The following appeared at National Review Online on Friday, February 21, 2025.

Democrat Deb Haaland recently announced her candidacy for governor of New Mexico. Haaland was most recently secretary of the interior under Joe Biden. She previously served as the U.S. representative for New Mexico’s first congressional district (Albuquerque area) from 2019 to 2021 and as chair of the New Mexico Democratic Party from 2015 to 2017. Haaland is a registered member of the Laguna Pueblo of Native Americans.

That last part of her biography, being a Native American, is why she has moved up the Democratic Party ladder in New Mexico. Even from an honest left-wing perspective, Haaland’s rise has little to do with achieving anything significant in her recent positions of power. Rather, her rise is attributable to her ethnic background and her reliable support for left-wing policies.

During her one full term in Congress, she rated an “F” by the National Taxpayers Union (also here). In Congress, she supported boondoggles like the “Green New Deal” and opposed fracking on federal lands. Nothing in her congressional track record stands out as particularly thoughtful, nor did she deviate from the typical government-first approach of modern “progressives.” She was just another hard-left vote.

Perhaps more notable than any vote or legislation, while in Congress Haaland said that students from Covington Catholic High School had displayed “blatant hate, disrespect, and intolerance” when they were confronted by a radical left-wing activist after a pro-life march in Washington, D.C.

A lawsuit brought by student Nick Sandmann (a student who was unfairly pilloried and labeled a racist by numerous media outlets) against CNN was settled for $275 million. A similar libel lawsuit brought by students of the school that called Haaland’s words “false and defaming” was dismissed on the grounds that her statements were made in the scope of her employment as a legislator.

Armed with a nondescript but reliably left-wing record in Congress and her identity as a Native American, Haaland was chosen by the Biden administration with the express purpose of her becoming the first Native American cabinet secretary and by definition the first Native secretary of the interior).

The Interior Department includes both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education, which of course further led to the Biden administration’s desire to place Haaland in this critical role. But Interior is a sprawling government agency that includes numerous swaths of federally managed lands including those under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The BLM oversees more than 247.3 million acres of land, or one-eighth of the United States’ total landmass. The agency manages the federal government’s nearly 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate located beneath federal, state, and private lands severed from their surface rights by the Homestead Act of 1862. Most BLM public lands are located in Western states including my home state of New Mexico, where the BLM is the largest land manager in New Mexico, managing 13.5 million acres.

With the Biden administration having pledged to attack the oil and gas industry at every opportunity, Deb Haaland as interior secretary was thus placed in a position to carry out the anti-energy policies of the administration — even if that meant attacking the economy of her home state.

As secretary of the interior, Haaland controlled access and leases and permits for oil, gas, coal, mining, timber, and ranching. In 2022, oil and gas produced from federal lands accounted for about 11 percent of U.S. oil and 9 percent of U.S. natural gas. Increasing production on those lands is one of the simplest tools the federal government has available to address prices at the fuel pump. But as prices at the pump rose rapidly under the Biden administration, Haaland instead attempted to squash American energy at every turn.

There are numerous cases of Haaland’s anti-energy approach, but one fascinating case was her denial of oil and gas development at Chaco Canyon National Historical Park in New Mexico. Haaland arbitrarily imposed a massive 10-mile buffer zone around the park. Thanks to Haaland (and Biden of course), federal oil and gas leasing is now prohibited in this 336,400-acre area.

While non-Natives and many living outside New Mexico may be under the impression that policies supported by one group of Natives would automatically be supported by others, that is not the case. In fact, Haaland’s Chaco radius was unpopular with significant numbers of Navajo tribal leaseholders in the area.

Many Navajo who preferred economic development and the financial benefit of leasing their mineral rights protested Haaland’s move. In fact, when Haaland arrived in the area for a photo op, her motorcade was blocked and the event was canceled.

What would a Haaland governorship mean for New Mexico? Simply put, it would be a disaster. New Mexico already suffers from nearly a century of misguided “blue state” governance. Since 1930, Republicans in the state have never held both houses of the legislature and the governorship at the same time.

Despite being the second-leading producer of oil in the nation after Texas, New Mexico is one of the poorest states. Little in the way of economic reform or tax reduction has taken place despite multibillion-dollar state budget surpluses in recent years. New Mexico has also ranked dead last in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (“the nation’s report card”) for two cycles running (2022 and 2024) despite rapid growth in education spending. Crime is a serious issue, as is broader dependence on government and the nation’s highest percentage of Medicaid recipients in the nation.

Sadly, Haaland would likely be even more aggressive than current Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in doubling down on all the things that have made New Mexico an impoverished, slow-growing outpost in the American Southwest.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, 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.

I testified yesterday on a bill that would eliminate New Mexico’s income tax. Here’s what I said and here’s what happened. Speaking of zero income tax states, IN & OUT burger chain moves to Tennessee from California.

PFML will finally be considered in its 2nd committee on Wednesday. Paul and Wally discuss what that means.

NM Democrats seem to have settled on a plan to raise alcohol taxes.

SB 139 which would have eliminated MLG’s EV mandate was defeated in its first committee on partisan lines.

A “study” claims UNM athletics creates a big economic benefit for New Mexico. We appreciate collegiate sports but take the study with a big grain of salt.

How’s the NM “Portfolio” doing? We have an update.

New Mexicans spend 6th most on groceries as a percent of income according to a new report.

After weeks of delay sponsors of HB 11, formerly Paid Family and Medical Leave, the bill has been reintroduced under the same number but with some significant alterations. You can read the newly minted “Welcome Child and Family Wellness Leave Act” for yourself. It is an attempt to placate businesses which have been (and remain) nearly universally opposed to HB 11 by whatever name.

We’ve looked closely at the bill and have put together a few thoughts:

It now provides 6 weeks per year, except for welcome child leave, which allows for up to 12 weeks.

Contributions from businesses and employees start out somewhat lower but can rise starting in 2030.

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.

The biggest problem with the revised bill is that the numbers just don’t add up. It is impossible to tell if the plan will be solvent in the future with the numerous different figures being thrown about and a lack of actuarial analysis.

What IF the program is insolvent? Is there an assumed source of revenue to make up the difference? The bill limits how quickly premiums can be raised. Shouldn’t there be a backstop if the plan is insolvent? As the original FIR notes: Other states have had to increase their payroll taxes to cover increasing utilization of their PFML programs. Washington State’s rate has increased from 0.4 percent to 0.92 percent since the start of the program due to high usage. Actuarial studies in Washington predict the rate will reach its statutory cap of 1.2 percent by 2028. Rhode Island, Massachusetts, California, and Rhode Island have all experienced rate increases.

Democrats remain steadfastly opposed to allowing Social Security to invest in the stock market to generate increased returns for recipients but the bill calls for these funds to be invested by the state investment officer.” So, if the stock market tanks?

Then, “an applicant shall not be required by the Welcome Child and Family Wellness Leave Act to use any leave consecutively.” So, someone can take off work, come back to work for a few weeks, and then take off again????

Finally, why even include self-employed New Mexicans? Being self-employed by itself implies a willingness to take on a certain amount of risk. Why bother with them one way or the other? Worse, self employed individuals only need to pay into the fund for six months to qualify for benefits, opening the door for people, especially those who are expecting a child or have upcoming medical needs, to pay in for six months, claim the benefit, and then opt out of the system.

This bill remains an expensive and dangerous tax hike on New Mexicans and New Mexico businesses. Sadly, it appears to be heading to the House floor after recently passing out of the House Commerce Committee with all Democrats except Rep. Marian Matthews supporting and all Republicans opposed.

As passed by the Senate, S.B. 85 would worsen New Mexico’s already objectionable donor reporting requirement for independent expenditures (IEs). The bill brazenly doubles down on a law the Rio Grande Foundation (RGF) is currently challenging in court for being unconstitutionally overbroad.

• Background and Ongoing Litigation. The existing law that RGF is challenging requires any organization that spends more than $3,000 on IEs in connection with a non-statewide race, or more than $9,000 on IEs in connection with a statewide race, to publicly report any source of “contributions” to the organization of more than $5,000 during an election cycle.
Crucially, IEs include not only election campaign ads, but also any messages that merely refer to a candidate within 30 days before a primary or within 60 days before a general election that are targeted “to the relevant electorate.” This includes messages asking elected officials to support or oppose legislation or take a stance on a policy issue.

• Chilled Speech. The existing law already chills organizations’ speech about issues. Citizens give to their favored causes with the expectation of privacy, and nonprofits shouldn’t have to choose between speaking out about issues that are important to their mission and their supporters and violating those individuals’ privacy. This is especially so in an age of “cancel culture” and weaponized government when New Mexicans can be targeted for retaliation based on the causes they support.

• Junk Disclosure. The existing law already results in junk disclosure by associating donors on public reports with messages they did not necessarily support or intend to fund. New Mexicans give to nonprofit causes for countless reasons and rarely give specifically for the purpose of paying for particular communications.

• An Attack on Personal Privacy. S.B. 85 doubles down on existing New Mexico law by replacing the word “contribution” in the statute with the word “donation.” Current law defines a “contribution” as funds given or received “for a political purpose.” Therefore, an argument could be made that an organization making IEs is only required to report donors
who give “for a political purpose,” even though the context in which the existing law uses this term argues for a broader and general requirement to report all donors. S.B. 85 makes it explicit that donors who give for any purpose – not just “a political purpose” – are required to be reported if an organization makes IEs.

This is illogical. While the IE reporting requirements purport to be aimed at organizations engaged in some political activities, S.B. 85 makes it clear that donors who give for no political purpose have to be identified on political activity reports. The intent of the bill seems to be to name and shame donors to organizations that speak out about policy issues and to deter those nonprofits from voicing their opinion in public debates.

• A Constitutional Quandary. If existing New Mexico law is held to be unconstitutional in the pending RGF litigation, S.B. 85 will be even more unconstitutional because it takes the existing law being challenged and makes it worse. Even if the existing law is upheld, S.B. 85 may still be unconstitutional because it requires a broader scope of reporting than current law.

We know that New Mexico’s “progressive”-controlled Legislature has zero interest in robust tax cuts or tax reform. But, HB 275 which was introduced by several Republican legislators (with the effort led by Rep. Elaine Sena Cortez of Hobbs) was heard in the House Tax Committee on February 27, 2025. If adopted the bill would eliminate New Mexico’s personal income tax. The comments below are those of RGF president Paul Gessing who provided expert testimony to the Committee in support of HB 275:

For years NM has had massive budget surpluses thanks largely to its booming oil and gas industry. This year is no different. NM has an estimated $13.6 billion in GF revenue while the Gov’s proposed budget is $10.9 billion. That means $2.7 billion left over. And, of course the state is sitting on $58 billion in its sovereign wealth funds and has another $6 billion sitting unspent in capital outlay money.

If you go to page 6 of the Gov.’s budget you’ll find that the State of New Mexico generates $2.1 billion annually in personal income tax revenue. That not only means there is nearly $600 million left over even AFTER the PIT is eliminated.

New Mexico SHOULD eliminate its income tax and even generate additional tax revenues to diversify and grow its non-oil and gas economy. Cutting spending is not necessary and should not be necessary moving forward.

NM has the third highest poverty rate. It has a slower growing population than any of its neighbors and the main business area in its biggest city is struggling. New Mexico needs to do something bold to bring economic growth to the State.

It has the highest PIT in region at 5.9% Colorado is 4.4%, Utah at 4.65%, Texas Zero, Arizona 2.5% Nine states have no PIT, none of them aside from Texas have oil and gas $$ like we do. Two states (Alaska and New Hampshire have no PIT and no sales tax)

According to World population review four of the fastest growing population states in the nation (TX, NV, FL, and WA) have no personal income tax.

Economically speaking things point even more dramatically toward zero income tax stats. In 2023 5 of the top 10 fastest-growing states economically had no income tax. These were Washington, Wyoming, Texas, Alaska, and Florida.

NM has a serious workforce participation rate challenge. Eliminating the income tax as a disincentive to work would help address that issue.

If we are serious about addressing our health care workforce problem these high earners will be more likely to work in New Mexico thanks to no income tax.

And, of course, New Mexico is one of the fastest aging states in the nation. Eliminating the PIT would give New Mexico’s economy a shot in the arm and make it competitive nationwide as a destination for jobs and businesses to locate bringing jobs and economic opportunities.

If you’d like to watch the testimony for yourself you can click here. 

UNM’s athletics department recently announced that it had a study which found that UNM athletics has a $240 million annual economic impact.  Among other impacts, “UNM athletics generates nearly $75.2 million worth of yearly economic activity across Albuquerque, per a study contracted by the department. Over $150 million in local direct and indirect revenue over the last three years was traced to Lobo athletic events, he added, representing nearly a fourth of the total economic impact provided by the department in that span.”

We looked at any number of UNM and UNM athletics websites for the report and were unable to find it. In fact, we have done a IPRA request for the report. So, we relied on the Albuquerque Journal report and the report authors Collegiate Consulting.

While we are indeed sports fans here and we have no particular beef with UNM or NMSU athletics and consider them a great amenity for the locals. We oppose plans to allocate $5 million to UNM/NMSU athletic departments, however. We don’t give this report much legitimacy as an economics document for the following reasons (these are by no means limited to THIS particular report):

1.  It was undertaken by consultants, not economists. Consultants are paid by the customer and will generally give the customer what they want in order to drum up more business. Academics are by no means perfect, but they have a better track record.
2. Advertising value of TV appearances is notoriously subjective as are terms like “direct and indirect revenue.”
3. And of course, where are these $$ coming from? What percentage of Lobo fans are coming from out of state for games? Economic development implies that we are not simply “recycling” existing tax dollars.
4. According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank the Albuquerque Metro area GDP is nearly $60 billion annually. Limited and poor as our economy may be UNM athletics doesn’t really move the needle especially since so much of its inputs are generated through taxes paid by New Mexicans and of course oil and gas.

One interesting note in the coverage of this report is that UNM’s annual athletic budget ($47,763,222) is currently second-to-last in the Mountain West; only San Jose State’s budget ($44,546,781) is lower while San Diego State ($103,930,691) boasts the highest in the league. Whatever the RIGHT number is, there is no doubt that New Mexico’s lack of a strong, diversified economy negatively impacts this situation.

On this week’s interview Paul talks to return guest, author, and commentator Philip K. Howard about DOGE. For advocates of limited government DOGE is the most exciting effort to cut wasteful spending and bring functionality to the federal government that we have seen since at least the Grace Commission during the Reagan Administration. Howard and Gessing have a robust discussion of DOGE and numerous aspects of its mission and activities so far. They address whether Congress will go along with DOGE, whether there are more effective potential ways to streamline government, and whether this effort will ultimately succeed. More information about Philip K. Howard’s work can be found at his Common Good website and at his recent Manhattan Institute paper.

After weeks of the legislative session and a year after their plans to hike the state alcohol tax fell apart, it looks like the left-wing legislators pushing for an increase in the gas tax have settled on a plan as outlined in  House Bill 417 that “would retain the current tax levied on the volume of alcohol sold, and add a 6% sales tax to alcohol purchased in restaurants, stores, and other places that sell alcohol to the public.”

As RGF wrote recently in an article distributed statewide, New Mexico’s alcohol taxes are hardly low and as a whole New Mexicans are not particularly big drinkers. But, in classic New Mexico fashion, this bill dramatically increases prices for all drinkers and since it is a 6% tax at the point of sale it is yet another “regressive” tax levied on hard working New Mexicans.

This is a newly filed bill with a long way to go in the session, but with agreement among these bickering so-called “progressives” it has a path to likely passage.

New Mexico’s legislative session is in full swing, but with far-left Democrats in firm control of all levers of power it is unlikely that New Mexicans will receive any significant broad-based tax relief. Instead, among many other things that will happen with the money, New Mexico will plan on subsidizing a few chosen businesses rather than helping New Mexico families and businesses in a substantive way.

That’s why we have come up with the “New Mexico portfolio.” That portfolio includes EBON solar, Maxeon (MAXN) solar, and Virgin Galactic (SPCE). It would be hard to come up with a worse group of stocks than the following. This data on stock returns is from Yahoo Finance and it was collected mid-day on February 12, 2025.

Rather than spending money on specific “chosen” businesses, the Rio Grande Foundation advocates creating a low tax rate economy with reasonable regulations and (hopefully) a prepared workforce. These three businesses have lousy rates of return no matter how you look at it.

Super Bowl: game wasn’t so great, but great to see America celebrated and Trump cheered.

A bill relating to expanding Medicaid is moving through the session. This is madness!

Now MLG is the education reformer? This one is a doozie!

I went on KOAT 7 to discuss a crazy bill that would hand our tax dollars to UNM and NMSU to pay athletes.

HB 11 PFML remains bottled up in committee. Some lawmakers even blame us for “bullying.”

A bill to increase royalties (taxes paid on oil and gas) is moving through the Legislature.

A recent op-ed running across New Mexico by our policy analyst Carter Swanson ran in the ABQ Journal last week.

HB 275 which would eliminate New Mexico’s personal income tax immediately and completely will be heard in the House Taxation and Revenue Committee on Wednesday morning. This bill is one of the very best that will be considered in the Legislature this session. The PIT generates an estimated $2.1 billion annually for New Mexico so it is extremely odd to see the fiscal impact report place a $3.8 billion initial “cost” to the State’s coffers on the tax. Obviously, some amount of economic growth and diversification will generate tax revenues, but we’re not even talking about that. RGF rates this bill +8 (our highest ranking).

Anyway, we plan to testify and would encourage you to do so as well.

HB 184 would provide an annual $1,000 “rebate” to every man, woman, and child in New Mexico (not just this year, but for years to come).  The bill is being heard Wednesday morning in House Government and Indian Affairs. Perhaps the most interesting thing is that this bill is being sponsored by very left-wing Democrat Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero.  RGF rates this +5.

The following bills are being heard in Senate Tax, Business and Transportation Committee tomorrow afternoon:

SB 20 would increase taxes on tobacco (see how much based on different types here). Tobacco taxes are highly regressive meaning they impact the poor the most. RGF rates this -6.

SB 89 would remove planned future tax hikes on cannabis. The current 12 percent cannabis excise tax rate would be maintained in perpetuity. RGF rates this a +3.

Despite New Mexico already having a higher percentage of its population on Medicaid than any other state. Despite the program spending an insane $15.5 billion ANNUALLY. And, despite the likely unwillingness of the Trump Administration to pay for 70%+ of the expansion’s costs, New Mexico legislators are pushing a massive expansion of Medicaid this session. The bill is HB 186 and it is up in House Health Committee on Monday. 

RGF has a brief document describing further details of the plan.

HB 186 is rated -8 in the Foundation’s Freedom Index vote rating and tracking system.

A judge has ruled that MLG overreached in attempting to force districts to adopt 5 day school weeks.

Paul and Wally discuss the latest from the Roundhouse.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores came out last week. New Mexico again brings up the rear.

Tennessee becomes 13th state in US to adopt universal school choice.

According to the latest EV sales numbers New Mexico is nowhere near the mark.

SB 139 introduced this session would overturn the Gov.’s EV mandates.

Surprisingly New Mexico is not ranked very highly as a retirement destination.

Ilya Shapiro will be speaking at an RGF event on Feb. 21.

To say that Gov. Lujan Grisham’s education policies have failed would be a massive understatement. Look no further than New Mexico’s abysmal (worst in the nation) education results in the last TWO National Assessments of Educational Progress.

With time ticking on her time in office as Gov. Lujan Grisham seems to be pivoting towards attempting to be an education reformer. This has certainly NOT been the case where she has never lifted a finger to push Mississippi-style education reforms or broad-based school choice (we’d welcome a move to that end). But check out these quotes from a recent Albuquerque Journal story (items in parentheses are RGF comment):

“I have no power over schools, in the same way I can’t tell judges what they should sentence nor can I tell a police officer who to arrest,” Lujan Grisham said. (again, simply untrue)

She also claimed the House and Senate education committees, which are both led by current or retired teachers, have effectively bottled up many education initiatives in recent years.

“You’ve got a lot of former educators and superintendents who aren’t interested in changing anything,” she said.

At the Rio Grande Foundation we have watched as money has been poured into colleges and universities with no accountability and for little to nothing in terms of real results for our broader economy. Now, with massive subsidies in place and “free” college the law of the land, some legislators in Santa Fe have introduced SB 268 which would allocate $2.5 million to each of New Mexico’s “major” universities (UNM and NMSU).

While Sen. Maestas (the sponsor) claims it would be funded with “free” money thanks to the oil and gas industry, the reality is that New Mexico’s Legislature is doing NOTHING to return tax dollars to everyday New Mexicans. Thankfully, KOAT’s story includes some back-and-forth on what should be done with the money. RGF believes it should be tax cuts (including reform of the GRT and income tax reduction) but we’d take whatever we can get at this point.

RGF’s president Paul Gessing sat down with KOAT Channel 7 to discuss whether spending tax dollars to pay UNM and NMSU athletes more directly is a wise move. Click the photo below or click here to watch the story.

A Ninth Judicial District Court judge ruled Monday that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s attempt to impose a 180-day school calendar through her Public Education Department (and without the Legislature’s approval) rule is unlawful.

Judge Dustin K. Hunter issued a temporary restraining order against the rule last spring after the New Mexico School Superintendents Association sued PED over a rule requiring 180 days of instructional time per school year.

The Rio Grande Foundation had been among those who believed in local districts should determine how districts comply with the Legislature-passed hours in the classroom requirement. The Gov. and PED were never empowered by the Legislature (and in fact the Legislature acted in opposition) to forcing the 5 day week).

This is a win for local control and sanity in education policymaking. Will the Gov. appeal? Only time will tell.

SB 23 which would allow for increased royalties (a form of tax specific to oil and gas) on lands managed by the State Land Office. The bill is up in Senate Conservation Committee Tuesday morning. Click on the link to the Committee page and send the committee staffer an email in order to testify.

Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, a Democrat, has been waging a years-long campaign to force the Legislature to increase the percentage oil and gas companies must pay to her office. So far, the Democrat-controlled Legislature has refused, but the issue has come up once again in 2025. Garcia Richard believes that New Mexico should charge royalty rates comparable to those charged in Texas.

But, comparing royalty rates of Texas to New Mexico is not straightforward:

While NM state royalty rates range from 12.5% to 20.0% (and Texas sits at 25% for their state lands), New Mexico carries THE highest overall tax burdens on oil and gas production when compared to Texas, and all other states.

A recent study by the NM Tax Research Institute found “New Mexico has the greatest percentage share of total oil and natural gas production value directly contributed to government revenue  when compared with the rest of the states in this analysis. This result occurs because New Mexico taxes oil and natural gas production at rates comparable to the highest rates of taxation compared with [eight other oil & gas producing states.]”

Regardless of rates, RGF would only note that New Mexico is sitting on $58 billion from the oil and gas industry. Sadly, existing revenue from the ongoing boom is currently NOT being used to benefit New Mexicans. There is NO reason to raise royalty rates when New Mexicans are experiencing so few benefits from existing oil and gas royalties.

As the Rio Grande Foundation continues to analyze the recently released National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data released last week we again look at Mississippi which (unlike New Mexico) fully embraced the so-called “Florida model” for education reform. This model was originally pushed in New Mexico with the support of Republican Gov. Susana Martinez and Education Secretary Hannah Skandera.

Mississippi, a state with many of the same social and economic issues as New Mexico, became known as the “Mississippi Miracle” thanks to its dramatic improvement in educational outcomes, especially in the area of reading. While it was not a “school choice” driven miracle, Mississippi’s outcomes were the result of complete buy in to things like phonics based learning, an end to social promotion, and teaching teachers how to teach phonics correctly (among others).

As can be seen from the chart below, Mississippi and New Mexico had similar 4th grade reading results back in 2011 but New Mexico suffered massive declines thanks in part to Gov. Lujan Grisham’s COVID policies which locked New Mexico students out of their schools for over a year. Mississippi saw a slight dip during COVID, but has rebounded and seems poised for further improvements.

RGF has written extensively about the “Mississippi Miracle.” New Mexico should follow Mississippi’s lead and add to their reforms by embracing school choice as well.

On this week’s interview Paul talks to Andrew Handel of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) about the new 2025 Education Freedom Index which he authored and his organization published. New Mexico ranked a poor 44th in the latest version of this index.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (Nation’s Report Card) scores released this week were depressing for New Mexico as we ranked dead last in each of the categories tested (4th grade reading/math and 8th grade reading/math). Someone put together a cumulative index of all 50 states and categories which you can see below. It isn’t pretty but it is useful.

On a more hopeful note (at least for school choice advocates) you can see that Catholic schools perform MUCH better than either traditional public or charter schools. New Mexico has many great Catholic schools and they are reasonably priced (though not “free”). Of course, RGF advocates for school choice and Tennessee became the latest state to embrace private school choice.

The following chart put together by the Rio Grande Foundation uses data from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation which tracks EV sales on a quarterly basis. In 2023 Gov. Lujan Grisham pushed a statewide EV mandate through an unelected board. The full impact of the mandate is expected to kick in later in 2025 when 2026 model year vehicles start appearing on dealer lots.

As you can see below, while New Mexico EV sales have risen slightly through the third quarter of 2024 current EV sales and their rate of increase is nowhere near enough to comply with the Gov.’s mandates. Assuming that no federal or state changes are made to this mandate New Mexico auto dealers will face a requirement to sell vehicles that are either not available to them or that are not desired by prospective buyers who will instead head to neighboring states like Texas to purchase the vehicle they want.

This will destroy New Mexico jobs and tax revenues without any positive impact on the environment.

It’s been a week since the Legislature began. Paul has been to Santa Fe twice and discusses what is happening.

SB4 (net zero) is one of the craziest bills that will be moving this week.

MLG gave her State of the State address. We have some thoughts. The Santa Fe New Mexican did a fact check of the address.

RGF is part of a coalition working to defeat Paid Family Leave. Find out more here.

Paul had an opinion piece in several media outlets on alcohol taxes and why raising them is unnecessary.

New Mexico has the lowest median pay in America: DC workers now make nearly two and a half times as much as the average New Mexico resident.

ABQ bus ridership continues to slowly rebound post-COVID.

Mayor Keller’s latest scheme in downtown Albuquerque is particularly dumb.

The WNMU situation keeps getting worse.