The Albuquerque Journal recently editorialized in favor of “bringing balance” to New Mexico’s emergency powers laws. More importantly, there is at least some bipartisan support for reforming the laws that have so empowered Gov. Lujan Grisham since the COVID 19 crisis began in March.

According to the editorial Democrat Damon Ely (who we have certainly crossed swords with in the past on guns and Right to Work) and Republican Greg Nibert.

Awhile back we wrote in this space of what should be bipartisan concern about one person making and enforcing the rules under this law (regardless of party). Discussions are in their formative stages, but some kind of time limit with a vote of the Legislature on whether to continue the emergency or not would seem like a starting place for reform.

Of course, any legislation will have to achieve enough bipartisan support (after the election) to override a likely veto. That effort likely depends heavily on what happens this November.

According to the Centers for Disease Control only 6% of COVID 19 cases have no comorbidities. Paul and Wally unpack this data point and what it means/doesn’t mean.

Under Gov. Lujan Grisham’s latest orders churches can now have congregations of up to 40%. Indoor dining and breweries will reopen at 25%. In her press conference the Gov. also comes after Española when she drove through and apparently didn’t see masks. The Mayor responds effectively and directly.

At least a few legislators are now working across partisan lines to rein in the Governor’s power under the COVID 19 emergency.

If you want broadband stop taxing it.

GOP Convention speakers focus heavily on school choice. This is good news for the effort to bring educational freedom to New Mexico.

Expiration of $600 unemployment benefit? Data questions the economic impact of that “loss” of money.

Finally, Paul interviews Ryan Davis, the new board president of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico about the proposed Methane Rule.

According to the Santa Fe New Mexican Gov. Lujan Grisham has asked State agencies to make across-the-board cuts of 5%. The interesting thing about these cuts is that they are in advance of FY 2022 which doesn’t begin until July 1 of 2021 or 10 months from now.

The article further notes that, “New Mexico is now heading into the 2021 legislative session with a possible $990 million deficit for fiscal year 2022” although subsequent economic data has indicated that the budget situation won’t be so dire, but a lot can happen between now and July, 2021.

Of course, while these cuts are being made and budget chaos continues (with potential, large cuts and tax hikes in the upcoming legislative session), the State is still creating a $300 million early childhood fund for pre-K programs the data for which are very skimpy.

Changes to New Mexico’s shutdown at the hands of Gov. Lujan Grisham, depressed oil prices, and high unemployment rate could also have significant impacts on the budget.

The economic impact of any single government policy is very hard to unravel. The Rio Grande Foundation and many economists both in and out of New Mexico predicted major budget issues for State and local governments. At this point that hasn’t happened in New Mexico and most other states.

Part of the issue is the massive $2.2 trillion federal CARES Act and related “easing” by the Federal Reserve Bank. Included in those policies was a generous $600 add-on for unemployment benefits that ended at the end of July.

As this article from Marketwatch noted, “Some economists predicted that one consequence of ending the $600 weekly benefit would be that Americans would spend less money, which would harm the already-struggling U.S. economy.” We know that Gov. Lujan Grisham and the Democrats in Congress pushed VERY hard to extend the unemployment benefits AND even pass a massive new federal spending bill called the HEROES Act.

But, without agreement in Washington, there was no major “stimulus,” just a pared down $300 unemployment bump from the federal government (Gov. Lujan Grisham declined to use State money to add $100 to the unemployment checks).

So far, the reduced unemployment checks don’t seem to be harming consumers. Again according to the Marketwatch story, “Since the $600 benefit expired though, Americans have been spending slightly more, according to spending data of more than 30 million Chase credit and debit cardholders.”

Governments have a way of claiming they want something, but if you actually look at government policies that are in place, it becomes obvious that government policies are the largest obstacle to whatever that “something” is as this policy brief from Margaret Mire at Americans for Tax Reform would seem to indicate.

Consider broadband deployment in New Mexico, for example. With children in parts of our State NOT going to school in-person until 2021, there has been an increased emphasis on broadband deployment.

New Mexico is a big, sparsely-populated state and broadband deployment is a challenge. 25% of New Mexicans don’t have access to it. And worse, according to the LFC $325 million has been spent on broadband deployment over just the last four years with little accountability.

But did you know that New Mexico imposes gross receipts taxes on broadband investments? This Albuquerque Journal article is from 2016 but nothing has changed since then as bills have been introduced and died each year.

Proponents say the deduction provides an incentive for broadband expansion and would be an economic development tool. The deduction would apply to investments in construction of new infrastructure and equipment such as transmission facilities, fiber-optic and copper cables and switching equipment for serving new areas. It would apply only to systems capable of delivering download speeds of at least 10 megabits per second and upload speeds of 1 mps.

“The idea is to stimulate new broadband infrastucture in the state because we’re so far behind the rest of the country,” said Katherine C. Martinez, director of legislative affairs for CenturyLink of New Mexico.

Seems like the Legislature should stop taxing broadband investments if they want more deployment.

John Keisling, better known to many New Mexicans as “Gov’nor Lujan Grisham” is a frustrated New Mexican. Rather than writing opinion pieces for the local paper, he made a biting, viral, satirical video called “Gov’nor Knows Best” which has spread around the State more rapidly than the Coronavirus itself.

The video that both poked fun at AND questioned the Governor is worth a watch as are some of John’s other, humorous song remakes which can be found at his Youtube channel “mathpoet87”.

You can watch the video itself below. He will be on KKOB radio w/ Bob Clark on Thursday morning from 9am to 10am:

The following appeared in the Las Cruces Sun News on August 23, 2020

Electricity and where it comes from is a very “hot” issue these days.

As with so many political issues of the left, California has put itself on the very edge when it comes to following the green agenda. It should come as no surprise, given the State’s “deep blue” politics, that California has some of the most aggressive renewable energy goals in the United States. As has been widely reported in the media, Californians are experiencing electricity shortages due in part to a heat wave hitting the State.

But, it is not just the heat, it is also the lack of reliability of these “green” power sources. And New Mexico is not far behind when it comes to mandating them. If it continues to follow California as mandated by the Gov., Legislature, and the PRC, we might see some of the very same problems as California has.

In California the law requires utilities to obtain at least 33% of its electricity from renewable resources. New Mexico is currently at 20% “renewable” but the Energy Transition Act (passed in 2019) requires 50% carbon-free electricity by 2030 and the Public Regulation Commission just required PNM to go with 100% “renewable” electricity in the future.

Will battery technology improve enough by the time New Mexico’s mandates are fully implemented to avert what is happening right now in California? PNM strongly supported the Energy Transition Act and its “renewable” mandates, but they have expressed concerns about grid reliability  as the PRC pushes them to embrace 100% “renewable” electricity generation. Only time will tell how that works out for PNM and its ratepayers, but how about El Paso Electric which serves Las Cruces?

As of December 2017, El Paso Electric’s generation mix was 36.6% natural gas and 48.7% nuclear with only 2.8% of their overall mix coming from “renewables.” The balance comes from various fuel sources and falls into the category of “purchased” power the exact provenance is not explained to the public.

The point is that El Paso Electric is going to be in for a massive shift in power generation sources in advance of the 2030 requirement that half of their power comes from “renewables.” And, while nuclear is “zero-carbon” and in many ways the most environmentally-friendly source of electricity, that is not how the radical environmental-left sees it.

In fact, given dim view of nuclear power on the part of radical environmentalists, it would seem likely that El Paso Electric could be forced to replace more than 3/4ths of its electricity generation within the next two decades. That is going to be expensive from a ratepayer perspective. California, a state with an ideal climate and many energy generation options, has some of the highest electricity rates in the nation with just 33% of its electricity coming from “renewables.”

As the mandated “renewable” percentage goes up, reliability and affordability will be increasingly problematic for both California and New Mexico ratepayers. As we have seen this summer in California, reliability becomes a challenge long before the 100% “renewable” targets kick in. Getting a steady supply of electricity produced at reasonable prices to customers when they want it may look easy, but it isn’t.

El Paso Electric actually has a rather “green” electricity generation portfolio that relies heavily on zero-carbon nuclear and natural gas which has half the CO2 emissions of coal. This was driven by mostly market decisions, not government mandates. Those “green” credentials will likely not placate the “environmental” movement and it will be Las Cruces ratepayers and the reliability of their power grid that take the hit.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

On this week’s podcast discussion Paul and Wally discuss the latest COVID 19 issues. The latest data indicate that NM has hit all COVID 19 guideposts laid out by MLG and yet, here we are. The Gov. wrote an op-ed that is very disturbing. Meanwhile in Wuhan, China there are big, non-socially-distanced pool parties with no vaccine in place.

NM’s unemployment rate is now among the nation’s highest.

APS school board (Peggy Mueller Aragon dissented) decides to go virtual through the end of 2020,

California is struggling with power issues, but PNM is already struggling with similar problems. Paul writes about “renewable” reliability and cost issues in Las Cruces Sun-News.

New Mexican government employees are opting out of forced unionism and the Rio Grande Foundation is helping to educate them.

Paul appears on Cato podcast to discuss Roswell Air Center and Walker AFB: just last week American Airlines canceled flights and Sceye received positive attention.

Is ABQ’s Civic Plaza a school?

New Mexico’s Rail Runner still hasn’t complied with the federal government’s $60 million PTC mandate.

Due to the COVID19 pandemic, the filming of movies and television shows has ground to a halt in New Mexico and around the country. While aspects of the pandemic are devastating to our economy, the shutdown of film is not one of them. That’s because of the outrageous subsidies the State provides Hollywood filmmakers.

In 2019 the Legislature more than doubled the tax subsidy program from $50 million to $110 million. This subsidy expansion would have a massive, negative impact on the State’s budget, especially now that the economic boom of the past few years ended with COVID.

New Mexico is a poor State. Budget cuts and tax hikes will be on the agenda when the Legislature meets in 2021. So, why should taxpayers subsidize Hollywood which grosses $10 billion annually in the U.S., while yearly global box office revenue for American movies nears $38 billion. Yet its profit margins are fattened by American taxpayers, who provide over $1.4 billion in annual subsidies to filmmakers.

Film subsidies are justified by claims that filmmaking will bring jobs and provide money for the local economy. The prestige of having your state’s locations and scenery featured in a popular film plays a role, too—yet, as with sports franchises, the concrete economic benefits generally prove to be elusive.

Today, New Mexico offers some of the nation’s most generous film subsidies, including a 25% tax credit for movies, a 30% tax credit for TV shows, plus a 5 % rebate for resident crew wages if the filming is shot over at least 10 days at qualified facilities (or 15 days if the budget is over $30 million). But these movie-luring investments are nearly always economic flops.

A 2014 Albuquerque Journal article reported that film production in the state had “provided thousands of jobs and generated $1.5 billion in total economic output [from 2010-2014], but film production activity—both movies and TV shows—generated an estimated 43 cents in tax revenue for every incentive dollar spent by the state between 2010-2014.” So, the state lost more than half its investment in movie-making subsidies.

Jim Wisnewski, one of Albuquerque’s more colorful casting agents, had nothing but praise for the role of film and television subsidies in his state:

We say bring it on, it’s great for New Mexico. Throw that state money at Hollywood—bring ‘em in. When they come, they have to spend money in the state, renting cars and hotels, eating at restaurants, and that’s all revenue for us, isn’t it? In fact, we’re proposing a studio be built on the border between New Mexico and Colorado so that those guys can take the 30% tax rebate from New Mexico and the 20% tax rebate from Colorado. They could get back 50% of their taxes that way.

This may seem humorous, but there is nothing funny about taxpayers footing the bill for films the networks are going to film anyway. With New Mexico again facing budget cuts (after having already made some in the recent special session), taxpayer dollars should not be diverted to rich Hollywood film companies.

For many decades, too many of our government’s policies have taken wealth from taxpayers of modest means and provided a big chunk of it to the rich. The same perverse policies are in place today, and there is every reason to believe that they’ll remain in place for the foreseeable future—unless we act as citizens to demand change.

While today’s politicians—especially those vying for the presidential contest in 2020—are proposing ways that the government should act to reduce income and wealth inequality, we ask, at the least, that the government stop making inequality worse.

This is one area of economic policy that the vast majority of Americans of all political persuasions agree on. Liberal or conservative, socialist-leaning or libertarian, Republican, Democratic, or independent—practically everyone will acknowledge the absurdity of having government take from the poor and the middle class to give to the rich.

Yet that’s exactly what happens, every day, in many ways, large and small. New Mexico taxpayers would be well served if their legislature cut such gifts to the rich from their budgets, starting with these ridiculous film subsidies.

*Phil Harvey and Lisa Conyers are co-authors of “Welfare for the Rich,” a new book that was published on August 4, 2020. For more information, go to www.welfarefortherich.com
and @PostHillPress

Back in January, New Mexico’s unemployment rate was just 5%. It was higher than the rates in most states, but it was at a healthy level. Then in March, COVID 19 hit and most states began locking down their economies.

State economies widely vary in how and when they will be impacted by the Virus and the lockdowns imposed by their political leaders, but with New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham shutting down restaurants and tourism, it is no surprise that the State’s unemployment rate has risen (despite New Mexico benefiting greatly from large “investments” by the federal government.

If New Mexico remains locked down it seems hard to believe that New Mexico’s unemployment rate will improve relative to its neighbors. Rates for all 50 states are here. Utah’s 4.5% rate is the lowest in the nation.

The following appeared on CNSNews.com on August 24, 2020.

Congress is in recess until after Labor Day. As a result, people across the nation are furious with their elected representatives for leaving Washington without passing another COVID-19 economic relief package.

The implications for extra unemployment insurance that keeps people out of the workforce and stimulus checks that increase our national debt notwithstanding, there’s another silver lining: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s crony capitalist giveaway to health insurance giants is at least a few weeks closer to the ashbin of history.

Democrats in the U.S. House passed a bill that would fund COBRA premiums for nine months. This program allows recently unemployed people to keep their insurance plan if they pay the full premium. Pelosi’s plan would use federal funds to cover these premiums via direct payment to the insurance companies, which would have cost taxpayers $157 billion in the first four months and almost $500 billion by the end of the year.

No one wants Americans to lose health insurance, but this COBRA bailout was so expensive that even socialist Bernie Sanders was against it and the Colorado Foundation for Universal Health Care panned it as a “bailout for corporations.”

Keep in mind, Pelosi and House Democrats planned this massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. Treasury to health insurance companies at the same time they are making money hand over fist. This is because insurance companies are continuing to collect premiums while millions of Americans are putting off going to the doctor due to COVID-19, resulting in far fewer claims to pay on their customers’ behalf.

As a result of this imbalance, the nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group (UHG), posted its highest ever profit of more than $6.6 billion in the second quarter of the year. Profits are typically nothing to be ashamed of, but a megacorporation certainly doesn’t need a bailout during the most gainful time period in its history.

Why would Nancy Pelosi pursue a ham-handed giveaway of taxpayer dollars to a company worth $300 billion having the most profitable quarter of its existence?

The answer might be the AARP, an organization that “has become little more than a marketing scam for its big corporate financial sponsors — UnitedHealth and its wholly-owned OptumRx pharmacy business,” according to American Commitment President Phil Kerpen.

The organization recently released a report entitled “How AARP Puts Profits over Patients—And Principles,” that lays out the “the unholy alliance between AARP and UnitedHealth Group” in devastating detail.

Although AARP is a non-profit tax-exempt 501(c)(4), it earned a profit of $246.5 million in 2018 on a total of nearly $1.65 billion in gross revenue, a margin of nearly 15 percent. Not bad for a “non-profit” organization! Only 18 percent of AARP’s revenue in 2018 came from dues paid by members, while 57 percent came from selling AARP-branded goods and services to those members in the form of “royalty fees.” Between 2007 and 2018, the total royalties paid to AARP totaled a little over $9 billion, with $5.3 billion coming exclusively from UnitedHealth group.

AARP does not disclose how much money it receives from each of the plans it hawks for UnitedHealth Group, but it is required to include fine print on its Medigap plans that it receives a “royalty” of 4.95 percent for each plan sold. American Commitment’s report estimates this to be $350-400 million per year.

UnitedHealth Group certainly makes a tidy profit from the plans sold to AARP members, but it also gets something else for the cash: a bought-and-paid for lobbying group posing as a senior citizens organization. This could explain the sometimes-puzzling positions the AARP takes.

The Obamacare fight is a crystal-clear example of the organization fighting for its and UHG’s profits at the expense of seniors. In the runup to its passage, the bill was deeply unpopular with seniors.

A poll at the time showed strong opponents outnumbered strong supporters of Obamacare by more than two-to-one, with a total of 59 percent of seniors in opposition. Even more, a House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation uncovered an email from AARP lobbyists to the Obama White House that said, “We really need to talk. Our calls against [Obamacare] are coming in 14 to one.” Yet AARP went on to support the bill.

The American Commitment report explains how AARP looked out for its own financial interests during the legislative fight and how it ultimately hurt seniors:

“At the time of Obamacare’s passage, AARP claimed that it wanted to end ‘discrimination’ against individuals with pre-existing conditions. But what did AARP do to ensure that that policy applied to its lucrative Medigap insurance plans? Precious little. Press reports indicate that the seniors’ organization compelled then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to close the ‘doughnut hole’ in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit before it would endorse the final version of the legislation.

By contrast, AARP imposed no such requirement on Democrats to ensure that Obamacare’s insurance provisions regarding pre-existing conditions applied to the Medigap insurance AARP sells. In fact, it stood idly by while Democrats stripped language applying pre-existing condition provisions to Medigap from the final version of the bill.”

Because of AARP’s inaction, “individuals with disabilities still cannot obtain access to coverage because of their pre-existing conditions.” AARP’s lucrative partnership and UHG’s profit margin were on the receiving end of other Obamacare carveouts: the tax on health insurance companies exempted Medigap policies, lower medical loss ratio standards for Medigap, and exempting Medigap insurance from the rate review process altogether.

Some ten years later, AARP is still pushing for Nancy Pelosi’s preferred policies that will pad UnitedHealth Group’s profit margin so they can continue to cash royalty checks and hurt seniors. Take H.R. 3, which will impose price controls on prescription drugs (if drug makers don’t accept it, they will face a 95 percent excise tax).

Americans for Tax Reform summarized the bill thusly:

“The Pelosi plan is not a good faith effort to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. It will end innovation in the U.S. and prevent the development of the next generation of life-saving and life-preserving medicines.

At present, the U.S. is the world leader in medical innovation with almost 60 percent of drugs being developed in the country.

This innovation benefits the U.S. in the form of high-paying jobs, a stronger economy R&D, and access to more life-saving medicines.”

While supporting these price controls that will slow cures for diseases, AARP also opposed a Trump plan to offer rebates directly to consumers instead of pharmacy benefit managers such as OptumRX, which is wholly owned by – you guessed it – UnitedHealth Group.

This triangle of crony capitalism between members of Congress, UnitedHealth Group, and AARP (which, as a non-profit, should be advocating for seniors, not its own revenues) is a perfect encapsulation of “the Swamp” that Americans loathe so much.

While Nancy Pelosi’s plan to transfer your tax dollars to the nation’s largest insurance company may be dead (for now), we need to stay vigilant to ensure it doesn’t return.

Patrick Brenner is a policy analyst for the Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico’s free market think tank.

As has been widely reported at this point Albuquerque Public Schools is going to be completely virtual through at least the end of 2020. This was the decision of the School Board (minus Board Member Peggy Mueller Aragon who voted against the plan) last week.

We requested a copy of the School Reopening Parent Survey results. These were supposedly used by the District to make its decision. Of course, the Board was talking about going 100% virtual a few weeks before they made the decision. Also, these are NOT scientifically-collected polling numbers. Anyone who stated they had a student in APS could take the survey which was posted online for less than 48 hours (so those “in the know” had a better chance to weigh in).

Of course, as education analyst Corey Deangelis has noted using national data, union strength (as opposed to science) seems to be driving decisions on whether schools go back to in-person learning or not.

Even by APS’s own survey data, nearly half of all parents are considering transferring their child to a school that guarantees in-person learning or home-schooling. Here is a link to the District’s re-entry plan.

In this interview, Paul visits with Gallup, New Mexico business owner Sammy Chioda about the political, economic and practical challenges this community is facing.  Sammy is the owner of Sammy C’s Rock’n Sports Pub & Grille.

New Mexico’s Renewable mandate is “only” at 20% currently (thanks to Bill Richardson). We STILL have a fully-functional coal power plant. And, yet PNM can’t handle the electricity demand RIGHT NOW!

Now, thanks to the MLG’s (and the Legislature’s) Energy Transition Act and the PRC’s recent decision (which PNM says will negatively impact reliability) they’re going 100% “renewable.” Good luck with that!  

As a previous system operator I can tell you that PNM at times relies on the CAISO market to bail them out during periods of high demand. The problem is that when Cali is short that option goes away. Adding more renewable energy that is non-dispatchable will only make this worse.

— Dax Contreras (@daxcontreras) August 20, 2020

The following appeared on the Las Cruces Sun News website on August 15, 2020.

With New Mexico still in the throes of COVID19 it is easy to forget about other major public policy issues affecting the State and its economy.

Just over two years ago, in the Janus v. AFSCME decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that working for state or local government should not come with a requirement that those employees hand over a portion of their hard-earned money to unions with whom they often disagree. In the time since the decision, many government workers in New Mexico have exercised these rights by leaving their unions in droves.

In a series of public records requests, the Rio Grande Foundation has found that that more than half of state employees – 54% – have left their union. Our survey of schools, cities and counties around New Mexico show that thousands of other public workers have decided to leave their unions as well.

In working with the national advocacy effort My Pay, My Say, which is working across a large number of states (nearly half of states saw public employees receive the freedom to opt-out), New Mexico’s drop among state employees is the largest we have seen.

Our campaign telling New Mexicans about their first amendment right to leave their unions has reached tens of thousands of public employees all across the state with thousands of them engaging with the advertising and many ultimately choosing to stop paying dues.

The Rio Grande Foundation has long supported worker freedom in New Mexico. We share President Franklin Roosevelt’s contention that, “the process of collective bargaining as usually understood cannot be transplanted into the public service.” And we were thrilled when the court upheld the First Amendment rights for workers to choose – or choose not – to belong to labor unions.

Public sector bargaining is problematic. Unlike in the private sector, taxpayers are ultimately subsidizing both sides of the bargaining table – the government employer and the government union.

Recently, many on the left have come to realize these issues as well – at least when it comes to police unions. Many of the protections given to unionized police officers are not in the best interests of accountable policing and equitable criminal justice policies. We welcome them to the newfound realization that government employee unions often stand in the way of holding “public servants” accountable for their actions.

But this new skepticism of unions – over their political advocacy and problematic contracts – should apply across all areas of government, including at the state, local and in K-12 education. In fact, problems with government employee unions in the education bureaucracy, like unionized law enforcement bureaucracies, have disproportionate, negative impacts on poor and minority populations.

Allowing government employees to opt out of their unions is a good step towards holding unions accountable. It forces them to be more accountable to those they “represent” and it takes away one of the special favors typically granted to unions by state and local government.

Once Janus v. AFSCME gave workers the choice, large numbers of them decided that unions didn’t do a good job representing their interests. Some opt out for broader political reasons; others simply don’t feel the dues are worth it and still more are perhaps concerned by the lack of accountability in government that has been driven by the unions for decades. Whatever the reason, we’ll continue making sure government employees know their rights.

Paul Gessing is president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility

In this week’s discussion podcast, Paul and Wally discuss the latest on COVID 19 in New Mexico. In this week’s press conference the Gov. mostly just recounted more good news on the numbers declining. We did get a reminder to fill out the Census. We were also told that “gator” face coverings are not good at preventing the spread. In the latest Wallethub report, New Mexico was rated 34th overall, but was among the most locked down and most impacted states.

Paul gives a quick update on Bernalillo County’s proposed “project labor agreement” law. 

As more workers see their place of work disconnected from where they live, New Mexico and other states will be able to compete for remote workers. Some business leaders were recently discussing the issue. Wally and Paul further discuss the State’s pluses and minuses for those folks.

NM doesn’t put up money for enhanced unemployment benefits.

A new RGF policy brief discusses the PRC constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall. Evidence points to an appointed PRC. 

Katharine Stevens article appears in ABQ Journal. 

Finally, with all the controversy over the US Post Office, Paul discusses how the issue has been looming (and free-market advocates have been working to reform it) for decades. 

Just weeks after the New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commission voted on the 100% “renewable” option despite concerns expressed by PNM that system reliability would be a problem if the PRC mandated 100% “renewables,” Californians are experiencing electricity shortages due in part to a heat wave hitting the State.

It should come as no surprise, given the State’s “deep blue” politics, that California has some of the most aggressive renewable energy goals in the United States. This year the state is required to obtain at least 33% of its electricity from renewable resources. New Mexico is currently at 20% “renewable” but the Energy Transition Act (and subsequent PRC action) will require 50% carbon-free electricity by 2030 and 100% renewable by 2045. The San Juan Generating Station is slated for closure by the Summer of 2022. Replacing that massive electricity source will be the first big challenge for PNM.

Will battery technology improve enough by then to avert what is happening right now in California? They have supported these policies, but PNM has concerns. Only time will tell.

Principled free market advocates have long called for reform of the US Postal Service. It is NOT a state issue per se so the Rio Grande Foundation has not taken it up, but the National Taxpayers Union (Gessing’s former employer) has long advocated for reform of the government-sponsored monopoly and you can find a trove of information about what Congress should have done to transform the Post Office many years ago.

You can read comments submitted by Pete Sepp, president of NTU here. Simply put, politically-motivated decisions on the part of the Postal Service (combined with its monopoly-status) have led us inexorably to the current situation. The issue of mail-in voting (and whether that is a good idea or whether the Post Office can handle that volume) is related, but quite separate.

Ultimately, the only way to “save” the postal service from its awful management and perverse incentives is to put private management in charge and have them compete with FedEx and UPS.

The latest job-killing special-interest-driven attempt to take money out of your pockets could be voted on as soon as September 22, 2020,

Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley (along with Commissioner Collie) introduced the legislation at Tuesday’s meeting.

If adopted, the bill would require union labor be hired for on public works projects if any part of them are paid for by the County. One study found that such agreements increase construction costs by 13 percent. Numerous other studies show that such agreements are unfair to the 92% of workers who are NOT union members and they jack up construction costs for no benefit. 

You can read more here under agenda item 8. PLA’s essentially hand public works projects over to unions in ways that increase costs to taxpayers. Please contact your commissioners and tell them that raising the cost of roads and other public projects is a terrible idea:

On this week’s episode, Paul interviews Carla Kugler. Carla heads up the New Mexico Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC). Her group is a trade association representing non-union construction firms.

Bernalillo County is now considering legislation (see below) that would mandate the use of unionized workers in all public works projects.

Carla also shares with Paul the latest on how the construction industry is doing in New Mexico.

Finally, she talks about new energy codes that are being discussed or implemented by the State and City of Albuquerque respectively.

There is a lot going on with New Mexico’s industry. Find out how construction is doing!

An interesting news story from KOB TV recently included a discussion of things that businesses (or individuals) might consider as they consider relocating in a post-COVID world. And it is true that for a variety of reasons New Mexico could be a much more attractive location for those remote workers who might otherwise HAVE to live in a big, expensive city.

So, here’s what they came up with as New Mexico’s strengths:

• Low cost of living
• Low property taxes
• Infrastructure for workforce training
• Nice weather

I’d also add the following:

• Unique culture/cuisine
• Outdoor activities (skiing, golf, and hiking to name a few)

What about the negatives? Better still,  can they be changed or improved?

• High crime (hard to solve, but could be improved)
• Poor K-12 education system (political challenges like unions, but solutions are readily available)
• High overall taxes and gross receipts tax that could be especially problematic for “remote” workers
• Poor broadband access especially outside of major cities (could be solved)
• Relative geographical isolation (there are few major cities with amenities like pro sports teams within driving distance)
• No “big city” vibe anywhere in the State (notably Albuquerque’s downtown)

What do you think? If you are one of those remote workers are YOU thinking about relocating to New Mexico? Would you add or subtract items on this list? Send us a note at: info@riograndefoundation.org

At the end of July we noted that Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham was loudly demanding a big federal bailout of her lockdown policies here in New Mexico. At the time she said, “New Mexicans need all the help they can get during this public health and economic emergency.” 

Apparently that help doesn’t include $100/month from the State of New Mexico.

Since making that statement President Trump signed an executive order that, among other things offers $400 in “extended” unemployment benefits with $300 coming from the federal government and $100 “expected” to come from the states. Whether this EO was a good idea or not is beyond the scope of this piece, but what is undeniable is that for all of her talk about what Washington should do for the unemployed, New Mexico isn’t going to do anything. That $100 that Trump’s EO asks the states to pay in order to bring the unemployment benefits to $400 a month will not be forthcoming according to the Associated Press.

Basically, as long as she could make political points and suck money in from Washington MLG was going to loudly demand higher unemployment benefits. Once Washington asked for a little matching funding to help those workers MLG is nowhere to be found.

(Albuquerque, NM) – New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commission (PRC) has been at the center of a number of momentous and controversial issues (particularly the Energy Transition Act) in recent years. But bi-partisan momentum exists for reforming the powerful regulatory body and a Constitutional Amendment will be on this November’s ballot which will transform the PRC into a three member body appointed by the Gov.

Is this a good move? What evidence exists from other, similar regulatory agencies? In his new Issue Brief “Should the Governor Appoint PRC Commissioners?” which analyzes the issue and brings evidence from other states into the discussion, the Rio Grande Foundation’s Adjunct Scholar Kenneth Costello discusses the issue and offer his recommendations.

Ultimately, Costello concludes, “While it was not a “slam dunk,” the finding of this brief is that a three-member PRC appointed by the Governor, with input from the nominating committee, would be best for New Mexico.

His arguments in favor of the Constitutional Amendment include: the current Commission size of five commissioners is too many, moving to an appointed model would lead to better-qualified members on the Commission, and appointed commissions have a bigger pool of applicants than the relatively limited number who would run for office.

At the Rio Grande Foundation we expect to disagree regularly with the measures taken by the PRC (the decision to adopt a 100% “renewable” electricity portfolio is only the latest). However, those are often philosophical issues handed down by the Legislature for the PRC to more fully vet and implement.

Ultimately, given the choice between a five member elected PRC and a three member appointed body, the three member commission is the most sensible.