A panel of trade judges just unanimously declared the majority of Trump’s tariffs illegal. What does this mean?

Another candidate has entered the race for Gov. What does it mean?

Treasurer of New Mexico’s Democratic party abruptly resigns 5 weeks into the job. What’s going on?

The Food Stamp program (SNAP) is being trimmed in the BBB. New Mexico is the number one food stamp recipient state.

MLG and other blue state governors respond to the end of California’s EV mandates.

Recent testimony highlights New Mexico’s absurd federal dependency.

Paul recently talked to KOAT TV about Albuquerque’s shady public campaign financing system.

A new report from Wallethub has found that New Mexico is the 2nd-poorest state in the nation. This is completely unsurprising considering that New Mexico is among the highest poverty states and most dependent on government with little in the way of private industry. Interestingly, as the report further breaks down, both the State’s top earners and bottom earners are quite poor.

Income in New Mexico (1=Best, 25 =Avg.):

• Overall Rank: 50^th
• 46^th – Average Annual Income of Top 5% (Adjusted for COLI): $371,006
• 49^th – Average Annual Income of Bottom 20% (Adjusted for COLI): $12,351

Of course, unlike West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and other impoverished states, New Mexico is sitting on $61 billion that policymakers refuse to return to residents of the State. Of course, MLG has claimed massive improvement in child poverty which (again) fails to check out.

The following is a four part thread from Alex Ross who does a great job with the Roswell Daily Record. He highlights a recent presentation given to the New Mexico Legislature on New Mexico’s dependence on federal spending. I’m summarizing and adding to a few of the points made.

Propst pointed out that for every $1 New Mexico pays in taxes it receives $3.21 back in federal funds on things ranging from direct payments (Medicare, Social Security and SNAP), to grants, payments to state and federal employees and money for the state’s national labs, military installations and other assets.

Today at the Inaugural meeting of the Federal Funds Stabilization Committee, Wayne Propst, secretary of the @NewMexicoDFA cited data from a recent report which ranked New Mexico as number one in terms of states that receive federal funds.

He added that in all the state’s budget for FY 26 totals about $33.16 billion with dollars coming from various sources, with $14.44 billion or about 44% of it, coming from federal dollars.

Of course, New Mexico has long been both poor and extremely dependent on federal dollars, but the Rio Grande Foundation has been concerned for many years about this dependency (and the poverty driving it). Sadly, while the State sits on $61 billion and numerous other pots of money to enact bold economic changes, the State’s so-called “leadership” would rather whine about a loss of funds from a federal government that is $36 trillion in debt.

1/4

— Alex Ross (@Alexrosstweets) May 29, 2025

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The idea of Albuquerque’s public campaign finance law is to “get money out of politics.” Of course, reality doesn’t always work out the way the it is intended.

In fact, the upshot of the system as it exists is that candidates often qualify for public financing and THEN have “measure finance committees” (essentially PACs) set up by friends and supporters to run other aspects of their campaigns. Worse, as we saw when Tim Keller ran and won in 2017 he abused the system, but was never held truly accountable and remained mayor. You can check out the KOAT story here. 

The Rio Grande Foundation opposes taxpayer-funded elections on principle. Candidates should have to raise money from willing donors, not forced contributions to their campaigns through taxation. As we’ve seen and as this story reiterates, the system has utterly failed to “replace” private interests as a source of campaign support.

Gov. Lujan Grisham’s latest defeat at the hands of the Trump Administration came recently when bipartisan majorities in BOTH houses of Congress (including New Mexico Democrat Gabe Vasquez) voted to overturn California’s exemption to federal emissions regulations. This exemption has been expanded dramatically in recent years to the point that California’s plan was to eliminate the internal combustion engine from the state by 2035. Also, other “blue” states like New Mexico had been using the exemption to enact their own EV mandates. In New Mexico that meant 82% of all vehicles sold by 2032 would be EV’s. 

But, Congress and President Trump acted to end California’s exemption. Of course, New Mexico car dealerships were only selling 5.53% EV’s as the mandated 43% EV sales requirement was kicking in. So, New Mexico is nowhere near achieving MLG’s goal.

What’s next? It looks like MLG and the other left wing governors are going to be rather limited in their next steps as this article notes: they have formed the “Affordable Clean Car Coalition.” What will that coalition do? The answer is, “not much.” According to the Coalition’s statement:

We will continue collaborating as states and leveraging our longstanding authority under the Clean Air Act, including through state programs that keep communities safe from pollution, create good-paying jobs, increase consumer choice, and help Americans access cleaner and more affordable cars. As we consider next steps for our clean vehicle programs, our states will engage stakeholders and industry to provide the regulatory certainty needed while redoubling our efforts to build a cleaner and healthier future.

The coalition plans to work together to develop solutions that make lower-emission vehicles more affordable and accessible. That could involve expanding access to charging stations.

The states also plan to explore opportunities for developing and adopting what they call “next-generation standards and programs” aimed at reducing vehicle pollution.

Of course, Americans already have ready access to EV’s and New Mexico continues to subsidize them directly as well as charging stations for them. Aside from spending even more tax money on subsidies there’s not much else to be done by MLG (thankfully). MLG has consistently pushed for unrealistic and costly environmental goals throughout her time in office. Like the Wicked Witch of the West all she can do is shriek while her power wanes.

In a recent interview w/ Source New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham whined about potential federal reductions in the generosity of SNAP (also known as food stamps). The Gov. said in part:

You’ve got $1 billion that we get into the state for SNAP… These are radical cuts. It’s a little bit different and I don’t think people quite understand the nuance of it, but we could be on the hook for up to $300 million if the cuts, as we know them, were voted on today.

So, we were curious as to which states have the highest percentage of their populations on SNAP benefits. In a surprise to absolutely no one New Mexico has the highest percentage of residents on SNAP of any state in the nation (and it’s not really close). According to this from US News 19.9% of New Mexicans are on the program. The next highest is Louisiana with 18.5% of its residents on SNAP (that’s a 7 percent difference).

Shockingly, New Mexico’s SNAP population is 4 times the percent of Utah and more than double that of Texas and Colorado.

Of course, New Mexico is “not a poor state,” but it IS a poorly-governed one and its people are poor even though the State is sitting on $61 billion. New Mexico can obviously afford to take up the slack on SNAP, but it shouldn’t have to. If the Gov. and Legislature would enact long-overdue policy reforms to bring economic growth to the State we wouldn’t have so much dependency and thus such a large SNAP population.

The State of New Mexico is sitting on a massive pile of capital outlay dollars as the State’s roads continue to decline. KOAT Channel 7 recently did a story on the issue and asked RGF for our perspective. You can check out the full story by clicking here or on the picture below. In the brief time allotted we discuss both the problems and potential issues associated with New Mexico’s capital outlay process.

On this week’s show Paul talks to Senate Minority Leader Bill Sharer of Farmington. Sen. Sharer has been a long-time conservative stalwart in Santa Fe. They discuss some of the Republican successes of the 2025 legislative session and his new role in leading the GOP Senate. During the second half of the interview they focus on the proposed heat regulations which are currently open for public comment. Finally, they discuss the closure of San Juan Generating station and the potential sale of PNM.

What You Need to Know: New Mexico’s Climate Action Plan

I recently attended the “Industry: Climate Action Plan Sector-based Community Conversation” on May 15^th, so that you don’t have to. We discussed the goals in the Oil and Gas sector for the Climate Action Plan. The presenters reiterated that the overarching goal is a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to 2005. The goal is then to be net zero by 2050. In the oil and gas industry, which makes up about 40% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, the focus was on CO₂ and Methane emissions specifically.

For CO₂ they proposed two main ways to reduce emissions: electrification of equipment, and increased CO₂capture requirements. The response to these was mixed. Some were very supportive, while others raised concerns about the cost and feasibility of electrification and the long-term sustainability of sequestering CO₂. To reduce methane emissions, plugging inactive wells, increasing leak detection and increasing the enforcement capacity of the state were all discussed.

Quite frankly, the whole conversation seemed arbitrary. No real data or expertise was presented on the impact and feasibility of the plan; neither was there a discussion of the long-term ramifications of the proposed steps. The entire discussion was too general to say anything meaningful about the quality of the plan, even if you were a supporter of it. The only real takeaway was that the oil and gas industry can expect more regulation heading its way.

To learn more about New Mexico’s Climate Action Plan or sign up for future Community Conversation events visit: https://www.climateaction.nm.gov/cap/

The following was written by Rebecca Dow on behalf of Opportunity for All Kids (a project of Rio Grande Foundation). It ran on May 18, 2025 in the Santa Fe New Mexican.

A recent story from taxpayer-funded National Public Radio highlighted a supposed trend of left wing Texans moving to New Mexico in search of left wing social policies. They interviewed a number of movers and several New Mexicans on both sides of the political aisle. NPR highlighted “The Big Sort” in a 2022 article.

We’d agree that state policies are causing people to move from state to state in greater numbers to live in states that reflect their social values but we’d note that economic factors have been driving people out of “blue” states and pushing them into “red” states for many years. Given that situation (and the fact that social conservatives can move just as social liberals do), it is no surprise that “blue” New Mexico lags Texas and its other neighbors badly when it comes to population growth. The chart below uses Census data from 2010 to 2020. More recent data from UNM highlights the fact that New Mexico’s population is stagnant and aging.

Clearly, New Mexico’s left-wing social policies aren’t enough to draw big numbers to the State. Could a more libertarian approach of social liberalism and free market economics work for New Mexico? Possibly, but there are precisely zero libertarian-leaning (fiscally conservative, socially liberal) Democrats in New Mexico’s Legislature. In fact, the legacy of late Gov. Bill Richardson who did cut taxes (although by no means libertarian) and was socially moderate is under attack by current legislators and Gov. Lujan Grisham.

Sadly for New Mexico adding more left-wing Texans to our voting mix isn’t going to help the Land of Enchantment anytime soon, but perhaps it will keep Texas “red.” It further highlights the quote from Manuel Armijo “Poor New Mexico! … So far from Heaven; so close to Texas”

Luncheon: The Decline of Economic Freedom In New Mexico

Join us for an insightful luncheon as we delve into the findings of the Fraser Institute’s recent report, “Economic Freedom in the Land of Enchantment.” This comprehensive study, conducted in collaboration with the Rio Grande Foundation, reveals that New Mexico stands alone as the only U.S. state to have experienced a decline in economic freedom since 1981.

Despite its rich natural resources and cultural heritage, New Mexico faces challenges such as high taxation, substantial government spending, and stringent regulations. These factors have contributed to the state’s lagging economic performance, including low employment growth and a high poverty rate.

During this luncheon, Matthew Mitchell will discuss the key findings of the Fraser Institute’s report and their implications for New Mexico’s economy, comparative analyses with neighboring states that have embraced greater economic freedom and witnessed corresponding economic growth, and policy recommendations aimed at enhancing economic freedom and fostering prosperity within the state.

This event offers a platform for policymakers, business leaders, academics, and concerned citizens to engage in meaningful dialogue about New Mexico’s economic trajectory and explore actionable strategies for improvement.

Featured Speaker:
Matthew D. Mitchell is a Senior Fellow in the Centre for Human Freedom. Prior to joining the Fraser Institute, Mitchell was a long-serving senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where he remains an affiliated senior scholar.

Mitchell received his PhD and MA in economics from George Mason University and his BA in political science and BS in economics from Arizona State University. His writing and research focuses on economic freedom, public choice economics, and the economics of government favoritism.

Mitchell has testified before the U.S. Congress and several state legislatures. He has advised federal, state, and local government policymakers in the United States on both fiscal and regulatory policy. His research has been featured in numerous national media outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and C-SPAN.

Date: June 18
Time: Doors open at 11:45AM, Program Start at 12:00PM
Location: Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, Silver Room

Cancellation policy: The Rio Grande Foundation will honor cancellation requests until June 3, 2025 at 12:00PM MT, minus a 15% transaction fee.

As Santa Fe New Mexican columnist Milan Simonich wrote recently: New Mexico has a corruption problem. Simonich argues that our corruption has created our stagnation (we’ll discuss that further below). He cites the APD DWI scandal but other recent scandals include Rep. Sheryl Williams Stapleton, and AG Raul Torrez has recently come under scrutiny for taking a “cost-covered trip to South Africa featuring a safari, a stay at a five-star hotel, wine tours and gourmet restaurants that serve Wagyu steaks.” And then of course there is the legal corruption that permeates New Mexico in everything from its education funding formula to its capital outlay process.

But, there is a solution that doesn’t rely on improving human morals: increased economic freedom.

Study after study (including our own) highlights the fact that economic freedom can positively impact corruption. It only makes sense. In a free market where consumers make decisions to buy and sell it is hard to be corrupt. Your local Wal Mart almost always sells you exactly what you think you are buying and at the price you are willing to pay. Government, on the other hand, lacks a willing buyer and seller (government taxes you rather than selling its “benefits”), government lacks transparency, government officials often have conflicting motives.

If New Mexicans want to reduce corruption they need to vote for candidates that espouse principles of limited government and economic freedom. It is the only proven means of reducing corruption.

On this week’s show Paul and Wally begin by discussing breaking news with the potential sale of PNM.

They also discuss former President Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis and the fact that this diagnosis was likely known for some time.

Santa Fe Public Schools’ budget is a massive $46,000 per student next year:

RGF appeared in National Review recently.

An okra farm received $25,000 from New Mexico taxpayers. Then things got even more interesting.

With talks under way in Washington over Medicaid reform New Mexico politicians are “freaking out.” Paul and Wally explain why cuts and reforms are long overdue.

There has been a spate of issues with air traffic control especially in Newark, Paul has done work on this issue in the past. The solution can be found by looking north to Canada.

There has been a lot of discussion about New Mexico’s underfunded pensions recently. What’s going on?

According to an email sent today the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has proposed a Clean Transportation Fuel Program to the state’s Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). The action follows the Legislature’s passage of and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s signing of House Bill 41 in March 2024.

According to the email, “A 60-day public comment period is expected to begin in mid-June 2025, with the EIB considering all feedback before making a final decision. The EIB is expected to hold public meetings starting on September 29, 2025 and continue through October 17, 2025 or as needed.”

A copy of the petition, statement of reasons, and draft proposed rule is available here.

Unlike RGF’s efforts in the Fall of 2023 to kill New Mexico’s controversial EV standards THIS regulation is supported by legislation and thus likely a “done deal.” Sadly, the “fix” is in for a variety of reason. On page 86 of the document linked in the last paragraph the NMED claims “carbon intensity and lifetime emissions” of electricity at ZERO. Of course, in reality, New Mexico utilities won’t be 100% “renewable” until 2045 under the Energy Transition Act (and this is if everything goes as planned). Thus, EV’s still produce CO2 contrary to the NMED’s statement.

Set aside the mining, lubrication (for windmills), transportation, installation, battery backup, and numerous other inputs of so-called “renewables” and the picture would be a bit more nuanced. But, the regulation is going to increase costs to consumers dramatically.

As the Rio Grande Foundation’s new policy brief, “Modeling the Cost of New Mexico’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard” found:

The “clean fuel standard” will phase in gradually, with the aim of achieving a 20% reduction in carbon intensity below a 2018 baseline by 2030 and a 30% reduction by 2040.

Using the formula provided by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the average credit price in Oregon for the year 2023 ($129.75 per credit), Always On Energy Research (AOER) determined that these regulations will increase gasoline and diesel prices by 30 cents and 34.7 cents per gallon, respectively, by 2030. By 2040, the regulations will cause gas prices to be 45 cents per gallon higher than they otherwise would be, and diesel prices will be 52 cents higher.

Check out and sign up for this free event!

The New Mexico Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau submitted a petition to the state’s Environmental Improvement Board to adopt a proposed rule on occupational heat illness and injury prevention.  The new rule, if passed will mandate a range of heat illness and injury prevention measures on BOTH indoor and outdoor job sites across multiple industries, including construction. The submission of the petition is the first step to start the rulemaking process.

Take a few minutes to comment (at the bottom of this post) by no later than May 30. If adopted, this regulation could have significant impacts on businesses working throughout New Mexico. You can read (and borrow from) RGF’s comment here.

Analysis of New Mexico’s Proposed Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Standard

Key Requirements of the Standard are as follows

1. Heat Exposure Assessment:

1. 1. Employers must conduct heat exposure assessments when the heat index meets or exceeds just 80°F.
   2. The assessment must account for the following criteria:

1. 1. 1. Heat index of the work environment is determined by measuring the temperature and relative humidity and applying those numbers.
      2. The effect of direct sunlight.
      3. Intensity of the work being performed.
      4. Acclimatization of the employee.
      5. Personal risk factors for heat illness.
      6. The heat-retaining properties of protective clothing and PPE by using Proposed Rule’s Index Table 1.

1. Control Measures must be implemented when outdoor and indoor working environment heat index exceeds 80°F.

1. 1. Acclimatization: New and returning employees must be gradually introduced to heat conditions and closely observed by a supervisor or designee for the first 7 days of employment. A phased work schedule is required, starting with 20% of the typical work duration in heat and incrementally increasing daily.
   2. Provision of Fluid: Each employee must have access to employer provided at least one quart of drinking water per hour.  Employees shall be encouraged to drink 8 ounces of fluid every 15 minutes.
   3. Regular Rest Breaks: Employer Paid rest breaks are mandated during high heat conditions based on a structured work-rest schedule. For instance:

1. 1. 1. For heavy labor in full sun and temperatures exceeding 90°F, breaks must be taken every 20 minutes for at least 40 minutes.
      2. The exact schedule varies depending on the intensity of the work, clothing, sun exposure, and the heat index, as outlined in the regulation’s Work Rest Schedule Table.

1. 1. Cooling Areas: Employers must provide shade or mechanically cooled areas for employee breaks, ensuring they are sufficient to accommodate all workers and located close to work areas.
   2. Personnel Monitoring: Supervisors must monitor employees for signs of heat illness, using communication systems, buddy systems, or pre-shift meetings to review heat illness symptoms.

1. Emergency Medical Care:

1. 1. Compliance with existing federal and state emergency medical care standards is required.

1. Training and Recordkeeping:

1. 1. Employers must conduct heat illness training and maintain detailed records including attendees for at least five years.

1. Maintain an accurate record of the heat acclimatization schedule and procedures for all new and returning employees.
2. Maintain a record of all heat illness or related injury including those requiring first aid with heat index and working conditions at the time of the illness or injury.

This rule will impact virtually every employer with operations above 80 degrees.

Public Comments – NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT HERE

It is critical that regulators hear directly from employers about how this rule would impact them.

To submit comments or to request more information on the proposed regulations, you have various options; may do so by filing electronically via the Department’s public comment portal (link embedded below); by email to heatrule.comments@env.nm.gov or in paper format by mailing comments to NMED-OHSB, Attn: Heat Illness and Injury Prevention, P.O. Box 5469, Santa Fe, NM, 87502.

1. PUBLIC COMMENT ONLINE FORM/PORTAL HERE
2. EMAIL: heatrule.comments@env.nm.gov – When responding by email please enter “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule” in the subject line and include your name, title (as applicable), affiliation (as applicable), email, phone number, mailing address, and relevant comments to the proposed regulations in the body of the email.
3. MAIL:   NMED-OHSB, Attn: Heat Illness and Injury Prevention, P.O. Box 5469, Santa Fe, NM, 87502

On this week’s Tipping Point NM interview Paul talks to the legislator who scored the VERY best among all 112 in the Foundation’s Freedom Index: Rep. Randy Pettigrew. Pettigrew represents Lea County in the Legislature. He has long been a conservative stalwart in the Legislature. Pettigrew pulls no punches in this frank discussion!

According to a recent Santa Fe New Mexican report the school district in Santa Fe’s school board has passed a new budget for FY 2026. The budget will spend $474.3 million to educate an estimated 10,299 students. We did the math and this budget represents a positively shocking $46,000 per student! 

The article goes on to note that (due to a declining student population) this is a $15.4 million decrease from last year. Shockingly, the district anticipates a $2.2 million shortfall even with this incredible amount of spending per-student. As RGF has noted time and again all of this spending has NOT resulted in improved student outcomes. Where is all the money going? How do Santa Fe schools have a deficit?

As RGF noted recently in a separate post Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) plans to spend north of $35,000 per student.

Here at RGF we look at a lot of information on a lot of different topics, but we never thought we’d be talking about taxpayer dollars used for “culturally significant okra.” Specifically, according to a press release we received from NM’s Economic Development Department, Ashokra Farm in Albuquerque just received $25,000 from New Mexico taxpayers.

We thought it was a funny story involving a (relatively) small amount of wasteful spending until we were alerted to the Farm’s Facebook page. This is no ordinary farm. It’s a “queer and people of color farm.” Okay, that may be fine. You can read all about how the farm “protects from the threats of homophobia, transphobia, racism and sexism” in The Guardian.

It is ALSO a farm that urges at its Facebook page (screenshot below): “Farmers – please boycott these companies in support of a FREE PALESTINE AND END TO THE GENOCIDE that is currently being funded by Israel and the United States.” The Agricultural companies listed are based in Israel and are helping to fund the Israeli Defense Force.

If you are concerned about your tax dollars going to radical causes like this, I’d recommend sharing this story with your local newspaper or TV station. You can email Secretary Rob Black: rob.black@edd.nm.gov There is a full list of EDD personnel here. But most of all we need new legislators and a better Gov. than MLG in the 2026 election.

Gov. MLG recently went on the TV show Face the Nation to decry potential cuts to Medicaid. She even claimed the reforms would ““destroy health care as we know it.” Pretty much every elected Democrat in New Mexico supports Medicaid as it currently exists because they view it as an “economic development” program. That’s largely due to the fact that the federal government picks up 72% of the bill while New Mexico pays “only” 28%.

That may sound like a great deal for New Mexicans until you realize that Medicaid spending is expected to grow by a mind-blowing 27% next year and spend an astonishing $15.5 billion. That’s 1/3rd larger than the State’s fast-growing general fund budget which pays for education and public safety (to name just two priorities). In other words, even with “just” 28% of that coming from New Mexicans, that’s STILL $4.34 billion state tax dollars (setting aside the federal tax burden placed on New Mexicans).

As part of their efforts to find savings to make way for the Trump tax cuts Republicans in Washington have put forth a few ideas that would constrain Medicaid spending a bit.

As The Hill notes, “Provider taxes have been a lucrative loophole for states to get more federal Medicaid funding by taxing providers and then returning the money to them in the form of higher reimbursements for treatment. The proposal would freeze all state taxes at their current rates and prevent states from imposing additional taxes.” New Mexico has been doing this for years and in 2024 the Legislature passed a provider tax that helped the State fleece taxpayers in the other 49 states of $1.5 billion. This is abuse of the Medicaid system. Unfortunately, the Republicans’ plan only prohibits future such schemes, not existing ones.

It’s worth mentioning that New Mexico could easily afford to replace federal Medicaid dollars with its own money. The State is sitting on $61 billion in “savings.” In the recently-completed legislative session the State has set up a mechanism to accumulate another $2 billion for the explicit purpose of “replacing” federal Medicaid dollars if indeed cuts happen.

Another initiative of Congressional Republicans’ (again from The Hill) is “work requirements.” Under the proposal, states must enforce “community engagement” requirements on Medicaid enrollees beginning in 2029.  Community engagement is defined as 80 hours of work, community service or a work program each month. Other options include at least half-time enrollment in an educational program or a combination of the available options.

We’d love to see that moved up (why wait until 2029), but with New Mexico’s abysmal workforce participation rate remains depressed by any historical metric. It is lower than it was before COVID and it is lower than it was going back to 1976. Adding work requirements to Medicaid is just common sense.

While Lujan Grisham and Democrats will undoubtedly claim that the sky is falling on New Mexico and other states, Medicaid needs to be reformed dramatically and that really needs to come from the federal level. We’d like to see the federal government block grant (and then shrink over time) Medicaid dollars. That would both remove the incentive for New Mexico and other states to “game” the system as they clearly have been doing AND it would place the federal government on more sound budgetary footing.

Before heading up Rio Grande Foundation Paul Gessing headed up government affairs at the DC-based National Taxpayers Union. One project Paul worked on at the time has rocketed to prominence in recent months: the struggling US Air Traffic Control system. In fact, the Trump Administration recently promised to revamp the system and put large sums of money into it.

Paul has worked on a real solution: commercializing air traffic control along the lines of what Canada has done. Read an (old) policy paper here. In 2017 on behalf of RGF, Paul signed this letter to Congress. The fact is that having safety regulation and operations of air traffic control should NOT be under the same government agency.

What’s the solution? NAV Canada is the model. NAV CANADA is Canada’s air navigation service provider, a privately-owned, non-profit corporation responsible for managing Canada’s civil airspace and the North Atlantic oceanic airspace. They provide air traffic control, flight information, and other aeronautical services and do so in a safe manner.

If you don’t want to look at Paul’s old 2003 NTU policy brief, check out a much more recent document advocating for air traffic control privatization from the Cato Institute.

Like pouring more money into government run schools that have few incentives to perform, pouring more money into “reforming” air traffic control is a waste of time unless the incentives are changed.