RGF has commented in the recent past about the steep decline in the number of students at the State’s largest school district (Albuquerque Public Schools). But, APS is by no means the only school district in New Mexico that has seen a steep decline in its student population. Santa Fe’s public schools have as well as a recent article in the Santa Fe New Mexican highlighted. We put the data in a handy chart (below) and made a quick calculation to find that the District has seen a 25% drop in student population since 2013.

The decline in student numbers is not unique to New Mexico, but with New Mexico having a stagnant population overall and a rapidly-aging one, don’t look for this trend to change anytime soon. Of course COVID and the Gov.’s lockdowns, poor performance of New Mexico schools, and a growing home school movement have all contributed to the declining student population in government schools.

A focus on school choice would help. Growing New Mexico’s economy and thus our State’s population would also. But, these are anathema to New Mexico’s left-wing legislative majorities and Gov. Lujan Grisham. So, unless things change New Mexico’s well-funded but failing government schools will continue to see a steep drop in student numbers.

In a State with $6 billion in unspent capital outlay money and (according to one study) the worst roads in the nation, one might think that the relevant legislative committees would be focused like a laser on addressing our State’s myriad road issues and figuring out a way to get unused capital outlay $$ allocated to much-needed projects across our State. Sadly, that’s not what is happening at the Transportation Infrastructure Revenue Subcommitee in the Legislature.

Instead, the agenda included a presentation about high speed rail (the LFC just reported that the Rail Runner which hardly qualifies as “high speed” is actually BAD for the environment). Of course, the train is also a HUGE waste of our tax dollars. And even in Albuquerque, the bus system’s ridership remains BELOW pre-pandemic levels despite the buses no longer charging fares. Nationally, transit ridership remains well below pre-pandemic levels and shows no sign of returning to those levels.

But even high speed rail may not be the worst idea discussed at the Subcommittee’s recent meeting. They had an honest-to-goodness discussion about putting an elevated rail system totaling 70 stations, 7 lines, and 103 miles of ELEVATED rail throughout Albuquerque. You can read more details including remarkably detailed presentations here. You can check out the graphic below.

Where would the money come from? The report cites the Land Grant Permanent Fund and Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) as likely sources.

Thankfully, this is unlikely to happen even in New Mexico’s “progressive” Legislature, but it is a clear indicator that reconsidering the expensive and polluting Rail Runner is not “on the table.” Instead they are talking about a new elevated train for Albuquerque.

New Mexico’s medical provider shortage remains a critical issue. While many changes were undertaken during the 2023 legislative session to address the shortage of medical providers, the fact is that New Mexico continues to suffer from a relative lack of medical providers. To be sure, New Mexico is NOT alone in this matter. For a variety of reasons there is a national shortage. And, to be clear the Rio Grande Foundation has spent considerable time on the topic with an analysis of the shortage here and our own report on some solutions (including a handful that were enacted in 2023) here.

Think New Mexico’s report is a useful addition to the conversation about how to further build on 2023’s important reforms (and make sure those gains are locked in). Ideas include:

• Further reforms to New Mexico’s medical malpractice law;
• Join All Ten Major Interstate Health Care Worker Compacts;
• Create a Centralized Credentialing System;
• Make New Mexico’s Tax Policy More Friendly to Health Care Workers (this includes making the gross receipts tax exemption for medical providers permanent, a policy RGF has long-supported);
• Enhance Medicaid Reimbursement & Reduce Claim Denial Rates;
• Increase the number of medical professionals through internal development as well as bringing them in from abroad;
• Create a “permanent fund” for health care.

Overall, RGF supports an overwhelming majority of this report. We have written about and argued for several of these ideas in our own papers which are linked in this post. Our critiques are as follows:

Medical licensing should be limited and often eliminated entirely. Compacts and centralized credentialing are 2nd-best options.

Medicaid should be reduced as a force in New Mexico’s health care system by encouraging people to work and by making the system less generous relative to other health care options. That said, increasing reimbursements to medical professionals will have a positive impact on medical providers.

We DO NOT like the idea of a permanent fund for health care and have a very different view of existing permanent funds from that outlined in this report.

Overall, there is a lot of good information in this report.

The Rio Grande Foundation has long touted the economic and environmental benefits of American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). We share that perspective with the National Association of Manufacturers which recently came out with a study highlighting the benefits of exporting LNG and the drawbacks of the Biden/Harris Administration’s current “pause” on LNG export permits.

As the graphic below highlights, Americans (including of course New Mexicans) are benefiting from LNG exports via good paying jobs, economic growth, and increased taxes paid. If the Biden/Harris policy of limiting LNG exports is not addressed all of that will be negatively and dramatically impacted.

In 2023 New Mexico Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard issued an executive order that places a moratorium on oil and gas leasing on state trust lands within one mile of schools or other educational facilities. In 2024 legislation was proposed that would have mandated a 2,250-foot setback — just under a half-mile — from homes, schools, health care facilities and jails, and a requirement for wells to be 350 to 600 feet from water features.

Not surprisingly the health research (such as it is) on setbacks is spotty and entirely inadequate for responsible policymaking. There are oil and gas wells throughout New Mexico currently operating that are a short distance from residences and other heavily-trafficked areas. A decent study is needed to establish whether setbacks are necessary in the first place. 

Now, the Legislative Finance Committee has found that, if setbacks are imposed on a statewide basis, New Mexico could lose billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues. Read the report for yourself here. As the chart below highlights, the State would lose an estimated $800 million ANNUALLY within just a few years if setbacks similar to the 2024 legislative proposal were adopted.

On this week’s interview Paul talks to Attorney Germaine Chappelle about the Energy Transition Act and some of its real-world impacts in the Four Corners area (current and prospective). Specifically, Chappelle is working on behalf of the Central Consolidated School District (a heavily Navajo district) to make good on the law’s requirements that certain power generation be located within the District’s boundaries for purposes of helping the District’s property tax revenues which saw a 60% reduction due to the closure of San Juan Generating Station.

With more than a week still left in early voting and Election Day right around the corner, New Mexico’s legislative Democrats are already touting the “need” to raise taxes on New Mexicans next year. Check out the Santa Fe New Mexican for details.

In recent years attempts have been made to raise New Mexico’s taxes on alcohol. As the information here highlights, New Mexico’s taxes on alcohol are NOT low. And, while increased treatment would be welcome that could easily be taken out of existing alcohol taxes. A move to allocate more of the alcohol excise taxes to treatment was attempted but failed in the 2024 session.

There is simply no reason to hit average New Mexicans with a tax hike when the State remains flush with cash.

Of course, no discussion of personal responsibility, the lack of productive work in preventing bad behavior, and other potential policy changes.

But, if you think tax hikes aren’t “on the table” for 2025 (especially if Democrats keep or expand their legislative majorities) you are simply wrong.

The Rio Grande Foundation has steadfastly opposed the tax hike which appears on Las Cruces voters’ ballots this year. As we’ve noted, this tax hike would be quite significant and harmful to citizens and businesses alike.

RGF’s president recorded a brief explainer video on the tax hike and the many reasons for voters to reject it. You can find early voting sites around Las Cruces here.

RGF sent postcards like these to Las Cruces “swing” voters (not staunch Republicans or Democrats) immediately prior to early voting getting started.

Expanded early voting is in full swing and turnout has been heavy so far from all the reports we’ve seen. NOW is the time to get out and vote in person and bring a friend or two or family member to the polls. Here is a useful tool for finding voting locations near you. 

When you DO go vote, don’t forget about the judges. The Albuquerque Journal had a great Sunday editorial about judges and the article makes a compelling case for NOT retaining Judge Emeterio L. Rudolfo. It also makes a good case against trusting the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission which operates as a rubber stamp for incumbent judges. We DO believe that the Journal should have highlighted Bernalillo County’s Cindy Leos as a poor judge as well although she was rated a “yes” for retention by the Journal.

Regardless of that disagreement, kudos to the Journal for advocating voters take a closer look at the judiciary as a means of addressing our crime issues!

Here are further recommendations from the Journal’s editorial:

The Rio Grande Foundation has been implacably opposed to the heavily-subsidized New Mexico RailRunner Express since its inception during the Richardson Administration. Mostly this is due to the high cost of the train system which has seen ridership decline over time and then plummet during and in the wake of the COVID 19 pandemic.

While we have long questioned the outrageous waste of tax dollars and urged policymakers to shut the train down, the Legislative Finance Committee recently reported (as did the Santa Fe New Mexican) recently reported that the train needs to increase ridership by 23% to BREAK EVEN in terms of CO2 emissions. In other words, as it stands now and until ridership increases dramatically, the Rail Runner is bad for the environment.  Of course, even that calculation fails to consider the emissions that went into building the train sets, laying the track, and more cost (and carbon) effective alternatives like commuter buses (which we advocated for at the time).

While exact comparisons are difficult to make because the report strictly considers weekday ridership, we believe that the train would need to return to 2019 levels just to break even on CO2 emissions.

Of course, while the Rail Runner continues losing millions of taxpayer dollars annually and spewing unnecessary carbon into the atmosphere SOME would like to EXPAND the system even further. Left wing State Senator Bill Soules has for years been pushing a taxpayer-funded train from the Mexican city of Chihuahua to Denver, Colorado. While Soules would undoubtedly describe himself as an “environmentalist” (as would the vast majority of Democrats in the Legislature who gave us and keep funding the Rail Runner) what Soules and others fail to understand is that trains like the Rail Runner are only “green” if they are ridden by large numbers of people.

Will New Mexico’s political leadership do anything useful with this information? It’s highly unlikely. Barring a major budget crisis it is hard to see anyone addressing the environmental or budgetary harm of the Rail Runner. But, we have yet another thing to say “we told you so” about.

ACE’s mission is to advance K-12 educational freedom, with a focus on securing financial support for families so they may access the quality education of their choice. Erik and Paul have a wide ranging conversation on helping families access high quality education including the exciting economic achievement data from ACE’s scholarship recipients.  Learn more about how you can apply for New Mexico Scholarships from ACE.

As a sitting US senator who has never been either a legislator or governor, Martin Heinrich has not had much to say about state-level policymaking in New Mexico. Albuquerque City Council does not impact education and Congress’ role in education is rather limited as well.

So, why would Heinrich take time specifically to Tweet that he is opposed to charter schools? See below:

The type of charter schools my opponent has worked on only perpetuate disparities. It’s great that she’s able to leverage charitable giving to 11 small charter schools.

My focus is and will always be on the 900 public schools across New Mexico.

— Martin Heinrich (@MartinHeinrich) October 14, 2024

It is hard to say exactly, but what it DOES show is that Heinrich embraces New Mexico’s monopolistic and failing government K-12 system. While disappointing, it is not surprising that Heinrich has embraced such a strong anti-choice approach. The education system’s unions remain a top special interest in the Democratic Party and they don’t like charter schools. Besides, Heinrich is generally NOT a freedom guy when it comes to your ability to buy a gas stove or the car you want (and many, many others).

In 2019 Gov. Lujan Grisham attempted to limit the number of charter schools in New Mexico and failed due to bipartisan opposition. The issue has not come up since. We’ll see what the future holds for Sen. Heinrich.

Paul and Wally discuss RGF’s op-ed. The “rich” already pay more than their “fair share” of taxes. Deconstructing the leftist “freedom” agenda. City of ABQ Ballot measures, what’s the point? New Mexico EV shares rise slightly to 4.78%. Evolution of economic freedom in New Mexico. Sen. Martin Heinrich accepted campaign donations from both Avangrid and PNM. How this is both relevant and not. Unions encapsulated in longshoremen’s strike.

Every two years the Cato Institute ranks all 50 governors in America in its Fiscal Report Card. Cato identifies as “libertarian,” but they focus on spending and taxes in this report. Former New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (a Republican) received the top score in the report in 2018. Alas, Michelle Lujan Grisham is no Susana Martinez.

Instead, while the report acknowledges MLG’s willingness to reduce taxes somewhat (they don’t acknowledge the State’s gusher of oil and gas revenues as the cause of this fiscal opportunity) they also note that: “Spending has soared under Lujan Grisham, which pushed down her score on this report. The general fund budget increased from $7.5 billion in 2019 to $12.4 billion in 2024, which is a 10 percent average annual increase.” Her spending growth was the highest among US governors (Table A1).

Regardless of her dramatic spending growth New Mexico remains flush with cash and thus has stuffed billions of dollars into its permanent funds (rather than reducing taxes).  This would be reasonable if New Mexico’s economy were diversified and strong, but that is simply not the case.

Could Lujan Grisham be worse?  Perhaps, but no other state in America has as many needs or as much money as does New Mexico. Sadly, MLG has failed miserably to “move the needle” on education, crime, or economic diversification.

Notably, Katie Hobbs of AZ received a D, Utah’s Spencer Cox a “C,” Colorado’s Jared Polis a “B,” and Greg Abbott of TX a “C.”

Republican Kim Reynolds of Iowa received the top overall score while Democrat (and VP candidate) Tim Walz of Minnesota was the worst performing Gov. in the nation.

Since the Arizona Legislature adopted universal education savings accounts in 2022. After two years the impacts of the program are becoming clear. Our friends at the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute recently shared the following fact sheet. Overall, the program serves a diverse spectrum of Arizona students and cost much less than the Arizona government school system. Arizona dramatically outperforms New Mexico in education outcomes despite similar demographics.

New Mexico needs innovative education reform solutions considering its dead-last ranking and lack of improvement. Alas, Michelle Lujan Grisham and the union-dominated Democrat Legislature have failed to enact needed reforms like those in Arizona.

For the first time in recent history leftist candidates have embraced rhetoric that attempts to embrace “freedom.” Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has done it. Michelle Lujan Grisham did it. And at least one prominent left-wing candidate for the New Mexico Legislature has done it.

Of course, when the left talks about “freedom” they usually just mean abortion. We believe that abortion is a complex issue, but as a starting point there should be no tax dollars spent on abortion. Very few left-wing candidates (and certainly not Gov. Lujan Grisham) care to address the “freedom” of those who wish NOT to fund a procedure they find immoral.

In a recent op-ed, legislative candidate Sarah Silva talks about “freedom from school shootings,” but she makes no mention of HOW to preserve that freedom. One can imagine it is some form of gun control, but the details are left vague.

And, of course, the freedoms left without discussion by the political left include (but are by no means limited to):

• Freedom to keep your earnings;
• to choose the best educational option for YOUR child;
• which could also include freedom to NOT have your child indoctrinated into radical gender theory (among others);
• freedom to choose weather or not to take an experimental vaccine, wear a mask, and whether to remain open or otherwise manage your business in a public health scare;
• freedom to speak (including online) without government censorship;
• freedom to drive the car you want (without subsidizing someone else’s purchase) and use the energy from reliable sources;
• freedom from crime and rampant lawbreaking.

Whatever your priorities are when it comes to YOUR freedoms, it is hard to see how leftist “progressives” who see government power as being nearly unlimited will defend your freedom. What do you think? Send us an email to info@riograndefoundation.org if we missed a freedom you care about. Or, if you think freedom begins and ends with abortion, let us know why that is so critical to your outlook.

For City of Albuquerque voters there are two ballot measures that, if adopted, would change the City of Albuquerque’s charter. While there are numerous serious challenges facing the City of Albuquerque (and we’re not supporting or opposing these specific proposals) we find the dedication of time and energy to these relatively trivial matters in a time of crisis to be a head-scratcher. The following information is taken from the League of Women Voters’ breakdown of the two charter amendements:

1. Shall the City of Albuquerque Charter be amended to modify the procedures to appoint city administrative officers and appoint and remove the Chief of Police and Fire Chief?

The proposed amendment would require the mayor to reappoint, and the council to approve all city administrative officers, the Chief of Police and the Fire chief at the beginning of each new term. It limits the time city administrative officers may serve without council approval. It would also allow the council to terminate employment agreements of the Chief of
Police and the Fire Chief with a two-thirds plus one of the membership of the council (that means seven councilors).

Notably, as the LWV points out CURRENTLY “Council may terminate the police or fire chief at any time within the terms of the employment contract without giving a reason by a vote of seven councilors.”

Our Analysis: We agree with critics who believe Police Chief Harold Medina is doing a poor job and we’d like to see him replaced. This amendment does nothing of significance to increase accountability.

2. Shall the City of Albuquerque Charter be amended to modify the procedures for determination of separation of powers issues under the city charter?

Our analysis: Talk about opaque and unclear! This ballot language says absolutely nothing of substance about the actual proposal.

To understand what is going on, we check with the LWV. The current charter establishes a committee of three with one appointment by the mayor, one by the council, and a third member chosen by the two appointees. If either the mayor or the council fails to make an appointment, as has happened in the past, then the negotiation process is stalled. This amendment requires that these committee members by appointed within 60 days and effectively would allow either the mayor or the council to appoint all three committee members if one of the parties fails to make a committee appointment within the set time.

Our overall analysis: Tim Keller is not a good Mayor. He is soft on crime and his policies are generally ineffective. City Council is somewhat more reasonable, but they are unable to garner 6-vote majorities to push back against the Mayor in any coherent way. So, efforts to hold the Mayor accountable or impose policies preferred by the majority of City Council are often watered down to the point of irrelevancy. That seems to be the case with these amendments.

A brief article appeared in the Albuquerque Journal describing the potential changes.

RGF recently hosted a timely luncheon with Trent England of Save our States. Trent and his organization spend their time defending the Electoral College and fighting plans for “ranked choice voting.” This is an extremely timely issue as we are in the middle of a presidential election. More importantly, Tim Walz who is running for VP with Kamala Harris recently called for abandoning the Electoral College.

Here is 40 minutes of Trent England systematically dismantling arguments against the Electoral College:

On this week’s conversation Paul and Wally discuss the excitement of Albuquerque’s Balloon Fiesta and the passing of Scott Appleman and John Arthur Smith.

Paul recap the Electoral College events with Trent England and highligths the next RGF event.

A new study highlights America’s Great Transfermation. 

New Mexico’s crisis of progressive governance.

Gender ideology to hit UNM volleyball.

As early voting gets started at the Clerk’s office on October 8. Here are some of the items on your ballots this fall.

With implementation of Gov. Lujan Grisham’s unrealistic mandate that 43% of new vehicles sold in New Mexico be electric by summer of 2026, the Rio Grande Foundation is closely tracking changes in New Mexico’s EV sales share. According to the latest data from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, New Mexico’s EV market share rebounded somewhat to 4.78% in the 2nd quarter of 2024. That is up slightly from  the 4.59 percent of vehicles sold in Q1 (which was actually down from the prior quarter), but a 4 percent increase isn’t going to get New Mexico anywhere near the 43% demanded by the Gov.

As Michelle Lujan Grisham pours New Mexicans’ tax dollars into EV charging stations and EV subsidies New Mexicans remain deeply skeptical about purchasing an EV (and even more skeptical about making one their primary vehicle). It is car dealers who are in the crosshairs and must sell exponentially higher numbers of EV’s than are currently desired.

How much money will car dealers lose in the push to sell EV’s? How many jobs and tax dollars will be sent to states lacking EV mandates such as Texas?

One of the most noteworthy and impactful annual reports that we study at Rio Grande Foundation is the Economic Freedom of North America report from the Canadian Fraser Institute. Sadly, as with most such reports, New Mexico tends to rank poorly on economic freedom, especially relative to its neighbors. The states in red are the “least free” while the blue ones are the most free.

But WHY does New Mexico rank so low on economic freedom in this particular index? The index which has been published since 1981 relies on government spending, taxation, and regulation to come to a final data point. To summarize, New Mexico’s government spending has increased dramatically relative to other states. It’s taxation has dropped slightly and its regulations have improved from truly awful to mediocre. Sadly, since 1981 New Mexico’s overall score has gone down. This information is presented in two different formats below.

According to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group the amount of reliance on government transfers as a percentage of personal income has grown dramatically in recent years (see maps below). Back in 1970 New Mexicans were MUCH less reliant on federal transfer payments (although more dependent than many other states).

As rates of dependency went up across the nation New Mexico followed the trend toward ever greater dependency.

Why is increased dependency on government a bad thing? For starters, our nation is deeply in debt (more than $36 trillion) and the primary causes are “entitlements” like Social Security and Medicare.

Also, it seems that there are some strong correlations between increased government dependency and declines in happiness. It also seems that when government gives resources to one group at the expense of other groups that there will be inter-group hard feelings and jealousy.

Can America reverse course? It is hard to say. While there are significant differences between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump neither one seems interested in addressing entitlements or even reigning in government spending dramatically.

Check out the following chart showing rise of government transfers below:

“Rescue Albuquerque’s downtown.” 

“It’s not a stretch to say that Albuquerque residents believe the City is facing multiple crises”

“Status quo is bad — bold action is mandatory. Things have to change. Rot festers crime and a general lack of safety.” 

These are just a handful of quotes from Sunday’s Albuquerque Journal. They are predominantly talking about downtown Albuquerque, but they are really talking about problems throughout New Mexico’s largest city.

Sadly, while it is easy to see that crime, homelessness, and large numbers of vacant buildings are problems, the reality is that the solutions being discussed are not really solutions to the problems being faced. Interestingly even more “progressive” Santa Fe has decided to take matters into their own hands (to an extent) by hiring private security to patrol the tourist-heavy Plaza. 

It seems like this HAS to be considered in Albuquerque as well as other areas of the State where rampant crime is a problem. If local governments can’t or won’t put enough police on the streets it seems the City should use its resources (not pushing the costs off to businesses) to improve safety.

Another innovative option would be to do what New York City did an have private companies manage City parks.

Of course crime is the top problem in ALL our bigger cities, but it is not the only problem. Michelle Lujan Grisham and the Democrats who control the Legislature love to talk about “diversifying” our economy, but that really means pouring our tax dollars into costly film subsidies and failing solar companies, not actually making New Mexico an attractive place to do business for anyone.

A thriving business environment would bring people and economic activity to ALL areas of our state (including our downtowns). Of course, New Mexico has more than enough  to do EVERYTHING policymakers could possibly want to improve security and diversify the economy, but they aren’t doing it.

New Mexico government from Michelle Lujan Grisham down to local city government has failed to provide even the most basic needs for residents of the State’s largest cities. With plenty of money available at the State level it is astonishing (but not surprising) that Lujan Grisham and the Legislature haven’t been willing to solve these crises.