On this week’s podcast discussion Paul and Wally discuss the Governor’s signing of SB 5 the Red Flag Bill. They also note the conflict inherent in her “Enforce it or resign” rhetoric relative to her plans to legalize marijuana.

A recent social media exchange with a left-wing activist group highlights the fact that the left has dominated New Mexico for decades, but they disavow the results of liberal policies.

The rising cost of Bernalillo County’s new headquarters shows why voters are and should be skeptical any time government embarks upon big capital construction efforts. The Rail Runner and Spaceport are additional examples.

Some New Mexico tribes are being forced to burn “household items” now that a coal mine has closed cutting off their primary source of home heating. And, in a separate case in the same geographical area Paul and Wally note that Navajo Nation tribal representatives recently voted to shrink a barrier prohibiting oil and gas development around Chaco Canyon. This is contrary to the desires of environmental groups and NM’s congressional delegation.

Finally, an environmental group funded “think tank” recently called Enchant Energy’s plan to save San Juan Generating Station and use carbon sequestration technology a “boondoggle.” Wally and Paul explain why the assertion that Enchant’s plan is a “boondoggle” is simply irrelevant.

Amy Swearer is a Senior Legal Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Here is a recent Tweet she made about New Mexico’s red flag bill. She made a series of tweets on the topic detailing her serious concerns over the legislation.

I cannot overstate just how bad New Mexico’s new red flag law is…it uses “preponderance of the evidence” as the standard by which your fundamental rights are revoked.

Preponderance of the evidence.

You can’t even order someone to treatment on that basis.

— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) March 3, 2020

Virgin Galactic plans to start launching people, starting with Richard Branson, into space “later this year,” or so we are told.

But check out the Albuquerque Journal’s recent piece “Virgin Galactic Edges Toward Launch” and you get a very different impression of where things stand at Spaceport America. For starters, the article states “Before (Branson launches), the company will conduct a series of glide tests in southern New Mexico, followed by rocket-powered flights.” Okay, but we’re in March now and we’d likely be hearing about those glide tests and definitely about any rocket-powered flights, but we haven’t heard anything to date.

A few paragraphs later the article notes, “Branson’s first flight could still be many months off…” due to additional testing. Following that up with “It’s unclear how much testing Virgin Galactic will conduct before allowing Branson to board, much less paying passengers,” and the statement “Pilots will need to build experience flying in New Mexico” is the coup de grace.

The article contains even more disclaimers and language indicating they have no clue when manned launches will actually begin. Heck, according to the article they don’t even have the license from the government they’ll need to fly passengers into space.

Perhaps their claims that somehow the Spaceport HAS ALREADY turned a profit are designed to take the pressure to launch off of Branson and Virgin Galactic. The fact is that we are still a long way off from Richard Branson or anyone else flying into space out of Spaceport America. Will they launch before the 10th anniversary of the facility’s grand opening (October 18, 2011)? I wouldn’t bet on it.

The Trump Administration has continued to push to reform and deregulate throughout its first term. The latest effort involves needed reform of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).  Here is a discussion from Heritage Foundation of some of the Law’s many problems.

As with so many regulatory proposals, public comments are a part of the process and left-wing groups, in this case environmental groups, will turn out in full  force to provide negative comments.

The following link allows YOU to make comments (they don’t require technical expertise at all). Below that you can see the RGF’s comments along with a link to our actual comments.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=CEQ-2019-00031k4-9faq-s7dc

The Rio Grande Foundation is a non-profit public policy research organization based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Our mission is to research and advocate for free market public solutions on public policy issues that will lead to a better New Mexico’s economy. A big issue facing New Mexicans and their economy involves overregulation.

While we all want a clean environment public policy must balance economic and environmental conditions. The Rio Grande Foundation believes that as currently enforced, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) suffers from arbitrary standards, politicized enforcement, and protracted litigation. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the potential environmental effects of public works projects and other major government actions.

President Trump’s proposed modernization of NEPA will maintain a clean environment while reducing the negative impact of red tape and unnecessary, costly regulation.

NEPA regulations have not been comprehensively updated in over 40 years. Meanwhile, the time taken to complete an environmental impact statement is now almost 5 years on average, and for highways has averaged over 7 years. Securing approval for roads, bridges, airports, railways, and waterways has been significantly hindered under the existing regulations. The NPRM would, among other changes, establish time limits of 2 years for completion of environmental impact statements and one year for completion of environmental assessments.

The primary thrust of the proposed NEPA revisions involves ensuring that opponents of various projects don’t use process-related issues in order to stall the process and prevent projects from moving forward. Obviously, not ALL proposed projects should be approved, but we strongly support the regulatory and decision making process being limited insofar as it can be used to prolong the process, not guide it to an ultimate conclusion.

New Mexicans will benefit from improved processes relating to roads and freeways, land and forest management. Its fast-growing energy sector will also benefit greatly in ways that continue to bring tax dollars into the State, further supporting America’s energy independence.

The proposed NEPA regulations are a reasonable, common sense approach to ensuring that environmental and economic concerns are balanced in a more thoughtful, timely fashion.

1k4-9faq-s7dc

As the State capital of New Mexico Santa Fe is not known as a manufacturing town and the Legislature is not always know for fast and efficient action, but the Roundhouse (as the capitol building is known) definitely “manufactures” plenty of legislative sausage and can do so rapidly when the political incentives line up.

To outsiders it is often confusing why certain issues make their way through the process and why others that are seemingly very popular (like Social Security tax cuts) do not. Take SB 110 introduced by Sen. Mimi Stewart, a “progressive” union-supported Democrat from Albuquerque who really represents the education bureaucracy and unions in Santa Fe.

Before the 2020 session began we at the Rio Grande Foundation labeled SB 110 “the worst bill of the session.” The bill was a laundry list of new powers and giveaways to government employee labor unions. Making it easier for them to unionize, giving them new benefits, and making it harder for those workers who wish to not be part of the union is the thrust of the legislation.

To make a long story short, in just a few weeks, SB 110 was “tabled” which typically means “killed.” It was resurrected only to be referred to the Senate Finance Committee where John Arthur Smith would have given it a closer look than the unions wanted. Immediately upon that referral the giveaway was dumped into a brand new “dummy bill” HB 364 (analysis here) which rapidly (within just four days) passed through the House and then the Senate. An attempt to refer the bill to Finance was thwarted because “moderate” Democrats in the Senate decided against such a referral which gave the bill an easy path through the Senate and onto the Gov.’s desk where she will presumably sign it.

You can look at the legislative progress (and death) of SB 110 and its fast-moving successor HB 364 here. The usual “good government” media outlets and interest groups are silent.

Paul recently sat down with Jim Williams of ABQ Connect to discuss a wide variety of issues that were discussed, addressed, and not passed in the 2020 New Mexico legislative session.

And, for an idea how YOUR legislators voted on the issues, check out our Freedom Index below the interview below:

Paul Gessing

It’s nothing new to us at the Rio Grande Foundation. Some left wing group or another (in this case ProgressNow) which had an annual budget of over $1 million in 2016 (more than 3 times the size of Rio Grande Foundation’s budget) takes credit for some metric showing how much support and influence they have. See Tweet and images below:

We’re almost #twinning with the @RioGrandeFndn today… with the exception of about 16,000 more progressives. 😂 #justice #WinningWednesday #nmpol https://t.co/F8NCdu6dXE pic.twitter.com/zTFTXA4sbm

— PROGRESSNOWNM (@ProgressNowNM) February 26, 2020

And of course there is also the partisan control by Democrats in this “blue” state. But, when you talk to them about New Mexico’s lousy results and being 50th on the left’s OWN measuring stick (see Voices for Children chart below), you get nothing but a bunch of excuses.

All we can say is follow us on Twitter @riograndefndn and if you’re not on Twitter, sign up. Get involved in the political process. Share RGF emails and information! New Mexico CAN be great, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

As we at the Rio Grande Foundation discussed in this space back in 2017, it is hard to argue with the PURCHASE price of $3 million for the planned Bernalillo County headquarters building, especially IF they consolidate and sell off other properties and office space around the City/County.

But, that $3 million price tag hid a number of needed repairs and other changes that were planned for the building. At the start the estimate was $33 million. That price tag has risen to $65 million.

It’s hard to believe that some of this information, like that the building as configured wouldn’t hold the Commission’s chambers. It is just a pattern in government (New Mexico and beyond) that involves an initial low-ball estimate followed by rapid cost increases. The Spaceport has required numerous additions and the Rail Runner’s costs also rose dramatically.  It just doesn’t engender much trust in government when the REAL price tag of the County’s HQ doubles.

RGF’s Paul Gessing gave a brief comment to KRQE below:

As Dan Boyd reported prior to the 2020 Legislature, The New Mexico United  were hoping for as much as $30 million to build a new soccer-specific stadium in Albuquerque. The Club did manage to obtain $4.1 million (see sports & cultural center on page 3 of this document) but $4.1 million  is a far cry from $30 million and according to league bylaws all expansion teams must be in soccer-specific stadiums within three years.

Estimates are that the stadium could cost $100 million. The City of Albuquerque is also expected to put money into a facility, but the State with its oil and gas money has the deepest pockets.

We understand that Mayor Keller is pushing hard for the stadium to be built at the Railyards. With a price tag of $50-$80 million to simply prepare the Railyards site the stadium could turn into a costly boondoggle VERY quickly.

Worse, the Railyards couldn’t be a worse location for a stadium as the site is tucked away by still-functioning railroad tracks, is not easily accessed from major highways (despite being near I-25, and isn’t really close to the City’s “wonderful” ART bus system.  Perhaps a new Rail Runner station is in the offing?

Recently, Paige Knight of the left-wing group “Voices for Children” claimed in a letter to the Santa Fe New Mexican that Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights had “devastated” Colorado. As Rio Grande Foundation president Paul Gessing argued in response, New Mexico could desperately uses some of that “devastation.” The letter itself is below but can be found here.

Ugly: Important bills or concepts that were not seriously considered:

• No GRT reform or tax cuts were seriously considered despite New Mexico being in a time of massive budget surpluses
• Specifically, the Social Security tax cuts failed
• HB 325: Removing licensing obstacles for those convicted of crimes

Bad: The Worst Bills that Passed

SB 5: Red Flag bill

HB 364: Government Union Giveaway (or anti-Janus effort)

The convoluted and hyper-partisan means of passing this bill is inherently problematic;

• Institutes “card check” for union elections
• Pushes labor boards to be favorable to union interests by ensuring only they survive. Also, this process is a one-way ratchet toward centralization.
• The bill also denies to public employees the right to pursue legal action regarding “fair share” dues collected prior to the Court’s Janus decision.
• The bill compromises the privacy rights of public employees. It requires employers to provide names, job titles, work locations, home addresses, personal email addresses, and home or cellular telephone numbers of public employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
• The bill requires employers to allow public employee unions to conduct union work during work hours, use public employer email accounts for conducting union business, and use public facilities for meetings without compensation for that use.
• Creates threat of perpetual bargaining will create uncertainty in labor relations.

SB 98: Public Project Prevailing Wage Complaints The bill authorizes any person to file a complaint that a contractor, subcontractor, employer or person acting as a contractor on the project has failed to pay wages or fringe benefits at the rates required by the Act.

Overspending (7.6% growth) in state budget at a time when inflation is growing at 1.76% and population growth is nearly flat.

The Gov. was denied “free college,” but $17 million was spent to create the opportunity scholarship program and an additional $10 million was added to the Lottery Scholarship program. The program will prioritize financial aid based on need to undergraduate, credential-seeking students who are enrolled in a two-year academic program.”

HB 83: Creation of Early Childhood Permanent fund

Best things to happen in 2020 Session

SB 72: pension reform

SB 96: putting education data online

Best things to NOT happen in 2020 session

Complete “free” college was denied

HJR 1 permanent fund tap was denied

HB 217 Electric vehicle tax credit was killed at last second

If you want to see how your legislators voted on these and other big issues in the 2020 session, click the Freedom Index logo below:

Although the legislation itself did not get very far in New Mexico’s “progressive” dominated Legislature, the discussion over how to limit spending and taxation in the State is just getting started.

Patrick Gleason of Americans for Tax Reform cited our efforts in a recent Forbes column in which he detailed the battle to restrain taxes and spending in state legislatures all over the country. New Mexico is by no means alone in its overspending. Wyoming and Pennsylvania are among the other states in which such limitations are being considered. And, while the political will for tax and spending cuts is limited, it is a good idea that we will keep pushing.

Podcast: Play here or Download

Paul Gessing is the President of the Rio Grande Foundation. He shares his ideas today about a “Tax Payer’s Bill of Rights” for New Mexico, and he updates us on the 54^th New Mexico Legislative Session. We talk about Pension reform with PERA,  and the battle between government employee unions, and those who believe people should be able to choose whether or not they want to join a union. For more information about the issues affecting all New Mexicans go to  https://riograndefoundation.org/.

On this week’s discussion podcast Paul and Wally discuss the Voices for Children’s recent missive in the Santa Fe New Mexican decrying the “disaster” of Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights. The problem is so dire that the State’s population is booming while New Mexico’s with its unlimited spending is stagnant.

Wally and Paul discuss how Voices consistently supports bigger government, even at the expense of poor people and why even Bernie Sanders opposed soda taxes while Voices remained silent. Also, RGF appears in Forbes on the Taxpayers Bill of Rights.

Paul and Wally discuss the curious saga of SB 110/HB 364, a massive giveaway to public employee unions.

Paul and Wally discuss pension reform legislation which is one of the few bright spots in the 2020 Legislature.

At this point legislation creating a new permanent fund for early childhood education will likely pass (the versions need to be reconciled) spending $230 million. But, tapping the land grant permanent fund won’t happen (again).

HB 325 criminal record for employment is a good bill that would help those convicted of crimes overcome obstacles to occupational licensing.

We’ve christened HB 364 as the “Union Empowerment Bill version 2”

The Union Empowerment Bill version 1 was SB 110.

HB 364 is a massive union power grab coming to the Senate floor soon. The Democrats have used “dummy bills” and other tricks to avoid a fair hearing on the issue.

This bill is designed to tilt the collective bargaining process and representation proceedings heavily against the interests of public employers—and thus of taxpayers and the citizens served by government entities subject to collective bargaining.

Even more, the bill compromises the privacy of public employees who want a fair process free of intimidation.

In addition, the bill would take power over labor issues away from local boards and jurisdictions and centralize it in the hands of the New Mexico Public Employees Labor Relations Board—an entity that is less likely to understand the particular circumstances of local employers and employees than the local boards and jurisdictions.

Problems for employee rights:

• It allows the union to elect to have a card check certification instead of an election, and do so without the employer’s consent. Card check is not only more vulnerable to fraud; it also violates the employee’s right to privacy in making a choice to support the union or not, which opens them up to coercion and intimidation. If private elections are appropriate for government representation, why is it not appropriate for union representation?
• The bill allows local labor boards to continue to exist only if every union (and the employer) under its jurisdiction petitions for its continuance. The petitions have to be unanimous. Thus, if four out of five unions under a labor board want to continue under the local board but a fifth does not, then the wishes of the majority of employees are ignored and the local board is abolished.
• Under this process, only boards that are sufficiently favorable to union interests can survive. Also, this process is a one-way ratchet toward centralization. There is no process for reviving local boards that do not receive sufficient petitions to continue. The bill specifically says “whenever a local board ceases to exist for any reason, it may not be revived.” According to the Attorney General, this language does not seem to contemplate the possibility of an error in determining whether a local board may continue, and thus provides no remedy for such an error. An inconsistency in the bill is that while it allows for local labor boards to continue, it removes all of the language in the law that governs the nature, make-up, term limits, and jurisdiction of local boards.
• Public employees are given only a 10-day window for revoking their authorization for dues deduction. The bill also provides that no such revocations can occur before July 10, 2020. These provisions are suspect under the Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision, issued on June 27, 2018. In Janus, the Court held that forced dues are a violation of employee First Amendment rights. Further, Janus elaborates that respecting the employee’s First Amendment rights requires an opt-in procedure not an opt-out procedure. Under this bill, an employee can opt-in at any time, but once he has opted-in, he has no right to opt-out except under a procedure that is designed to make it easier for unions to retain members and then only after July 10, 2020. The constitutional question is: What conditions are unions permitted to place on employees exercising their constitutional rights?
• The bill also denies to public employees the right to pursue legal action regarding “fair share” dues collected prior to the Court’s Janus decision. It preemptively resolves such litigation by holding the issue moot.
• The bill compromises the privacy rights of public employees. It requires employers to provide names, job titles, work locations, home addresses, personal email addresses, and home or cellular telephone numbers of public employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
• The bill expands the definition of public employee to any job funded by a grant—even if just partly by a grant. Under that provision, for example, employees of any private non-profit receiving grants would be subject to unionization.

Problems for employer rights:

• The bill requires employers to allow public employee unions to conduct union work during work hours, use public employer email accounts for conducting union business, and use public facilities for meetings without compensation for that use. These provisions requiring public resources to be used for union business may violate the New Mexico constitution’s Anti-Donation Clause.
• The bill creates uncertainty about what collective actions are allowed. It says: “Public employees have the right to engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or benefit.” Other than stipulating that “other concerted activities” do not include strikes, the term is undefined. Do “other concerted activities” include walking off the job, refusal to perform job duties, refusal to work overtime, engaging in work slowdowns, sick-outs, sit-ins, name calling and use of profanity?
• The bill creates an obligation on public employers to continue bargaining even while a collective bargaining agreement is in force. The threat of perpetual bargaining will create uncertainty in labor relations.
• The bill changes the definition of management employee to require that such an employee must devote a majority of time to management or executive functions. This attempt to expand the number of employees subject to membership in a collective bargaining unit will especially affect smaller entities where management personnel must perform multiple functions.
• The bill prohibits a public employer from using public funds to influence employees regarding supporting or opposing a labor organization or whether to become a member of any labor organization. The State Personnel Office writes: “[T]he term ‘influence’ could be used out of context and has the potential to be used out of context in potential grievances against the state.”
• The bill gives labor boards the authority to go beyond the administrative remedies traditionally allowed and impose any remedies deemed appropriate including compensatory damages and injunctive relief. That type of power is normally given to courts, not administrative bodies.

Problems for democratic accountability:

• The bill authorizes arbitrators to ignore local government appropriations in awarding monetary judgements, thereby transferring from elected officials the power of the purse to out-of-state arbitrators.
• The bill states “a collective bargaining agreement that provides greater rights, remedies and procedures to public employees than contained in a state statute shall not be considered to be in conflict with that state statute.” Such a provision allows a collective bargaining agreement to amend state law. It hands the legislative power to a non-legislative body.
• The bill reduces the power of local jurisdictions by eliminating their option to have a local ordinance or resolution governing collective bargaining.

Process problems:

• Central New Mexico Community College writes:
  “The proposed changes to the law are so broad and overarching that passing such a bill in the limited time available during this session is a matter of grave concern because it does not provide an adequate opportunity to assess the impact. The substitute raises questions of constitutionality as it relates to recent Supreme Court decisions and the New Mexico Constitution’s anti-donation clause.”
• About SB 110, which is identical to HB 364, the New Mexico Council of University Presidents writes:
  “Proponents say it took them a year to communicate with unions and develop SB 110(the original bill), but no public employers were ever consulted or notified of the proposed changes during the course of its development. […] [The bill] proposes significant and numerous changes to existing law that cannot be addressed in a few days’ time—and although some amendments have been discussed, it is unreasonable to expect public employers to reach consensus on a bill so quickly after its proponents had a year to do so. We ask that public employers be given a similar amount of time to communicate among the counties, cities, school districts, colleges and universities in order to review the legislation and work with the unions to address issues they have with current law. “

The Rio Grande Foundation remains committed to meaningful reform and opposes HB 364 in its entirety.

SB 72 is far-reaching, bi-partisan pension reform that passed the Legislature last night and is on to the Governor’s desk. It may be the highlight of the 2020 Session. But, SB 62 would increase pension liabilities and is problematic.

The Fiscal Report states :… preliminary estimates are an increase in unfunded liabilities of $29.8 million for the Municipal Fire Division.

Because State/Police and Corrections are fully solvent you could amend the bill, remove Fire (until they reach 80% solvency) and leave in Corrections, as they do work some of these shifts.  This would be the fair and fiscally solvent way forward and would help Corrections officers.

No enhancement of PERA benefits, for any fund, should be approved until it has a positive or neutral effect on the fund.  SB 62 has a negative effect.  For this reason I urge voting NO, or passing an amendment that it will automatically become law once the Fire Fund reaches 80% solvency and it will no longer have a negative effect, or taking Fire out of the language and leaving it only for Corrections Officers.

The Rio Grande Foundation has previously exposed the already-generous pensions available to fire fighters.

When Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced the formation of two tax advisory committees in the fall, she said they would “study the state’s tax system and recommend changes to ensure fairness, efficiency and equity.” Legislation to create an electric vehicle (EV) tax credit (such as Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 217), however, will have the opposite effect and make New Mexico’s tax code less efficient and more unbalanced.

If passed, the legislation would create a $2,500 tax credit for the purchase or lease of an electric vehicle, and another $300 giveaway for an at-home charger. This initiative, like similar policies at the national level, will function as a special interest carve-out for wealthy residents living in urban areas and only further alienate rural parts of the state.

Electric vehicle subsidies will benefit wealthier residents. Congressional Research Service data shows that nearly 80 percent of the federal EV tax credits are claimed by people who make over $100,000 per year. Both bills attempt to prevent the disparity in New Mexico by offering a higher credit for lower income buyers, but with an average price of $55,600, most electric vehicles would still be out of reach for many in our state where 400,000 receive federal food assistance.

In addition to tipping the scales toward high earners who can afford to buy cars without a tax credit, EV tax credit legislation also favors New Mexicans in urban areas. Of the 53 public charging stations in New Mexico, 39 are in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area. The remaining 14 are scattered throughout our massive state, putting residents of the majority of New Mexico at a disadvantage. Designating more money for public charging and issuing $300 for home-charging investments aims to correct the problem, but it’s a solution that won’t work for a lot of people.

Beyond that, electric vehicles are also an impractical choice for thousands of farmers and ranchers who rely on their pickups to haul livestock and equipment, often in extreme temperatures. Many others rely on their vehicles to do jobs that electric vehicles simply aren’t cut out to do.

According to a just-released study by the non-profit Road Improvement Program, a nonprofit research organization, “more than half of major locally and state-maintained roads are in poor or mediocre condition,” which is costing us as much as $2,114 per driver.

Electric vehicle ownership only exacerbates the problem, because unlike other cars, EVs do not pay into our state’s road repair fund or the federal Highway Trust Fund, even though they contribute to wear and tear on our roads. Both EV tax credit bills would impose an annual registration fee on electric vehicles, but that falls far short of the $500 a typical New Mexico family pays in federal and state gas taxes each year.

Even without the subsidy, New Mexicans around the state are already subsidizing wealthier electric vehicle owners in Santa Fe and Albuquerque. If EV tax credit legislation passes and succeeds in its goal of putting more electric vehicles on the road, it will further tip the scales way from rural communities.

Coming on the heels of a 33-percent increase in New Mexico’s vehicle sales tax — which was supposed to fund road projects — it’s counter-productive to now consider providing tax refunds to the few people who can afford electric cars and to charge them less for infrastructure upkeep.

Electric vehicles have struggled to take off in New Mexico for reasons unrelated to federal or state subsidies. Fewer than 1,000 electric vehicles were sold in our state in each of the last two years, even with a federal incentive of up to $7,500. Adding a $2,500 rebate isn’t going to make our state more electric. Our policymakers have already hinted that they may follow in California’s footsteps and mandate that a minimum percentage of all state vehicle sales need to be electric. An electric vehicle tax credit is an ineffective and unfair precursor to that sort of extreme policy making.

This letter to the editor against limiting taxes and spending from Voices for Children may be among the funniest that I’ve ever seen. Specifically, the letter claims:

Paul interviews Danny Seymour a policy analyst with the Foundation about the recent study from Moss Adams regarding Spaceport America.

There are numerous serious issues with the report and in this podcast Danny and Paul have some fun discussing its flaws as well as some serious issues that will make it a challenge for the Spaceport to ever achieve the goals of its proponents.

Seymour has written and published an opinion piece in which he addresses the Spaceport’s finances.

A few weeks ago we argued in this space that SB 110 was the worst bill in the New Mexico Legislature (with a reasonable chance of passage). In a surprising move the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to table the bill on Monday which prompted this response.

Well, as the following Tweet from Sen. Mimi Stewart states, SB 110 is officially a zombie. It has been brought back from the dead:

🚨 SB110 to ensure good working conditions & contracts for state workers is back in motion! Will be heard Fri in Judiciary. Thx to @NMCounties33, Municipal League, Assoc of Superintendents, school brds & districts, SF Supt Veronica Garcia for coming together for workers! #nmpol

— Mimi Stewart (@Sen_MimiStewart) February 13, 2020

The bill will be heard Friday morning, so please contact members of Senate Judiciary here. The bill has strong support from those government employee unions who stand to benefit from the legislative changes. Of course, we agree with President Franklin Roosevelt on the basic issue of whether government employees should be able to unionize in the first place:

The following appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News on February 12, 2020.

A study released recently by the consulting firm Moss Adams made headlines with the rather implausible claim that Spaceport America began producing net economic and fiscal benefits for New Mexico as early as 2013. Since its anchor tenant, Virgin Galactic, has yet to launch a single manned space tourism flight, the Rio Grande Foundation undertook a detailed critique of these claims, relying on the audited financial statements from the Spaceport Authority and Capital Spending Records.

Using these publicly-available data along with information from the Moss Adams report which were not previously available (such as estimates of Virgin Galactic’s spending on employee relocation), we estimate the Spaceport project has cost taxpayers roughly $275 million while generating just $54.3 million in income over the last 12 years. The Spaceport’s audited financial statements do not list any revenue other than taxes and transfers from the State government before 2015, making the 2013 breakeven date presented to the media especially egregious.

Only some very creative accounting can turn a $221 million dollar loss into a net profit, but no one has ever faulted paid proponents of more government spending for a lack of creativity. The report seems timed to gather support for a significant hike in tax dollars appropriated for the Spaceport. Notably, the most “pessimistic’ scenario imaginable in the Moss Adams scenario analysis projects “only” $81.25 million of additional financing. Runway extensions, hangars, and other infrastructure have been added on to the facility over the years and (as we learn from the Moss Adams report) there are millions of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects to come at the facility.

One of the biggest problems with the Moss Adams report is it considers the $100 million collected and spent by various Southern New Mexico counties as a positive in the overall return on the facility. It is true that construction companies were hired and projects were undertaken at the facility with that $100 million, but what about the $100 million in foregone economic activity on the part of taxpayers and businesses who saw their gross receipts tax burdens go up in order to fund the Spaceport?

This report, like so many other “economic impact studies,” relies on a controversial tool known as “input-output modelling,” a favorite for lobbyists and consulting groups eager to show credulous politicians that $100 million for a new sports stadium will create an economic renaissance in the area. These models take in more sober revenue calculations, and multiply them by arbitrarily determined “multipliers,” which inflates the benefits based on little more than faith and fancy math.

So-called economic “multipliers” are problematic under the best of circumstances, but one of their worst problems is when their impact is calculated only after the money is taxed away by the government. Ignoring the economic impact of allowing people to keep their own money not only stretches logic, but such mental gymnastics could be used to make any government program look like a winner for the economy.

At this point, we at the Rio Grande Foundation are not calling for the State of New Mexico to sell this facility as we have in the past. In fact, like most New Mexicans we also hope for a successful manned flight out of Spaceport America in the near future.

But, to call the facility a financial success before the primary purpose for which it was constructed rings false on its face. And, to use this as a talking point to request even greater access to taxpayer funding in the near future is to base important economic policy decisions on faulty information. We in New Mexico should know better than most that new government spending programs are not the ticket to prosperity. After a decade of broken promises, it’s well past time companies like Virgin Galactic stopped asking taxpayers to pick up their tab.

Seymour is a policy analyst with New Mexico’s free market think tank, Rio Grande Foundation

As the bi-partisan 25-15 vote on the Senate floor in support of SB 72 which significantly overhauls New Mexico’s PERA public employee pension system, this issue has created a number of “strange bedfellows.” RGF and various groups of public employees have largely been on the same side. And, that is good news for keeping the system solvent.

But,  support for the reform doesn’t mean that we support fire fighters (on taxpayer-paid time) using their equipment (paid with taxpayer money) to head to the Capitol to lobby in support of the bill. An anonymous tipster alerted us to the fact that firefighters from Albuquerque and Santa Fe (at least) were doing this on a regular basis as the reform bill made its way through the committee process.

After all, 99% of the time RGF is fighting alone or nearly alone against taxpayer-funded lobbying efforts. The last thing we need is for tax dollars to be used to be diverted away from public safety and fire prevention and towards lobbying (no matter how much we may agree with their efforts in this particular instance).

The mayors of Santa Fe and Albuquerque should step in and make sure that from here on, no on duty, in uniform, firefighters are allowed to spend their day at the Roundhouse.  They have a job that taxpayers are paying them for, it’s called public safety. Lobbying for their own benefit should always be done off duty.

Check out a few photos below:

On this week’s podcast discussion, Paul begins by discussing the Foundation’s recent post-Oscars interview on KOAT Channel 7. The issue involved an Albuquerque City Councilor’s pricey travel at taxpayer expense.

Wally and Paul spend the rest of the podcast discussing the 2020 New Mexico Legislative session and various good and bad bills that are moving and not moving forward in the session. This includes the Foundation’s tracking software known as the Freedom Index which can be accessed through the RGF website.

A few weeks ago we labeled SB 110 (introduced by left-wing Democrat Sen. Mimi Stewart) “the worst bill of 2020.” And although there may have been one or two worse bills (such as the ban on fracking), we felt that this one had a realistic chance of passing into law because it represented a massive giveaway to government employee unions who are one of the Democrats core constituencies.

Thankfully local governments around New Mexico who would have been most negatively impacted by SB 110 were not fooled and turned out in Senate Judiciary to oppose the legislation which had (in a sneaky move) been amended at the last second (RGF was in attendance as well). That  was in important victory for sanity in Santa Fe, but we will be watching to make sure this bill doesn’t rise from the dead.

Another truly awful bill was HB 173 which was introduced by another left-wing Democrat Rep. Matthew McQueen). That bill would have raised New Mexico’s gas tax from 17 cents/gallon to 47 cents/gallon. Sadly, it drew support from a contingent of young people driven by fear of climate change, but thankfully those on the Committee weren’t interested in tripling the State’s gas tax.

These bills are some of the worst of the worst. And, while HB 173 was unlikely to pass in an election year, it is good to see it (and SB 110) dead at least for this session.