Paul was in Phoenix last week and got to meet with former Gov. Doug Ducey and others. 

Michelle Lujan Grisham’s speaking on behalf of Kamala Harris Democrat convention should disqualify Harris. Meanwhile, NM’s oil and gas gravy train keeps rolling along.

New Mexico shouldn’t be sitting on billions of dollars (contrary to an opinion piece by two legislators).

Mayor Keller defends his disastrous management of ABQ’s crime problems in op-ed. Merchants in Old Town beg for one patrol a night.

New Mexico’s education system: a “free” product unwanted by many. 

Smoke stacks come down at San Juan Generating Station. In “other” news Excel Energy asked customers to conserve energy:

Left wing Sarah Silva chosen in Las Cruces area District 53.

RGF took the chance to attend the Albuquerque Public Schools “State of the District” event which included a brief talk by (relatively) new Superintendent Blakey. Here are some thoughts:

1. This event is a welcome addition. It was the first event of its kind and I hope it becomes an annual occurrence;
2. It was my first time inside the Berna Facio building. The building is very nice, but it reminds me that APS has a massive physical footprint and a shrinking student population.
3. Superintendent Blakely seems more focused on both changing APS and improving student outcomes than previous leaders of the District. She even mentioned a few ways (like short-cycle assessments) that she and the District are working to improve outcomes. They also outlined specific goals (available here) for student achievement. That is welcome and we’ll be watching.
4. I’d like to have seen Blakely answer a few questions from the attendees. She did not.

We wish Superintendent Blakely success. The problem at ALL government schools has not and never has been a lack of interest among the leadership and even a majority of teachers in improving educational outcomes for children. The challenge is that it is a monopoly that has few incentives to improve. Imposing accountability on the system runs up against union rules and all kinds of other political challenges that make it hard to succeed. And, of course, the District is not alone. State policymakers starting with the Gov. and Legislature are constantly making policies and intervening in ways that mean APS leadership has limited power to actually implement needed change.

Hopefully THIS time is truly different. Watch the entire event including Blakely’s remarks below:

RGF recently participated in the State Policy Network’s annual meeting which was held in Phoenix, AZ (nothing beats Phoenix in mid-August, lol). Several staff and board members from RGF made the trip and there was a strong contingent of other friends and allies at the event. One of the highlights was meeting former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey who, in the photo to the left is with Arizona Supreme Court member Clint Bolick (who helped found Institute for Justice and also worked at Goldwater).

Along with fellow Albuquerquean Steve McKee, Paul had a great conversation with Gov. Ducey about ways to help New Mexico learn from Arizona’s numerous successes on the economy and education reform.

In other RGF news we said goodbye (for now) to intern Gabriel Higbie who worked for RGF as a summer intern. RGF has summer internship opportunities. Find out more by clicking here.

According to Stein’s law (Ben Stein’s father) “Things that can’t go on forever, won’t.” And, while New Mexico’s oil and gas industry continues to produce huge piles of cash for the State, it is simply mathematically impossible to produce $3.5 billion surpluses every year.

So, as Source New Mexico notes in a recent article on the topic, “New Mexico’s budget is expected to have .2% less revenue this fiscal year than last thanks to a slowing global oil market. But it’ll still be enough to give lawmakers more than $650 million in new money to spend at the legislative session come January.”

In other words, New Mexico’s oil production boom continues apace, but growth is slowing somewhat. Of course, New Mexico continues to have plenty of money to do whatever policymakers want. What they SHOULD do is reform the gross receipts tax and cut taxes more broadly in order to diversify and grow the New Mexico economy.

What they WILL do seems to be to increase spending AND pump more money into our sovereign wealth funds which already have $54.7 billion in them.

In a recent opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal Mayor Tim Keller touted the resilience of our citizens and some of the technology being deployed to address the City’s crime problems. Sadly, while the City he governs is indeed “resilient” and that it will “keep fighting” the fact is that he is not doing a good job as Mayor. There are bright spots like the “Better Way Forward” for homeless which he borrowed from the RJ Berry Administration, but even Keller admits that “these are tough times.”

The times would be much easier if Keller aggressively dealt with the homeless and crime problems rather than waiting until the eve of his reelection year to do so. And then there is the gem below from the August 15 article, “Old Town Vandalized Again; Merchants and DA Exasperated.” In the article as highlighted below, Old Town merchants want: “One nightly patrol from APD throughout all of Old Town, 365 nights a year.”

The fact that there is not already at least ONE patrol through what is arguably the City’s most important tourist area is simply bonkers and highlights the lack of prioritization of crime in the City.

At the recently-completed Democratic National Convention New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham was given a prime time speaking slot.

If Michelle Lujan Grisham isn’t the worst governor in the US, she’s close. The idea that anyone would want to associate themselves with a politician that has so badly failed her state is ludicrous and should call into question the judgement of presidential candidate Kamala Harris. It highlights the lack of moderation of the Harris/Walz campaign and the fact that, if elected, they will pursue a failed extremist left-wing agenda. This agenda has failed miserably here in New Mexico.

But first, it is worth noting that New Mexico’s oil and gas industry generated a mind-blowing $15.2 billion in FY 2023. That’s about 50% more than New Mexico’s entire general fund budget. New Mexico’s failures under MLG are the result of bad policy. We have PLENTY of money and the best weather in the nation. And yet here is a somewhat comprehensive list of MLG’s many failures since she took office in 2019:

New Mexico’s education system is the worst in the nation and it has gotten worse since Lujan Grisham took office (ranked 52nd across the board by NAEP);

New Mexico’s children are not doing well with the overall condition of our children ranked 50th by Annie E. Casey in Kids Count. Notably, Lujan Grisham spoke on “health care” which she is supposedly an “expert” on. New Mexico ranked 44th on health care in Kids Count;

New Mexico has the highest percentage of Medicaid (welfare) recipients in the nation. The Legislative Finance Committee places the percentage of Medicaid recipients even higher at 47%;

MLG’s COVID policies completely failed. She had some of the most stringent lockdowns (including keeping kids out of school) and yet we had the third-highest COVID death rate among US states;

MLG blatantly disregarded the US Constitution by attempting to ban guns in Albuquerque. She was rebuffed by the courts and even anti-gun advocates like David Hogg;

MLG pushed a completely unrealistic electric vehicle mandate through an unelected board that includes a requirement that 43% of vehicles sold be electric within two years (summer of 2026). The current EV market share is 4.59%;

MLG’s Energy Transition Act destroyed jobs and tax revenues on the Navajo Reservation AND have already contributed to electricity shortages in New Mexico;

Despite her sudden urgency on the issue and calling a special session in July of 2024 New Mexico’s crime is worst in the nation and Lujan Grisham has done little about it. She’s never supported GOP bills in the hostile Legislature, she supports soft-on-crime “progressives” in primaries against moderates, and she has refused to target soft-on-crime Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller;

While the Gov. (and Harris) talk about addressing New Mexico’s housing shortage she ALSO has imposed policies (including mandating EV chargers) that artificially drive up the cost of housing.

A new analysis from our friends at the New York-based Empire Center highlights New York’s status as the top-spending state in the nation (on a per-person basis) when it comes to Medicaid. Our own Legislative Finance Committee in New Mexico has previously reported that 47% of New Mexico’s  population is on the program. Other reports confirm that New Mexico has the highest percentage of its population on Medicaid although that number MAY not hit 47%. Of course, actual spending may differ based on cost of living and generosity of benefits.

But, as the chart below highlights, New Mexico does indeed exceed every state with the exception of New York in spending on a per-person basis on Medicaid. What else could be done with those tax dollars? How much of our Medicaid spending is fraudulent? How is Medicaid spending depressing our terrible workforce participation rate? 

Paul talks with Isaac Orr about the RGF study that finds New Mexico’s “clean fuel standard” will dramatically raise fuel prices.

Isaac Orr is a founder and Vice President of Research at Always On Energy Research, where he conducts energy modeling and writes about energy and environmental issues, electricity policy, and natural resource development.

The following appeared in Santa Fe New Mexican on August 10, 2024.

For several years Gov. Lujan Grisham and the most liberal Democrats in New Mexico’s Legislature pushed to get a so-called “Clean Fuel Standard” through the Legislature. In the 2024 session they finally succeeded with the passage of HB 41 which mandated adoption of such a standard.

That bill passed the House narrowly on a 36-33 vote with several Democrats joining Republicans in opposition.

To be clear, the Clean Fuel Standard has not been implemented just yet. So, it isn’t impacting what New Mexicans pay at the pump, at least not yet. The Rio Grande Foundation attended a series of recently completed Advisory Committee Meetings.  A series of actions will take place before the law takes effect in Spring of 2025.

Part of the success advocates had in getting the bill passed this session involved the State’s Environment Department throwing their weight behind the issue and making claims like, “There is no statistically significant data that ties a clean fuel standard to price increases at the pump in states that have already enacted clean fuel standards.”

Even California and Oregon are more honest about the true cost of these regulations. California recently released a study that found the state’s attempt to make its standard more stringent would increase the cost of gasoline by 47 cents per gallon in 2025 and 52 cents per gallon in 2026. Oregon has an entire webpage called “Annual Cost of the Clean Fuels Program,” admitting that these policies do indeed increase costs for consumers.

Using modeling provided by Always on Energy Research, we found that New Mexicans will indeed pay substantially more for gas and diesel under this law. Using a formula provided by the Oregon Department of Environmentally Quality, by 2040, New Mexico’s “clean fuel” regulations will cause gas prices to be 45 cents per gallon higher than they otherwise would be. Diesel prices will be 52 cents higher.

Our new policy brief outlines the evidence. By 2030, New Mexico households will pay an additional $340 for gasoline while the additional per household cost of diesel will be $327. Diesel is primarily used in trucking and heavy industry, so these costs will likely impact New Mexicans in the form of higher prices for goods and services. By 2040, the average household in New Mexico will pay an additional $510 for gasoline and $490 for diesel fuel because of the clean fuel standard.

Is the additional expense worthwhile for the slight reduction in CO2 emissions being promised? It is hard to say especially when China (already by far the world’s biggest emitter of CO2) is rapidly increasing its emissions and shows no signs of reversing course. But, without honest data from New Mexico’s Environment Department or the law’s supporters regarding the law’s impact on gas prices, it is hard to see how the current Legislature could have had a real debate to begin with.

What we DO know is that many legislators rightly stated there would be price increases foisted on New Mexicans by a “clean fuel standard” law in 2024 and by prior versions of this bill. Unfortunately, the Lujan Grisham Administration prefers to act unilaterally, through unelected bodies or, barring that by ramming legislation through a generally sympathetic Legislature acting with at best partial information.

Unless New Mexico’s Legislature seriously considers the potential for the “Clean Fuel

Standard” to increase costs for consumers dramatically (and soon) it is hard to see the law being abandoned or revised. Perhaps the departure of this Gov. in two years will lead to a reevaluation of the law on more honest terms, but it is far more likely that life will become even more expensive (unnecessarily so) in one of the very poorest states in the nation.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. Isaac Orr is a founder and Vice President of Research at Always On Energy Research

Much discussion in New Mexico regarding its education woes is centered around the problem of “absenteeism.” In other words, kids don’t show up to school. Indeed, it is hard to get an education if you don’t attend any form of schooling. Of course, the question is who to blame and what to do about it.

It is worth noting that Gov. Lujan Grisham’s “lockdown-oriented” response to the COVID 19 pandemic is at least partially to blame. They call it “norm erosion” when something you have done for a long time suddenly isn’t done anymore. It can be tough to restart that activity.

Of course, New Mexico’s government school system itself leaves a lot to be desired as well. It’s failures are manifest and at least part of the blame has to be laid at the feet of curriculum and teaching styles that leave students uninterested in continuing to stay in school regardless of the future benefits such schooling will deliver.

You can see one chart which tells New Mexico’s dire story since the COVID 19 pandemic here and below. To summarize, New Mexico’s absenteeism problem is now 2nd-worst in the nation and the problem has worsened more in New Mexico than anywhere else.

If New Mexico’s political leadership wants to attract kids back to the classroom, perhaps they should bring school choice and innovation to schools. Spending more money isn’t working. Of course, making schools responsive to student needs is likely too complicated for the government to manage. That’s why choice should be offered to parents and families.

It just shows how much different the political alignment in the United States was (not that long ago) that today’s ultra-progressive Kamala Harris, the top half of the most progressive presidential ticket in our lifetimes, has embraced a policy most recently advocated for by disgraced Republican Richard Nixon.

I’m referring to her plans for price controls. We don’t know the exact contours of Harris’ plan. Like most of her policy agenda she has either reversed course from the 2019 campaign or made only vague statements about her plans if elected. But we DO know what Nixon did and it wasn’t pretty. Here’s an article from the libertarian Cato Institute which describes the situation and how Nixon (acting on his executive authority alone) imposed a “Price Board.”

The controls continued on gasoline, causing artificial shortages (as price controls usually do) symbolized by gas lines during the 1970s. Only when President Reagan finally lifted the controls on oil and gasoline in 1981 did the specter of short supplies finally disappear. (The 10 percent import surcharge did prove to be temporary, lasting only until the end of 1971.)

I wonder if the folks young and old considering voting for Kamala Harris are aware of her embrace of the discredited policies of a discredited president from over 50 years ago.

New Mexico has $54.7 billion in savings and, as was laid out by some Democrat legislative leaders in Sunday’s Albuquerque Journal, they are planning to sock away billions more as long as the oil and gas boom lasts. While they may have strained some ligaments patting themselves on the back, the reality is that all of this money sitting around in government accounts is NOT a good thing. Here are some of the main reasons for that:

1. 1. 1. New Mexico is a state full of problems: crime, dependence on a few industries, poverty, stagnant/aging population, and failing schools. While spending more money has been tried, there are innovative solutions like cutting taxes, recruiting cops and letting them enforce the law, and school choice that COULD make a difference. We have the money. Let’s do something different than we have for 90+ years of New Mexico history.
      2. Government should rely on the people. Having government sitting on massive piles of cash reduces accountability to the people it is supposed to serve (see the “resource curse”). This MAY seem like a good thing to politicians who want to have a plentiful supply of money to spend regardless of economic conditions, but it undermines accountability.
      3. Government is a “going concern.” Unlike people, government doesn’t really need to save for the future at least not on the scale New Mexico does. Governments should enforce the law and institute policies that contribute to human flourishing. New Mexico does a poor job of that. Before piling billions into various “savings” accounts, New Mexico policymakers should figure out a strategy for improving New Mexico’s lagging social indicators. 

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller recently announced some “big plans” for downtown Albuquerque. He’s hardly the first Mayor to put forth a plan to revitalize downtown. His plan involves creating a downtown “tax increment financing” district (in New Mexico they’ve been called TIDD’s) and a “Business Improvement District.”

First, some context. Since March of 2020 RGF has had its offices downtown. The President of RGF sends his children to school downtown. We spend a lot of time downtown and have a pretty firm grasp on what must be done to improve it. A TIF is a subsidy scheme that essentially allows tax revenues to be focused on the target area while sucking those revenues in from the surrounding area. Allowing at TIF for downtown would help downtown, but it will hurt the rest of Albuquerque.

A business improvement district (BID) is a privately managed governance tool whereby property owners vote to agree to pay additional “taxes” in order to have some kind of private sector involvement that does things government can’t or won’t do.

Our take: Downtown Albuquerque struggles for two basic reasons:

1) Crime/homelessness: Can a BID address those issues? It is hard to say, but if I were a property owner I’d want that to be the primary focus. Sadly, it is doubtful that a BID can/will enforce laws that the policy are unwilling/unable to. That is the crux of the issue, however. Mayor Keller COULD get tough on crime downtown and elsewhere, but he has been in office for nearly 8 years and hasn’t done so.

2) Downtown COULD accommodate many more jobs and businesses. It is underutilized. But, office space isn’t in demand like it used to be and businesses are leery of locating downtown due to the crime/homelessness issues. IF those issues were solved or at least addressed in a meaningful way AND the Legislature and Gov. got serious about diversifying our economy, then downtown might be a more likely destination for business and economic activity which would further increase property values and make downtown a destination.

On this week’s interview Paul talks to Rebecca Dow about “back to school” issues and education reform. Rebecca heads up the Opportunity for All Kids (OAK) education reform project for Rio Grande Foundation. They discuss everything from New Mexico’s worsening education outcomes (and possible solutions), a lack of functioning air conditioning in schools, 4 vs 5 day school weeks, and more. Don’t miss it!

The Albuquerque Journal had a write up about a concept that will be considered in the 2025 legislative session called “Baby Bonds.” Before getting to the policy idea itself, the “key” stat may be the collapse in births in New Mexico: “There were 21,614 babies born in New Mexico in 2022, down from 24,503 births in 2019, according to state Department of Health data.” That’s a decline of nearly 12% in 5 short years.

But, in terms of the idea itself. While some details are not clear, the gist of the plan is to use a small portion of New Mexico’s massive surplus to provide $6,000 bonds for each child born in New Mexico. The bond would be given to ALL New Mexico babies regardless of income and the money would be invested by the State Investment Council to be used for funding for education, housing and other expenses upon reaching their 18th birthday.

The total annual cost would be $120 million at current birth rates which is a tiny fraction of the State’s $3.5 billion annual surpluses.

We have a few thoughts:

1. If the state is already providing “free” college why limit the bond to when the child turns 18? In fact, why not bump up the amount in the baby bond (the State can afford it AND it could reduce K-12 education costs) and allow the child or their family to use the money for K-12 education expenses? This should be especially true considering the well-documented failures of our K-12 system.
2. What if the child’s family leaves New Mexico by the time they turn 18? Are we going to be sending checks to families outside of New Mexico?
3. If, as some predict, oil and gas revenues dry up and New Mexico’s budget is less robust than it has been will the State be willing/able to provide baby bonds out of permanent fund revenues?

The following appeared at National Review on August 14, 2024.

With Joe Biden having dropped out of the presidential race in favor of Kamala Harris, it is critical to have a robust conversation about Kamala Harris and her public-policy views in a relatively short time, at least by the standards of American presidential campaigns. While Barack Obama is often seen as having been deeply influential in the Biden administration and having even greater influence over Kamala Harris, the reality is that it was Biden, not Obama, who turned Democrats against traditional sources of energy, including oil and gas. Obama was happy to take credit for falling CO₂ emissions on his watch thanks to the growth of hydraulic fracturing, but Biden and now Kamala Harris have abandoned such pro-energy rhetoric.

Biden threatened to “shut down the oil and gas industry” and even signed an executive order banning new oil and gas leases on federal lands. Fortunately, those pledges ran up against economic and political reality and were largely abandoned, but the Democrats have a new sheriff, and Harris seems to be even further to the political left than Biden.

In a CNN town hall in 2020, Harris stated very clearly that she would “ban fracking.” Her campaign has since attempted to walk that statement back, but it is hard to trust someone who spent four years as Joe Biden’s vice president and never expressed concern about his administration’s repeated attacks on domestic energy producers. The time before the election is limited. Remember, in many states including my home New Mexico, early voting begins three weeks or more before November 5. Harris needs to be asked and to answer some important questions on numerous policy issues.

As the head of an organization that concerns itself primarily with New Mexico’s economic well-being, I feel strongly that she needs to be fully vetted when it comes to her views on energy. After all, New Mexico is a “blue” state. It has voted for Democratic presidential candidates since 2004, when it narrowly went for Bush. New Mexico is also the nation’s second-leading producer of oil and among the nation’s leading natural-gas states. But it is also a poor state, with an economy that is heavily dependent on oil and gas (and federal spending).

For starters, Harris needs to be asked to explain her flip-flop on fracking. If she really supports fracking now, she should speak publicly about it as she did when she was opposed to it. Having an unnamed campaign official speak privately with one publication, the Hill, to signal the policy flip, is not going to be enough to placate voters in energy-producing states. More than 90 percent of New Mexico’s oil and gas are generated through the fracking process. If that is eliminated entirely, New Mexico’s economy (which everyone in the state agrees is over reliant on oil and gas) will be devastated. Even a ban on fracking “just” on federal lands (which the president could more easily mandate) would have massive impacts in New Mexico, where more than half of our oil is produced on federal lands.

Of course, New Mexico oil doesn’t just fund our own state economy and provide the revenues needed to keep it going. New Mexico oil fuels the American economy. It makes us less dependent on hostile and corrupt foreign nations. These days Venezuela is the poster child for corruption and failure, but Russia and the Saudis would all benefit from a dramatic reduction in oil production here in New Mexico. Of course, all of this would increase what Americans pay at the pump, not to mention shipping costs that would be passed along to consumers at every stage in the economy.

While there are numerous energy issues that Harris should be asked about during this abbreviated campaign (including her support for the Green New Deal), we would especially like to know her position on liquefied natural gas (LNG) and on the efforts of the Biden to slow the growth of exports of LNG. In fact, the Biden administration recently lost a lawsuit on its permitting “pause” relating to LNG export terminals.

LNG exports are one of the very best things to happen to the US economy, for American allies in Europe, and for the environment. They are a classic, “win, win, win.”

LNG exports help Germany and other European nations wean themselves off Russian natural gas, and that helps America geopolitically.

LNG exports help Asian nations, including China, to switch from coal to cleaner natural gas, which is a win for the environment.

And, of course, LNG produced right here in America (and New Mexico) helps generate jobs, tax revenue, and economic growth while reducing America’s trade deficit.

Harris never spoke about the “pause” imposed by the administration under which she served while she has been vice president, but she’s running for the top office now and it is critical for voters (especially “blue” energy-producing states including New Mexico) to know what to expect.

Ultimately, despite a lot of overblown rhetoric and massive subsidies for “alternative” sources of energy, Joe Biden was unable or unwilling to really throw a wrench into America’s energy dominance and growing energy production. We might not be so lucky after four or even eight years of a Harris administration.

It is time for Kamala to come clean.

Paul J. Gessing is the president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a think tank based in Albuquerque, N.M.

Gov. Lujan Grisham wants you to believe that she is doing what she can to reduce housing costs in New Mexico. She recently touted the new “Office of Housing” which she claims will address the State’s housing shortage (see Tweet below). Of course, we know that Gov. Lujan Grisham cares about lots of things besides housing, especially her “green” agenda. In January with housing prices already spiraling out of control the Gov. rammed new EV charger mandates through her unelected Construction Industries Division. We fought it at the time, but these policies increase the cost of new housing (and apartments) by 10 to 20%.

The obvious move would be to reverse course and end the EV mandates and costly building codes in an effort to spur housing construction.

But, there are other issues. Lujan Grisham has not lifted a finger to reform the New Mexico gross receipts tax which increases the costs of construction. Cities like Albuquerque and Santa Fe embrace NIMBY policies and are never called on it by the Gov. nor are there policies from the Legislature designed to encourage the construction of homes and apartments. Finally, while MLG seems to have suddenly decided that crime and homelessness are an issue, the need to improve public safety especially in Mayor Keller’s Albuquerque is glossed over.

Keller has acquired a 300 room building at San Mateo and Central (the Warzone aka International District). The building IS attractive. It COULD be rented or sold at market rates, but not in its current location which is not attractive to many.

New Mexico families deserve an affordable place to live. Our new Office of Housing will work to increase supply across the state, making it easier and more cost efficient for New Mexicans to find a place to call home. #affordablehousinghttps://t.co/VGMD5PNfqJ

— Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (@GovMLG) August 9, 2024

In recent years the Rio Grande Foundation has tracked per-pupil spending at New Mexico’s largest school district (APS). In May the District adopted a $2.15 billion budget which was a slight decline from the previous year’s $2.16 billion budget. But, with a continued decline in the student population (see chart below), the District’s per-pupil spend once again rose in the 2024-2025 school year.

While the District (again) pleads poverty and failed to have AC units ready for the unnecessarily early August start of school, the District’s budget continues to grow on a per-student basis.

Gov. Lujan Grisham is bound and determined to pour New Mexico tax dollars into SOME kind of solar company. Unfortunately for her, despite massive federal and state subsidies via the industrial policies of the Biden/Harris Administration and mandates in many states, the solar industry is struggling.

But MLG is bound and determined to “make fetch happen” just as she is with her failing EV mandate. Maxeon Solar was supposed to receive over $2.4 billion in subsidies from New Mexico governments. But, even with such massively generous subsidies the Maxeon factory has been delayed and (we believe) is unlikely to happen anytime soon (if ever). As of this writing (August 9, 2024) Maxeon stock has plummeted to 16 cents per share. A year ago (August 10, 2023) when the deal was announced the company’s share price was $22. But, even that is down dramatically from highs of more than $50/share. Since MLG announced the Albuquerque factory one year ago Maxeon’s stock price has dropped by a mind blowing 99%. The company’s “earnings” per share is a money-losing $-8.03.

Now, the Gov. has inked a deal with another solar company called Ebon. According to news reports New Mexico taxpayers will shell out at least $11 million although the MLG Administration has so far not stated the full scope of the subsidy package being offered. Ebon, like Maxeon, is also struggling. Their share prices has plummeted from $388 a share back in 2021 down to a current price of just under $6.00 a share (a per share drop of 98.5%). Their “earnings” per share is a money-losing $-5.86.

Check out the stock charts for the past year for Maxeon and Ebon below (you can click on them to go to their respective pages):

On this week’s interview Paul gets an update from Nella Domenici on her campaign for the US Senate. What are the latest national and New Mexico political issues?

Gov. Lujan Grisham’s thinly veiled (and ongoing) campaign to pat herself on the back for her radical pro-abortion policies now includes full-page newspaper advertisements run in various Texas papers.  The website Free to Provide contains further details on the program. We have made a public records request to find out how much spending has taken place on this campaign and we’ve requested what should be public information to find out if they have any metrics on the success/failure of the program.

Sadly, as is so often the case, the Gov.’s plan is unlikely to succeed for a number of reasons. Instead, the Gov. and Legislature should consider numerous efforts to improve the legal situation for medical professionals working in New Mexico. Here’s why it is unlikely to succeed:

Medical professionals carefully decide where to base their practice or careers. It MAY be simply because that’s where they grew up, but they have already assessed the pros and cons of the laws in a given state. If they are involved in abortion or passionate about it, they likely have already factored that into their decision making. That being said, there ARE plenty of factors that make New Mexico less competitive in attracting medical professionals.

For starters there are the crime issues which the Gov. herself outlined recently which resulted in a special session in which majority Democrats failed to act. New Mexico’s education system is ranked dead-last in the nation.  If the Gov. doesn’t think terrible crime and education don’t affect doctors’ willingness to relocate to a particular state she may be smoking more of the State’s legalized marijuana than we know. It’s not that New Mexico doesn’t have the money to address these issues. It has had massive budget surpluses in recent years with no impact.

Of course, there are other factors that make New Mexico unattractive for doctors: Nearly 50% of the State is on Medicaid; New Mexico also levies a personal income tax which (due to recent changes) has begun to penalize high income New Mexicans (like doctors) more than previously.

We know that New Mexico is prettier, has better outdoor activities overall, and has better weather than Texas. Of course none of those are the result of government policies. If MLG wants to attract doctors to our state she might want to focus on a few of these issues.

In a presidential race in which Democrat Kamala Harris has not done a single interview (as of August 7) or outlined a single policy position on her website, a robust discussion of a relatively obscure policy area (liquefied natural gas exports) may be too much to ask. However, the US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars funding Ukraine’s war effort. And, the Biden Administration has stopped permitting LNG export terminals (we don’t know what happened as a result of a recent ruling).

So, it was with interest that we noted that France had increased Russian LNG imports to 4.4 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas in the first half of the year when compared to more than 2 billion cubic meters in the same period a year ago. In other words, while the US is spending big bucks to fund a war against Russia, the Biden Administration (to please its radical environmental base) is also throttling exports of LNG that could undermine Russia’s energy revenues. As the article notes, supporters of Ukraine are not pleased.

Will anyone make this point in the presidential campaign? We have no idea. Trump could have taken Biden to task on it in their debate when asked about energy but he didn’t. The media are behind Harris and haven’t asked her basic questions let alone something requiring an iota of insight like this.

Of course, it is worth repeating that New Mexico is one of the top natural gas producing states in the nation and could benefit economically from increased LNG exports.