. They also have a new State Tax Competitiveness Index. New Mexico ranks 31st which isn’t at the bottom, but isn’t great either. Paul and Jared discuss the Index, its findings and implications for tax policy, which states perform well and poorly and why, and what New Mexico policymakers should do to make New Mexico more competitive with other states.

You don’t want to miss this fascinating conversation!

Shocking RGF and many others, New Mexico largely stayed the same politically after the November election. Republicans (seem to) have picked up one house and one senate seat each, but given overwhelming numbers in Santa Fe that won’t affect Democrats much. Trump gained in overall vote totals while winning both the popular vote and the election, but lost New Mexico. Yvette Herrell lost by thousands more votes than she did in 2022 and the other races for Congress weren’t competitive.

All bonds passed, judges were retained, and Las Cruces voters even adopted a gross receipts tax hike. Judging by these results, New Mexicans aren’t just happy with the Democratic Party’s dominance, but are happy with its dramatic moves to the political left in recent years (including this one).

So, MLG will serve out her next to years in office as a “lame duck.” Paid Family Leave will undoubtedly be on the agenda and stopping it will be even more difficult than before. A modest tax cut will be on the table (possibly to the GRT), but other tax hikes will likely be considered as will more gun control. The State budget will likely remain flush (unless planned Trump’s massive oil and gas production increases have a massive, negative impact on prices).

It will be a tough two years at the Roundhouse, but MLG has already enacted most of her agenda thanks to a friendly Legislature. What will she do next? Will she actually continue to push anti-crime legislation (much to the chagrin of her party)? Only time will tell.

Will ANYTHING move New Mexico to the right? Democrats seem to be moving towards Deb Haaland as the next candidate for Gov. Will the Republicans have a credible candidate to oppose her in two years?

The following appeared in the Santa Fe New Mexican on Saturday, November 2nd, 2024.

The City of Española, at the behest of Mayor John Ramon Vigil, will soon consider adopting a ban on plastic bags like those used at grocery stores. While proponents of such bans typically support them on environmental grounds (cut down on plastic waste etc.) the Mayor seems to believe that banning plastic grocery bags will have a positive impact on the City’s litter problems.

According to the website Plastics Paradox, “A compilation of all of the statistically-based, scientific studies of litter in the U.S. and Canada over an 18 year period shows consistently that “plastic bags” (which includes trash bags, grocery bags, retail bags and dry cleaning bags) make up a very small portion of litter, usually less than 1%.” Banning plastic grocery bags will not impact litter issues in Española.

The first step toward solving the litter problem is educating the public on the harms of littering. While you may or may not like the new “Breaking Bad” themed litter campaign put forth by the Gov., it is the first major public initiative on litter in years. It is a step in the right direction.

But educating the public will only get you so far. The Mayor is correct that the so-called “homeless” who often occupy road medians and other public spaces are some of the biggest culprits. Enforcing laws against both littering and the occupation of public parks and rights-of-way would help with the litter problem. Enforcing litter laws would help as well.

Improving the litter situation is not just about appearance, there is abundant literature in the “Broken Windows Theory” of policing and public safety indicating that addressing “minor” issues like litter can ALSO have an impact in the form of reducing other crimes.

We share the Mayor’s goal of reducing litter and beautifying Española, but we’d prefer to focus on the root problems rather than arbitrarily banning a simple and useful item like plastic bags.

Besides, while it is not the stated reason for the Mayor’s plastic bag ban, reducing plastic waste is another worthwhile goal. Sometimes plastic bag bans have been used in hopes of achieving reductions in plastic waste. But, in at least two cases, those bans have had the opposite impact of increasing plastic waste.

In one case New Jersey passed a law in 2020 banning single-use plastic and paper bags in all stores and food service businesses. The law took effect in May 2022

But, as a study by Freedonia Research found that while the total number of plastic bags did go down by more than 60 percent to 894 million bags, the alternative bags ended up having a much larger carbon footprint with the state’s consumption of plastic for bags spiking by a factor of nearly three. Plastic consumption went from 53 million pounds of plastic before the ban to 151 million pounds following the ban.

New Jersey is not alone in having a plastic bag ban backfire with the result being more plastic waste, not less.

A similar thing happened in California. The Los Angeles Times editorial board recently highlighted the failure of California’s plastic bag ban. Not surprising is the fact that California banned single-use plastic grocery bags back in 2016, becoming the first state to adopt such a law.

But, as the Times noted in its editorial, “In 2014 California tossed about 157,385 tons of plastic bag waste into the trash. In 2022, plastic bags accounted for about 231,072 tons of trash. That’s nearly 50% more.”

Good public policy isn’t just about passing policies that feel good. Hopefully Española’s City Council will do some research for themselves and reject this harmful bag ban.

Sam LeDoux is an Española City Councilor representing District 4. Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization