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.

According to the latest Wallethub report, New Mexico is the 34th-most open State in the nation as relates to COVID 19. So, relative to OTHER states, New Mexico continues to reopen somewhat.

The news from Wallethub is not all good as the new report lists New Mexico as a highly-restricted AND high death rate state. Of course, the “sweet spot” is the exact opposite: open AND low death rate. Utah, North Dakota, and Wyoming are three of the states in that enviable position. As the New York Times’ handy tracking site notes, New Mexico continues to see a rapid decline in the number of COVID 19 cases. The 7 day rolling average is a little more than half of what it was as recently as late July.

On this week’s discussion podcast, Paul and Wally begin by discussing the new “viral video” Governor Knows Best!

The Virus that has so profoundly impacted our society continues to wane. On July 29, NM had a 7 day average of 330 new cases of COVID 19. Now NM has a 7 day average of 186 new cases. The 7-day death average is 4.

The Gov. is okay with the United playing, but not Lobos or Aggies. Is the Big 10 Conference planning to cancel their 2020 football season?

According to news reports, APS School Board may not have in-person school begin until the start of 2021.

MLG takes personal credit for highway construction.

Trump issues an Executive Order to keep unemployment benefits coming. While Paul & Wally have serious concerns about the legality and precedent of the Order, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget the package would cost “just” $13 billion in additional debt. That is a small fraction of the proposed federal stimulus packages that have cost in the trillions.

ABQ’s parking attendants have been working hard. Of course, this is a money grab by the City of Albuquerque that hurts small businesses.

More craziness out of local government from both Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.

The following appeared in the Albuquerque Journal on August 10, 2020:

The Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) recently released a study of the “inaugural cohort” of the state’s pre-K program, concluding that “prekindergarten remains a cost-effective way to improve student outcomes.” But the LFC’s own data shows that expanding pre-K would instead be a costly mistake.

The LFC’s study cites “statistically significant” improvements in children’s outcomes, which in real life are essentially meaningless. Children who attended pre-K scored barely higher on the six kindergarten-entry readiness domains measured — just a couple of percentage points at most. In the crucial areas of literacy and mathematics, only about 60% were kindergarten-ready, whether they attended pre-K or not.

Differences in third-grade PARCC proficiencies, too, were tiny. Almost three-quarters of both pre-K and non-pre-K groups failed to meet third-grade PARCC proficiency in English: 70.3% of pre-K attendees and 71.9% of non-attendees. Roughly two-thirds of both groups failed to meet standards in math: 65.9% of children who went to pre-K compared to 68.1% of children who did not.

If pre-K were affecting children’s achievement, New Mexico’s National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scores would be rising as pre-K attendance goes up. From 2011 to 2019, however, while the percentage of fourth-graders who had attended pre-K almost tripled, the percentage scoring at or above Basic on the NAEP reading exam remained precisely the same at 53%. In math, that percentage actually declined from 75% to 72%.

The largest outcome differences the LFC reports are for chronic absence — missing over 10% of school — and high school graduation within four years. Twelve percent of children who went to pre-K were chronically absent compared to 16% of those who did not attend. Eighty percent of the 1,540 students in the inaugural pre-K cohort graduated within four years compared to 74% of the roughly 25,000 students who had not gone to pre-K 14 years prior.

Both these differences are likely caused by parents, though, not by children starting school when they’re 4 instead of 5. Parents who voluntarily send their 4-year-old to school for an entire year also probably try harder to make sure their child attends school regularly and graduates on time.

That is, children who attend pre-K have exactly the parents most likely to ensure their success throughout schooling. And the influence of a child’s parents greatly outweighs a single year of school, whether that’s pre-K or fifth grade.

Finally, the LFC study concludes that pre-K is a cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars. But compared to what? “Cost effectiveness” means comparing various programs to determine which yield the biggest results for the same expenditure of limited resources.

Policymakers can’t decide if spending $100 on Program X makes sense if they only know it yields an eventual benefit of $106. How does $106 compare to the benefit of spending $100 on other programs with the same goal? In the case of improving school achievement, the LFC itself has identified approaches far more effective than pre-K.

In a 2017 study, the LFC found that teacher quality had the “most impact on a student’s academic achievement” of all school-related factors, reporting positive effects which were orders of magnitude larger than any associated with pre-K. Children’s PARCC scores in math and reading varied by up to 49 percentage points over three years, depending on whether they had effective or ineffective teachers. Low-performing schools that participated in “Teachers Pursuing Excellence” peer mentoring increased the percentage of students scoring at proficient or above on the PARCC exam from 24% to 35% in reading and 16% to 27% in math, over just two years.

Policymakers should be seeking the most effective use of resources to improve student outcomes and help children who need help the most. Based on the LFC’s recent study, adding a pre-K grade to the public schools seems like more of a “cost-effective way” to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic.

The Rio Grande Foundation recently went on the record calling for money to follow the students when it comes to K-12 learning.

But, Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) and likely other districts around the state is considering not reopening the schools to in-person learning until the end of 2020. This is bound to upset a lot of parents and it certainly raises questions about the priorities of the District.

As an alternative to returning a significant portion of per-pupil spending to families, how about the District sends out a survey to parents and teachers to figure out who wants in-person learning (with basic COVID modifications) and which teachers are interested in teaching in-person as opposed to online. The Unions oppose-in-person learning and they have the loudest megaphone, but a fair vote would likely show many teachers who WANT to teach in-person.

Depending on the results it would seem that a significant portion of parents AND teachers could come together to educate children in-person while others could teach and learn in an online or “blended” setting.

The “one-size-fits-all” concept of K-12 education has never worked particularly well. This has been laid bare by COVID 19. It would seem that trying some innovative solutions like this one would be superior to forcing ALL students into a virtual model through the end of the calendar year.

Professional Soccer playing: Yes

High School Soccer games: NO

College Football games: No

Gov. Lujan Grisham has shown favoritism for the New Mexico United from day one putting the owner on her Economic Recovery Council and signing a bill giving the team $4 million for a new stadium.

The best argument her Administration could come up with to justify her argument in support of soccer and against football was “One is a business and the other is not. One is a job and the other is not,  professional sports teams don’t exist on a college campus like school teams do, where viral infection would affect a great many people beyond the team.” wrote Press Secretary Nora Meyers Sackett in an email.

That sounds plausible, but it completely ignores any innovative solutions (like those being implemented by the United) to prevent the spread. Finally, what do the players think? Shouldn’t they have a say in the matter? In pro sports like baseball players who have concerns have been able to sit out if they have concerns.

And finally, young people in general are killed by the Virus at a tiny fraction of the rate of  older people.

One-size-fits-all policies not based on the science and benefiting the politically-connected. Just another day in the Lujan Grisham Administration.

On this week’s interview, Paul talks to Jennifer Mock. Jennifer is the Executive Director of the Estancia Valley Classical Academy (EVCA) based in Edgewood, NM.

EVCA is part of the Barney Charter School network which was put forth by Hillsdale College. It has a bent to classical education with an emphasis on using original texts and the Socratic method in learning. With everything going on in the K-12 sector these days we wanted to get Jennifer on the show to talk about her school and the many challenges it is facing in the COVID 19 pandemic. If you are concerned about New Mexico’s future as a state, education reform, or are in need of educational options, you won’t want to miss this episode.