The following piece by Patrick Brenner of the Rio Grande Foundation appeared in the Los Alamos Reporter on September 11, 2020:

As the country begins to re-open and we assess what the future will look like post-pandemic, states will have to take a hard look at where to allocate funds knowing there will undoubtedly be budget concerns for the foreseeable future. While budget cuts are imminent, and in New Mexico they are needed, that does not mean indiscriminately eliminating programs or services that provide real benefit to New Mexico residents who need them most, especially when they ultimately save taxpayers money in the long run.

Before everything shut down, I toured the New Mexico Men’s and Women’s Recovery Academies near Albuquerque where I met with both the residents and the staff who run both of these facilities. Not only did the residents and staff provide glowing reviews of the programming and facilities, but also the Department of Corrections official who toured with us said that she fights for this type of programming across New Mexico and spoke about how effective it has been. These types of programs are on the chopping block. But it is these same programs that serve as alternatives to incarceration and are incredibly effective in treatment, saving taxpayer money, and better outcomes for participants of these programs.

The New Mexico Men’s and Women’s Recovery Academies are both managed by the GEO Group, a private contractor that manages detention and corrections facilities. While often vilified in the media, this private contractor has spent $10 million last year alone on programming around substance abuse counseling and cognitive behavioral treatment. Rehabilitation programming like this provides care, compassion, and effective tools to help people and reduce recidivism rates.

When you visit, the most surprising element is the sense of community and pride that has been fostered among the residents and staff where the more tenured members act as mentors for the newer residents and they truly pull for one another through this tough transition. The graduates of this program see this as a new opportunity for their lives and they are less likely to fall back into their old ways. Funding these types of programs will not only help residents overcome their addiction and other issues, but they will also help New Mexico’s bottom line.

This programming in New Mexico is new. But inmates who participated in this same programming in facilities in Florida had a recidivism rate 30 percent lower than their peers that did not have the same programing. Assuming this trend holds and recidivism is reduced by one third of the average in Florida after participation in these programs, this could be a major cost saving measure for the state. In 2019 alone, this would roughly provide $8 million in cost avoidance for Florida because they will no longer have to house these reformed inmates. There is every reason to believe the Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs will see the same drop as Florida experienced and New Mexico could have the same experience with “cost avoidance”.

Corrections funding was already reduced during the recently-completed special session. When cutbacks occur in the 2021 session, programs like these should be among those preserved. The expertise of private sector providers can provide such services at a high quality and reasonable price, but the ultimate benefit is to the State and taxpayers of New Mexico who are desperately searching for ways to reduce crime and recidivism in their communities.

There is no “silver bullet” to solving crime. The COVID 19 epidemic will have unpredictable consequences for our society as well as crime rates and the criminal justice system at large for years to come. Even in times of tight budgets, New Mexico needs to continue investing programming, especially the kind that can be provided by private providers at a reasonable cost in our prisons and treatment facilities to ensure that we support inmates and residents. Short-sighted decisions now may have a negative impact on New Mexico for years to come.

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

A recent article from the Santa Fe New Mexican notes that New Mexico’s new early childhood permanent fund is unlikely to grow as much as the advocates would like.

Quoted in the piece is Rep. Javier Martinez, one of the most left-wing members of New Mexico’s far-left Legislature. Martinez is and an advocate of “ending reliance on fossil fuels” but he sure loves the money they generate. Unfortunately, oil/gas revenue is down since the pandemic so the fund isn’t growing as fast as he’d like.

And, while Gov. Lujan Grisham cries about Republicans in Congress and the President not passing yet another massive bailout, she refuses to reallocate the $300 million early childhood “permanent fund” to more pressing needs. This fund was created in the 2020 session but apparently it is Washington’s job to fund NM government, not hers.

While Gov. Lujan Grisham continues to plead for more federal money to shore up New Mexico’s finances, we are taking the longer and more New Mexico-centric view of looking at the leading systemic challenge facing our State: low oil prices combined with dropping production.

The data do lag, so we are using the best info available from Oil Conservation Division, but as of June 2020, oil production in New Mexico has dropped about 20% since March. That is a slight rebound from May and the June data is also the latest available.

Prices on the global market have dropped somewhat to below $40 a barrel. Will production rebound in such a price-depressed environment? Only time will tell. If not for the Gov’s Virus policies and the myriad ongoing election controversies, this would be the number one issue facing our State.

The Rio Grande Foundation is avowedly NOT an expert on the nitty-gritty of policing, BUT when asked about the general role of what a new police chief for New Mexico’s largest city should do, we definitely have a perspective. We shared that with KOB TV Channel 4.

1) Police MUST protect property including businesses downtown AND statues. Waiting and simply watching vandals destroy businesses and public property is a bad strategy and it undermines the very role of policing. This includes doing more to move homeless encampments out of parks and other public areas.

2) Politicization of policing is a problem. The Mayor should set goals and standards and let the professionals work to achieve them.

3) “Defunding” the police is simply not going to happen, nor should it. Reforms must be considered to both encourage proactive law enforcement AND respect for individual rights, but even substantial budget cuts are likely NOT helpful in high-crime Albuquerque.

You can watch what we have to say below:

Admittedly, when we at the Rio Grande Foundation first heard of the Fair Deal, a raft of public policies proposed by Republican candidates for the New Mexico Legislature,  we were pretty skeptical.

After all, the original Fair Deal was a 21 point plan proposed by President Harry Truman that would have resulted in a massive expansion of the federal government. Then it was reported in the media that the plan was a “moderate agenda.” The term “moderate” is not necessarily a bad, but it doesn’t mean anything. So, what IS the Fair Deal agenda? We looked and it is actually pretty good. Here are the most substantive parts:

ECONOMY: Protect people’s right to retain more of what they earn (presumably by holding the line on or reducing taxes). Eliminate taxes on Social Security, stop unfair double and triple taxation of small business (presumably by reforming the GRT), and reduce or eliminate the income tax on working families.

Professional licensure reform, streamline mandatory disclosure requirements (unclear what these are or this means in practice), regular and mandatory review of all regulations, and the elimination of at least one old regulation for each new one added.

CRIME: Protect the 2nd amendment; redo bail reform, ensure mandatory sentencing, and require short-term confinement and counseling for drug criminals.

There are other policies discussed in the plan which can be found here. Some of them are written vaguely more as statements of principle than as specific agenda items. We’d like to see issues like “right to work” and New Mexico’s “prevailing wage” laws addressed and “school choice” or “education $$ follow the student.” Also, it is imperative that New Mexico’s laws governing public emergencies be addressed in order to restore balance of power.

Overall, as far as they go, the specific policy proposals laid out in this “Fair Deal” would definitely move New Mexico in the right direction.

Good news!  The anti-gun measure being considered by the Albuquerque City Council tonight failed at 5 to 4, specifically Resolution 20-68 which would have called the legislature to push firearm preemption reconsideration to the ballot. The vote tally is included below:

Lan Sena: yes
Isaac Benton: yes
Klarissa Peña: no
Brook Bassan: no
Cynthia Borrego: no
Pat Davis: yes
Diane Gibson: yes
Trudy Jones: no
Don Harris: no

A no vote indicates opposition to the anti-gun measure. Thank you so much for your hard work in encouraging our City Council to protect our constitutional right to keep and bear arms!

Are New Mexico schools reopening? Are they in-person, “hybrid,” or completely virtual? And, more importantly, what standards are to be used by policymakers? The Lujan Grisham Administration has made a hash out of this and that only reinforces my personal view that home-schooling was the only option that made sense for MY family. Unfortunately, not all families can easily do that and, with an ever-changing landscape of school reopening New Mexico’s already “inadequate” public education system is truly going to leave the vast majority of students behind.

Theoretically, schools in the green areas on the map below are allowed to open (whether that is sound logic or not is open to question), but in Farmington plans were changed on September 3, just a few days before kids were supposed to return to school in-person, due to a decision made by the PED/Gov. Lujan Grisham. The exact reason for that decision is tough to understand.

A similar situation arose in the Moriarty/Edgewood School District. On Friday September 4th the district received the final OK from the PED that they could reopen K – 5 on September 8th. On Sunday September 6th the MESD Superintendent was contacted by the PED and told that the filters in the HVAC systems in the schools in the district were subpar and they would not be allowed to open.

And, we can’t forget about the disparate treatment of public and private schools with the former being able to open at 50% and the latter only being allowed 25%.

Remember that the Centers for Disease Control has recommended that children return to school.

UPDATE: We understand from sources at Hope Christian School in Albuquerque (a private, religious school that has worked VERY hard to open) that the Gov.’s office/PED have been aggressively working to find ways they may be violating the Gov.’s orders and prevent the school from staying open 5 days a week).

Ben Ray Lujan doesn’t want to debate Mark Ronchetti in the race for US Senate. But, he DID take time over the Labor Day Weekend to attack Mark Ronchetti for saying, as he did during an RGF-sponsored “Liberty on Quarantine” event back in May, that he supported “Right to Work.”See for yourself in the Tweet below:

Labor Day should be a time to reflect on how to improve working conditions and keep workers safe.

Instead — as newly available footage makes clear — @MarkRonchettiNM is throwing his support behind ‘right-to-work’ policies that lower wages and leave New Mexicans vulnerable. pic.twitter.com/wKsxqjHhmo

— Ben Ray Luján (@benraylujan) September 7, 2020

Interestingly, while the Gallup polling company releases a poll on labor issues every Labor Day they stopped asking questions about support for Right to Work back in 2014 when overwhelming majorities of Americans (regardless of political party) expressed support for such laws which simply allow people to choose whether they want to support a union by paying dues or fees.

Thanks to the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision of 2018 all government employees in America now operate under such laws, but in New Mexico, private sector workers still may be required to join a union. Ben Ray Lujan is on the losing side on this issue, but he knows the unions are major financial supporters and have lots of manpower to help in political campaigns.

On this week’s edition of Tipping Point New Mexico Paul interviews Zach Fort of the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association about some bad, anti-gun ordinances that are moving their way through Albuquerque’s City Council. You can take action on them here.

In this space we at the Rio Grande Foundation don’t usually provide details of vacations to other states, but with the COVID 19 lockdown still in place in New Mexico and state-level responses varying so widely, Paul offers some details regarding his trip to Ohio to visit friends and family (his mom’s side is mostly in NM and his dad’s is in Cincinnati) over the Labor Day weekend. Ohio has somewhat fewer deaths as a percentage of the population relative to New Mexico.

For starters, this was the first time Paul has flown since January, pre-COVID. Paul flies Southwest Airlines whenever possible and, while there were numerous changes made by the airline (with flights canceled and moved around) the airline did a great job. Middle aisle seats were left empty but the flights were pretty full besides. Masks were required on the planes and in the airports which wasn’t always comfortable, but if you had a snack or water you could remove them. (bring a water bottle) Airports including Paul’s layover airport (Chicago Midway) was relatively quiet with many shops and dining options closed.

Once on the ground in Ohio there were real differences between New Mexico and Ohio. According to Wallethub Ohio is “only” the 23rd most open and New Mexico “only” the 34th most open, but there are numerous major differences:

• Amusement parks (like King’s Island) and “fun” centers like Dave & Buster’s to use one example are open. Similar facilities remain closed in NM.
• Students in most school districts in Ohio are allowed to go to school in-person 5 days a week. Those who don’t want to go in person can do virtual learning.
• Bars were open with live music although they closed at 10:30pm. We even shot pool.
• Few people wore masks walking around on the street, but in stores and restaurants (until seated) they did.
• One of the hot topics is the politicization of whether or not the Big 10 Football teams will play this year or not.

While so many people are afraid to travel right now, Paul found the whole experience to be worthwhile and flying, in particular, comfortable.

Ken Costello is an Adjunct Scholar at the Rio Grande Foundation and an expert on utilities and their regulation. Paul and Ken discuss the constitutional amendment on the November ballot in New Mexico which would shift the PRC to an office appointed by the Gov. instead of one that is elected. Also, membership on the PRC would shrink from 5 to 3 members.

Ken and Paul also discuss the Energy Transition Act and the push for 100% renewable electricity.

Several measures are being discussed for final passage at Albuquerque City Council at their next meeting which (because of the Labor Day Holiday) is being held on September 9.

The potential measures are as follows:

1) The City Council would request the State Legislature place an amendment to the New Mexico Constitution on the ballot that would repeal a 1986 voter-passed amendment that restricted local government efforts to restrict gun rights.

2) The second ordinance would ban firearms from all CABQ property which includes buildings owned or leased by the City, community centers, and a large number of other City facilities.

3) The third ordinance would create mandatory storage laws for firearms kept in homes and vehicles. It is hard to see exactly how the City would enforce such laws without some kind of illegal search, but the entire ordinance is ill-conceived.

Click here to contact the Council.

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.