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

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

Bad: The Worst Bills that Passed

SB 5: Red Flag bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

HB 83: Creation of Early Childhood Permanent fund

Best things to happen in 2020 Session

SB 72: pension reform

SB 96: putting education data online

Best things to NOT happen in 2020 session

Complete “free” college was denied

HJR 1 permanent fund tap was denied

HB 217 Electric vehicle tax credit was killed at last second

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

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

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

Podcast: Play here or Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Union Empowerment Bill version 1 was SB 110.

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

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

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

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

Problems for employee rights:

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

Problems for employer rights:

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

Problems for democratic accountability:

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

Process problems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Mimi Stewart (@Sen_MimiStewart) February 13, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out a few photos below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB 5 (you can read the latest at this link) isn’t just a “red flag” bill to allow the confiscation of guns, it is also a giveaway to the trial bar. A sneaky line in the bill states “failure to comply with duties established pursuant to state or law” would allow liability.

Perhaps this is an effort to demand compliance from reluctant law enforcement agencies, but it could also allow for a great deal of legal shenanigans.

In case you missed the story which appeared after the Academy Awards show on KOAT Channel 7, check it out here. The gist of the situation is that Albuquerque City Councilor Klarissa Peña took a very expensive trip with her family to the East Coast on the taxpayer dime. She says her fear of flying caused her to take the train, but it is clear that the taxpayers wound up picking up the tab for a variety of family expenses. Worse, the expenses were pre-approved by the City.

Using city documents, Target 7 did a breakdown of the trip. This is what taxpayers paid for:

$3,290 for train trips.
$960 for daily meal allowance.
$2082 for hotels.
$18 for cab fair.

That totals more than $6350. You can watch the full story by clicking on the picture below: 

This story was aired on February 2nd, 2020. Paul shares the Rio Grande Foundation’s perspective on the New Mexico Legislature.

The Rio Grande Foundation’s Freedom Index is back for the 2020 legislation session. Keep track of your legislators and how they vote on key legislation.

Visit the Freedom Index anytime at: rgfnm.com/score.

Here’s how it works:

Basically, legislation is scored on a scale of -8 (very bad) to +8 (very good). When a legislator votes on legislation, how they vote gets added into their score.

Example: if a bill is ranked as -2, and a legislator votes no, their score goes up by +2. Similarly, if a bill is ranked as +2, and a legislator votes yes, their score goes up by +2.

We’ll continue to track key legislation until the end of the session, February 20. Stay informed!

On this week’s interview podcast, Paul brings Reason Foundation pension expert Len Gilroy on to discuss the latest developments in pension reform in the Legislature. Len appeared on episode 121 of the podcast to discuss the need for pension reform.

Now, SB 72 and other pension bills are moving their way through the Legislature. Len has been to the Roundhouse in New Mexico twice to discuss pension reform with legislators of both parties. He shares further details about the pension debate as well as his experiences in the Legislature on this episode

Milan Simonich is the roundhouse reporter these days for the Santa Fe New Mexican. As such he is generally left-of-center and we at the Foundation have not always seen eye to eye with him in terms of his coverage. But, in his recent article “DOA: Taxpayers Bill of Rights Goes Nowhere in a Hurry” he is not unfair. He DOES miss or ignore several important facts.

While Simonich does not appear to be a fan of Colorado’s TABOR, he neglected to mention that back in November Colorado’s voters decided to keep TABOR in place overwhelmingly 56-44.

He also failed to note the stark differences between Colorado’s booming economy (especially since 1992) and New Mexico’s slow-population and economic growth and relative poverty not just to Colorado but to the rest of the nation. How would Simonich (or House Speaker Egolf who was quoted in the article) answer those points)? It’s hard to say, but there is no doubt New Mexico lags badly behind its neighbors despite the oil and gas boom. And we know that can’t last forever.

Paul Gessing Testimony on HJR 5

This testimony was given before the House Consumer & Public Affairs in the New Mexico Legislature on February 4, 2020. The bill which was sponsored by Rep. Rod Montoya (R-San Juan County) was unsurprisingly tabled (killed) on a party line vote

What should the Legislature do with the ongoing oil surplus? That is arguably the single most important question to be asked in the 2020 legislative session.

In New Mexico the tendency of the Legislature has been to spend the money. Some of it goes to various permanent and “rainy day” funds, but when considered relative to its neighbors, New Mexico government spends far more per person than its neighbors. Colorado in particular is a neighboring “blue” state that spends much less than we do here in New Mexico. In FY 2019, before the oil and gas boom really got rolling, New Mexico state and local governments combined to spend 23% of personal income while Colorado spent just 15%.

Not coincidentally, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the average per-capita personal income in Colorado is $58,500 while the average income is New Mexico is $41,600. Colorado has achieved this success in large part by strictly limiting government spending growth since 1992. That state’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights limits annual spending growth to the combined rate of inflation and population growth. Voters have the final say on all government spending above that limit or any tax hike.

HJR 5 is a New Mexico version of Colorado’s tax and spending limit. It is more lenient in that it limits state spending to a combined rate of the percent increase in population growth + 3.6%. Furthermore it imposes a 3/5ths legislative majority requirement for the Legislature to keep revenues above that amount or raise taxes. Finally, surplus revenues above the limit would be split 50/50 between rebates to average New Mexicans and public education.

Based on calculations from the Rio Grande Foundation, if Rep. Montoya’s bill had been in place upon the departure of Gov. Susana Martinez in 2018, the citizens of our State and the public education system would have split over $1 billion in rebates or approximately $260 for each man/woman/child from the State over the past two years. That’s $260 returned to the hard-working citizens and taxpayers of New Mexico to invest for their own futures or put a down payment on everything from a new business venture to a new car.

Of course, the education system would be in line to see additional funding to the tune of at least $500 million as well.

Gov. Lujan Grisham talked about Colorado in her State of the State address. New Mexico does compete with our neighbors to the North. And, while we may have a tentative lead in the short term, over the last decade Colorado’s population grew by over 12.6%, one of the fastest rates of growth in the nation. New Mexico on the other hand grew by 1.8% which placed it 38^th nationally in population growth.

Whether you support marijuana legalization as I do and the Rio Grande Foundation does (or not), it is Colorado’s limits on government spending that set it apart from New Mexico economically.

Finally, when it comes to raising taxes and spending increases, this Amendment’s 3/5ths requirement is extremely important. We shouldn’t have bare majority votes on whether to take more money out of hard-working New Mexicans’ pockets. Oklahoma, another faster-growing neighbor of ours, has a 3/4ths (75%) requirement for the passage of tax hikes. The requirement in this amendment would be 3/5ths of 60% of the Legislature.

This is not a retroactive bill. New Mexico government spending is likely to increase significantly this session although at a somewhat lower rate than last year. But, if the oil boom continues or economic growth continues to at its current pace, we believe that average New Mexicans should be direct participants and beneficiaries in it. We are our own unique state with its own unique needs, but limiting government spending will do great things for New Mexico as it has done for Colorado.

On this week’s podcast discussion which is being recorded near the midpoint of what is shaping up to be a very busy 30 day legislative session, Paul and Wally start by discussing the so-called “Red Flag Bill” which has been introduced in the New Mexico Legislature. SB 5  passed its first committee, SenatePublic Affairs. All of the Democrats voted for it (including Liz Stefanics and Jeff Steinborn). All Republicans voted against the bill. Spurred in part by this legislation a rally was held at the Roundhouse against Red Flag bill and in favor of gun rights on Friday. RGF was in attendance.

SB 60 and SB 201 by George Munoz would change the requirements of who serves on the PERA board in a good way

SB 72 which actually makes the pension changes made it out of Public Affairs Committee (Stefanics and Sedillo-Lopez voting against). You can read the editorial that Paul and Len Gilroy wrote on the issue here.  Paul and Wally further discuss NM’s PERA system which has created a large number of millionaires: https://errorsofenchantment.com/nms-10000-pera-pension-millionaires/

Social Security bills move forward in legislative committees, but as the AlbuquerqueJournal reports, they are “gaining momentum,” but according to Speaker Egolf are “unlikely to happen” because all of the surplus money has been “spoken for” by the various agencies.

HJR 1 to tap permanent fund is again moving in the session, but a leading expert from the center/left Brookings Institute throws some cold water on the idea that pre-K is going to work wonders for New Mexico students.

HB 173 which would massively increase New Mexico’s gas tax moves forward.

SB 110 which is a massive giveaway of power to government employee labor unions passes Senate Public Affairs Committee. Is this the unions’ a quid pro quo for pension reform?

A federal judge has ruled against the Rio Grande Foundation in its suit over donor disclosure in the battle over Santa Fe’s soda tax saying that we didn’t prove we were harmed. The Foundation has already appealed.

Last week on January 29, after 18 months of waiting for a decision, we lost our case (at least temporarily).

As you recall, the Rio Grande Foundation was engaged with the City of Santa Fe in litigation over donor privacy, stemming from Mayor Javier Gonzales’ push for the now-infamous soda tax.

We lost the first round of litigation at District Court because we could not demonstrate actual threats of reprisals against the Foundation and our donors. That’s because the Rio Grande Foundation was never threatened. What we alleged is that the law would chill our speech because we were reasonably afraid of reprisals against our donors.

Typically, the threats come after the disclosure, and by then the horse has left the proverbial barn. Under the First Amendment, you don’t have to be threatened before your speech is chilled. A reasonable fear is generally sufficient. Indeed, we did show that similar groups have suffered similar threats, which is what the Tenth Circuit has required in other cases. The judge attempts to characterize her decision as being in accordance with Tenth Circuit precedent, but it’s clear she’s worried about it.

Our trial judge in this case never held oral argument, then sat on any decision for over a year-and-a-half. Neither the Foundation nor our legal counsel ever even met her, which is extremely uncommon in a case that reaches a decision on the merits.

No need to fear: the Rio Grande Foundation is moving forward in appealing the decision to a higher court. We’re not giving up the fight for donor privacy.

So, onward to the Tenth Circuit, where we ought to have better odds. We will keep you updated on our progress!

Rep. Matthew McQueen has introduced HB 173 (which passed its first committee) in the 2020 Legislature. According to the analysis linked to above, would more nearly triple the New Mexico gas tax between now and 2026. It would raise taxes on motorists by more than $300 million annually.

The gas tax is now 17 cents per gallon. Under the plan it would rise to 47 cents per gallon AND be indexed to increase with inflation every year after that.

This terrible piece of legislation was opposed in its first committee by all Republicans who should universally oppose this massive cash grab. Of course, we at the Rio Grande Foundation  spoke out in opposition to raising the gas tax way back in November of 2019. You can read the full article including numerous ideas for improving New Mexico roads here.

As if a massive tax hike isn’t enough, with the other hand the Legislature and Gov. Lujan Grisham are pushing for SB 2 which would provide tax credits for owners of electric vehicles.  SB 2 does have a Republican co-sponsor, but the bill is a top priority of the Gov. and many Democrats.

Electric vehicle subsidies are disproportionately beneficial to the rich. In fact, according to this study, about 90% of federal EV tax credits went to the top 20% of income earners.  Gov. Lujan Grisham and the Democrats pushing this idea need to be exposed for pushing this giveaway to the rich.