On this week’s discussion Paul interviews Kenneth Costello. Costello analyzes New Mexico’s rapidly changing utility regulatory structure for the Rio Grande Foundation. He has conducted extensive research and written on a wide variety of topics related to the energy industries and public utility regulation.

Ken and Paul discuss what makes utility regulation unique and some of the history of regulation in New Mexico including the flirtation with deregulation and what ultimately killed it. Paul and Ken of course discuss current trends in utility regulation including the Energy Transition Act and what will happen next in electricity in the State.

You can read one of Ken’s recent articles which took on the Energy Transition Act here.

A number of bi-partisan bills have been introduced in the New Mexico Legislature to reduce or eliminate taxes on Social Security. As the folks at Think New Mexico note, New Mexico is one of 13 states that tax benefits provided under the program. And, while reform to New Mexico’s gross receipts tax remains the Rio Grande Foundation’s top economic policy priority, we strongly believe that taxpayers should participate in the current budgetary largess.

As this Albuquerque Journal article notes, the initiative is “gaining momentum,” but unlikely to happen this year according to Speaker Egolf because all of the surplus money has been “spoken for” by the various agencies.

I t has always been the view of the Rio Grande Foundation that when it comes to receiving the benefit of good economic and budgetary times that taxpayers tend to come last. This is just the first public and clear acknowledgement of that from the folks in charge.

The General Fund is set to grow from $6.3 billion to $7.8 billion since Susana Martinez left office. And what are taxpayers getting? They got a tax hike last year and not even crumbs this year. If they lived in Colorado where they have strict spending and taxation limits in place, taxpayers would come first, not last.

The Rio Grande strongly supports pension reforms in the form of SB 72 in the 2020 Legislature.  But, there are serious issues with the pension system including the level of benefits provided by the PERA system.

The following chart which is from PERA itself shows that 9,744 former New Mexico public employees will receive lifetime payouts in excess of $1 million. It is one thing for former government employees to be comfortable in retirement, but nearly 10,000 beneficiaries receiving over $1 million in lifetime benefits seems excessive.

Also, as the following document from PERA notes, there is a big problem with NOT acting right now to address the issues with the pension plan. We agree with their conclusion, SB 72 is a reasonable compromise.

The Brookings pension report cited above can be found here.

Supporters of “early childhood” programs (with the largest portion dedicated to Pre-K) would love to have New Mexicans believe that their plan HJR 1 will solve all of our State’s problems.

We can save an entire generation of children from a life of poverty.
We can invest 1% of our $20 billion land grant fund, which would generate $175 million for ECE programs. Why Not? #nmleg @RepMoe @NMHouseDems @NMSenDemocrats https://t.co/YknTI6Cg0U

— Rep. Javier Martínez (@JavierForNM) January 25, 2020

The reality is far different once you actually study the data and talk to experts. Take Grover “Russ”Whitehurst of the center/left Brookings Institute. He studied pension reforms for decades and wrote the following in “Does Pre-K Improve Children’s Achievement” a paper released in July of 2018.

The strongest evidence on elementary school impacts of state pre-K would come in the form of randomized trials of scaled-up state pre-K programs with follow-up of children in the treatment and controls groups as they progress through elementary school. There is only one such study: Children of parents seeking enrollment of their children in the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K Program (TVPK) were randomly assigned to be admitted to the program or not. Outcomes have been tracked through third grade. The

findings as described by the authors in their peer-reviewed report of the study are that:

• positive achievement effects at the end of pre-K reversed and began favoring the control children by 2nd and 3rd grade;

• TVPK participants had more disciplinary infractions and special education placements by 3rd grade than control children; and

• no effects of VPK were found on attendance or retention in the later grades.

Whitehurst concludes his paper with the following quote, “Putting nearly all our eggs in the same basket — enhancing access to state pre-K for four-year-olds – shows little evidence to date of having a substantive payoff in later school achievement. It is time for enthusiasts for increased investments in state pre-K to confront the evidence that it does not enhance student achievement meaningfully. They need to temper their enthusiasm for more of the same and, instead, support testing of other approaches that appear promising.”

Paul was up in Santa Fe last week talking pension reform along with Len Gilroy, a pension expert with Reason Foundation (episode 121). Unfortunately there are a number of RGF priorities already being pushed aside.

SB 110 is an early candidate for worst bill of 2020.

Taxpayers Bill of Rights Bill introduced as HJR 5 by Rep. Rod Montoya. How is it different or similar to what Colorado has?  Rep. Javier Martinez is now the co-chair and heir apparent as chair of the powerful House Tax and Revenue Committee. What does this mean for New Mexico tax and economic policy moving forward?

Paul discusses serious concerns with the proposed Route 66 Visitors Center in Albuquerque and how the finances just don’t add up.

Finally, oil prices are down significantly since early January. We don’t know if they are destined to go lower or if this will be a sustained drop, but the change in oil prices could have a big impact on New Mexico.

The following appeared in the Santa Fe New Mexican on Saturday, January 25, 2020.

Over the last few weeks leading up to the 2020 legislative session, an all too rare alignment has occurred in New Mexico—the Governor, legislators from both parties, labor and taxpayer representatives, plan managers and other stakeholders in Santa Fe all agree that it is time to reform the state’s largest public pension system.

New Mexico’s Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) has amassed over $6 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and has become vulnerable to volatile investment markets. The Governor’s PERA Solvency Task Force recognized the growing unfunded liability problem and acknowledged the need to fully pay for state promises by making PERA a fully funded system within 25 years a top priority. The resulting task force recommendations mainly increase contributions and address a broken cost-of-living-adjustment policy that served more as annual pension bonuses than it did a protection against inflation.

The proposed reforms are a great first step towards addressing the debt currently looming over the state budget. However, there remains more work to do, as the current legislation would do little to address the systemic assumptions and policies that led to debt accumulating in the first place, mainly a lack of protections against market volatility, overly optimistic actuarial assumptions, and letting the political process—not actuarial math—determine annual pension contribution rates.

Consider that while passing the proposed legislation would generate a one-time reduction in unfunded liabilities by an estimated $700 million, in fiscal year 2019 alone the unfunded liability increased by $600 million due mostly to underperforming investments and insufficient contributions.

While the legislature continues to reject plan actuary recommendations and rely on bureaucratic statutes to determine its contribution to PERA, assets will continue to depend on high market returns to make up for subtle dips and losses. The debt is also still likely to grow due to PERA maintaining market assumptions that even PERA forecast only give a 60% chance of coming to fruition. Some more long-term market forecast view PERA’s chances at less than 50/50.

If there’s a future where market returns may not be as rosy in the past, we need to plan for it now by saving more and adopting more conservative assumptions. Otherwise, PERA will continue to accrue unfunded liabilities to be borne by tomorrow’s taxpayers and public employees since both are ultimately responsible for making the contributions needed to ensure that accrued benefits are fully paid to retirees. If contributions are not increased today, even higher increases will be required tomorrow.

It’s no wonder why public employers are struggling to attract top talent away from the private sector. New Mexico promises retirement benefits at the end of a full career then neglects to fund those benefits at adequate levels to where unfunded liabilities grow. This trend can produce rising debt payments and stagnant wages as limited state budget resources are reallocated to meet immediate needs.

The proposed reform aims to prevent that dynamic from persisting, or at least start the process. As important of a first step towards shoring up PERA’s long-term solvency the proposal is, to avoid growing state pension debt in the future will require both PERA and Educational Retirement Board (ERB) stakeholders to work towards adopting more conservative actuarial assumptions, pay down pension debt faster, and create attractive retirement plans for what is likely to be an increasingly professionally-mobile future workforce.

Reforming a broken cost-of-living-adjustment and increasing contributions are great ways to begin addressing the PERA unfunded liability. The legislature can also harness this rare bi-partisan cooperation to strengthen the task force recommendations by also addressing the systemic risk associated with high investment expectations and statutory contribution policies that will continue to generate unfunded liability unless reformed.  The Governor, legislative leaders and numerous stakeholders are all right, the time to reform PERA is now.

Gessing is president of New Mexico’s free market think tank, Rio Grande Foundation and Gilroy is vice president for government reform at Reason Foundation, a think tank focusing on free minds and free markets

Two of Gov. Lujan Grisham’s top lieutenants make the case in Sunday’s Albuquerque Journal for “saving” a healthy chunk of New Mexico’s oil and gas windfall. This post is going to discuss the issue and the pros and cons of the policy.

The recommendation is to dedicate money to both the State reserve fund (truly a “rainy day” fund) and a new, revenue-generating early childhood education trust fund. Based on our assumptions about what will actually happen in the 2020 session, building the rainy day fund is likely the best of a bad set of alternatives (more spending). Given the lack of willingness in the Legislature for tax reform or cuts, it would appear that simply deferring spending in the form of a rainy day fund would be worthwhile.

The same cannot be said for the new “early childhood” permanent fund. Because this fund is going to be dedicated to future wasteful spending, it is no better (or worse) than simply spending the money now.  More importantly, the new fund will have its own financial demands with needed sources of revenue and the obvious impetus for additional spending on wasteful early childhood programs (mostly pre-K as that is the most costly intervention).

Finally, it must be stated clearly that governments are not the same as individuals when it comes to saving money. For individuals, saving is inherently a good thing. We work for a limited period of time and then plan to retire on those (invested) savings.  While New Mexico’s “rainy day fund” attempts to even out future cash flows, the State of New Mexico and its residents would be better off if the State “invested” some of its money in good times in reforming its tax code and making New Mexico a more economically-diversified and attractive State for investment and living.

With the Foundation preparing for the 2020 legislative session, we haven’t been as focused on local policy issues like the proposed Route 66 Visitors Center on the Western edge of Albuquerque.

Thankfully, the Albuquerque Journal’s editorial board has been looking out for the taxpayers on this latest big-government scheme from the local political classes led by County Commissioner Steven Michael Quezada and City Councilor Klarissa Peña.

Here is the editorial in which the Journal makes several salient points about the proposed $12.2 million project (all tax dollars) which will require tens of thousands of tax dollars every year in operating subsidies.

In true New Mexico fashion, the proposed facility would use taxpayer dollars to compete against private sector (unsubsidized) providers in providing a taproom, banquet center, and  showing movies.

Having traveled Historical Route 66 myself, I have personally visited several of the many museums dedicated to the “Mother Road” that stretches from  Santa Monica to Chicago. Most of those museums seem to be privately owned and managed. Why should local taxpayers be asked to put up millions of dollars for a project that will, if it comes into service, compete with local businesses.

If the City and County want to see more business perhaps they should do a better job of addressing crime, taxes, and permitting problems that make our area relatively hostile to business. Maybe they could just bulldoze the ART project as a bonus!!!

The Rio Grande Foundation spent a day in the Roundhouse this week discussing pension reform with New Mexico policymakers. But, when you get in the halls of the Roundhouse you find out about a number of issues and where things stand. Here’s what we’re hearing on a few of the big issues we’re looking at this session:

1. The Foundation’s top priority, GRT reform (an issue discussed by Speaker Egolf prior to the session), is not going to happen.
2. It is looking like a real uphill battle for Social Security tax reduction/elimination. Gov. Lujan Grisham didn’t include it in her budget and there just doesn’t seem to be much momentum among the Democrats for returning money to the taxpayers.
3. Pension reform is likely the best opportunity for bi-partisan reform although plenty of lawmakers are nervous about doing this in an election year.
4. “Free” college will be an opportunity for the somewhat more conservative Senate Democrats to exert some influence. Will they give in to the Gov.’s plans to offer this new “entitlement” or will they demand the money be used more wisely or not be spent at all? The Governor’s plan started out at $35 million, but according to the LFC the  cost of the plan will be $49 million (an increase of 40%) and the session is just getting started.

On this week’s interview podcast Paul talks to New Mexico Rep. Larry Scott. Scott lives in Hobbs and represents Lea County in the Legislature. He is also in the oil and gas industry. In the first part of the show Paul and Larry discuss the 2020 New Mexico legislative session and what might happen in terms of both good and bad economic policies.

And, since Larry has a front row seat for the oil boom in the Permian Basin, Paul and Larry discuss the boom, it’s impact on the region, and its impact on New Mexico as a whole. Will the boom continue? Is the Legislature’s spending unsustainable? Where are things heading for the future of New Mexico’s most important industry?

In any New Mexico legislative session you THINK you know what to expect during the session based on the agenda laid out by the Gov. But then you actually get into the session and you realize that any number of bills, often under the radar, could have a major, usually negative, impact if adopted.

The first candidate for this “honor” in 2020 is Sen. Mimi Stewart’s SB 110 which would totally revamp the operations of government employee unions in New Mexico. Stewart is best known as a shill for what we at the Foundation often describe as the “Education Blob.”   The “blob” is basically the status quo in K-12 education, but with more money.

SB 110 would give government unions a great deal more power in New Mexico if adopted. Here are a few of the big changes in the bill:

While the Rio Grande Foundation will be working on a lot of issues in the 2020 Legislature that are at odds with Gov. Lujan Grisham and majority Democrats, one potential area for free market conservatives and Democrats to come to an agreement is on pension reform.

To her credit, Gov. Lujan Grisham has put PERA reform on the agenda during the 2020 session. SB 72 introduced by Sen. Munoz is the reform legislation, but our analysis of the legislation which was done by the experts at Reason Foundation can be found here. 

While the reforms are not perfect, they are far better than inaction. The Rio Grande Foundation has also produced an “explainer” video on the pension reform issue that can be found below:

The following article appeared in the 2020 legislative preview edition of New Mexico Indepth.  You can read the full paper online or by picking up a copy at the Roundhouse in Santa Fe.

In economic policy terms New Mexico’s 2019 Session was a disaster. Massive expansion of film subsidies, new mandates on electricity generation, a higher minimum wage mandate, tax hikes, and 12 percent spending growth were the lowlights.

Of course, with fast-growing oil production and a strong national economy, New Mexico’s economy remains strong and surplus revenue will again be available when the Legislature convenes in January.

At the Rio Grande Foundation, we see numerous opportunities for bipartisan reform, but 2020 could also result in another spending binge that does nothing to address the systemic policy problems facing our State.

The most obvious opportunity is gross receipts tax reform. This must involve lowering rates and elimination of taxes of services provided by contractors and other business inputs. These taxes can be avoided by purchasing services (like bookkeeping and web hosting) from out-of-state providers in order to avoid the GRT which is applied at rates above 7.5% in most New Mexico communities.

Sadly, in 2019 the Legislature eagerly imposed GRT on several businesses, consumers, and industries. These included non-profit managers of Los Alamos National Lab, non-profit hospitals, and purchases made over the Internet.

But, the GRT remained unchanged in any systemic way. Rates remain high and the problem of taxing business inputs and “pyramiding” remains unchanged. With a billion dollar surplus available and both Gov. Lujan Grisham and Speaker Egolf making noise about tax reform, now is the time to act. And, while details may vary, the general model outlined in bipartisan legislation introduced by Rep. Jason Harper (R) and Sen. John Arthur-Smith (D) remains the logical framework for reform.

Another bipartisan reform opportunity should include public employee pensions (specifically PERA and ERB). Gov. Lujan Grisham should be applauded for naming a task force to take a serious look at PERA which covers public workers NOT employed in the education system (and thus covered by ERB). Given its weaker financial position and importance to public education budgets, ERB deserves a similar look.

Both systems are seriously underfunded, a situation which must be addressed. Also, both need to be updated to better serve the 21st Century work force. Colorado and other states have successfully done this. New public employees in New Mexico should be offered more portable benefit options outside of the traditional pension system, which rewards longevity as opposed to those who may want to “give back” for a few years and then move on to other career goals as younger workers wish to do these days. Both types of employees should have retirement options that work for them.

Finally, there is the issue of occupational licensure reform. Bipartisan legislation (SB 385) made its way to the Governor’s desk in 2019 only to be vetoed. We hope to make another push to address the unnecessary obstacles licensing often puts in the way of willing workers and willing customers/employers.

While there is potential common ground for economic reform in 2020, there are numerous serious issues, particularly with the Gov’s proposal for “free” college. Here are two:

• • While the oil boom as perked up the State economy in recent years, job opportunities are still more diverse, plentiful, and generally better-paying in neighboring states. Absent economic reforms (see GRT discussion above) how can we be sure that “free” college will actually benefit New Mexico’s economy?

• • New Mexico’s biggest education challenge is the performance of its K-12 system. Absent much more ambitious reforms than those currently being discussed to raise student outcomes “free” college won’t do much good.

While this oil boom is driven by production as opposed to prices, all good things eventually come to an end. What happens when oil prices or production decline due to environmental concerns, the global economy, technological advances, or some other unforeseen change?

This 30 day session will go a long way to determining New Mexico’s economic future.

Paul Gessing is the President of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, non-partisan, 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 discussion podcast Wally and Paul discuss the fact that Rep. Rod Montoya has introduced Taxpayers Bill of Rights legislation (an important policy goal of the Rio Grande Foundation) in the New Mexico Legislature.

Notably, according to data known as the Gini Coefficient which tracks inequality, “progressive” New Mexico is not only poorer than Colorado and our other neighbors, it is also more unequal.

RGF shares its perspective on MLG budget in a recent Channel 7 story.

The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association has released further data on just how big the oil and gas boom is and how much it is benefiting New Mexico’s economy. Paul and Wally discuss.

Paul and Wally have looked through the list of pre-filed bills and discuss some of the really bad and some of the good bills to be considered in the 2020 session.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is proposing “free” college in the 2020 Legislative session. But what does college really get you? Does it actually teach students important skills or is it more useful as a “signal” to potential employers? What about students who are better off NOT going to college?

The following video and article from Reason explain why the push for “free” college really doesn’t make any sense.

As the 2020 New Mexico Legislature kicks off, it is a good time to ponder the State’s long history of partisan Democrat control. As the chart below shows (going back to 1931) New Mexico’s levers of power have overwhelmingly been controlled by Democrats for the last 90 years. In fact, 2/3rds of the past 90 years have seen complete control of the House, Senate, and Governor’s Mansion by Democrats.

When it comes to the depth of that partisan control, Democrats have generally had large majorities, but, in what perhaps might be the only significant sign of hope for the State’s beleaguered GOP, the partisan makeup of the Senate remains relatively balanced whereas the 2018 election saw dramatic gains back to historic levels for Democrats in the House.

In the wake of 2019’s disastrous legislative session, 2020’s 30-day session has the potential to be a return to sanity. But, as this KOAT Channel 7 story notes, Gov. Lujan Grisham has outlined an ambitious agenda. The Foundation was given an opportunity to respond to various aspects of the Gov.’s program for the news story.

There are some elements of agreement (like pension reform), but overall the Foundation has big concerns about the amount of spending she is proposing as well as the prospects for “free college” and using marijuana legalization as a cash cow. Check out the full story by clicking here or the picture below:

On this week’s interview, Paul sits down with Michael Kare. Michael is the newest member of the Rio Grande Foundation’s board. He brings his unique perspective of being both the son of immigrants and of Palestinian decent to the Foundation’s board. Also, Michael personally sees the special opportunities that the United States and its freedom offer and we discuss that.

Michael is in the insurance business. He and Paul discuss the insurance business in New Mexico and some of the issues (like crime and careless/reckless motorists) have on both individuals and businesses and why those issues harm our economic prosperity.

For many politicians on the left “equality” is more important than “prosperity.” The view is that the rich shouldn’t be too rich regardless of whether taxing the rich actually hurts the overall economy. 

The problem is that New Mexico, a State that has largely been dominated by the left for its modern history, has not only been poorer than its neighbors and a vast majority of US states, it is also more unequal. See the chart below from the website Statista which ranks states based on the Gini coefficient measure of income inequality.

Of special note is that four of the top 5 states in terms of inequality (New York, Connecticut, California, and New Mexico) are “deep blue” states while a majority of the least unequal states (with the exceptions of Hawaii and Vermont) are red states.

Find more statistics at Statista

The following appeared in the Ruidoso News on January 14, 2020.

Gov. Lujan Grisham recently released her budget to be considered by the Legislature in the upcoming 30 day session. As expected, there is a lot of new spending thanks to the continued growth of oil and gas production in the Permian Basin.

After a 12 percent boost in General Fund spending last year, the Gov. is requesting yet another big increase. This year she’s asking for 8.4 percent.

According to news reports, the nearly $7.7 billion spending plan includes a proposed 4% salary increase for New Mexico teachers and more money for school districts with a large number of “at risk” students.”

The budget would provide for “free” college and expand funding for child-care assistance and pre-Kindergarten programs statewide. “Another $320 million would be spent to set up a new early childhood endowment fund.”

All of this spending seems destined to please, but New Mexico is a poor state. Many of its social ills are the result of poverty. We at the Rio Grande Foundation believe that the best anti-poverty program is a job.

That’s why when it comes to government spending we look at Colorado as a model. That State which continues to see strong growth (albeit minus the “boom” in oil and gas) is giving taxpayers a break in 2020. As reported by Fox 31 Denver, Colorado’s income tax rate will be dropping from 4.63% to 4.5% this year (thanks to that State’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights which was recently affirmed at the ballot box).

With the passage of HB 6 last year in New Mexico, our top income tax rate will soon rise to 5.9 percent while Colorado’s drops to 4.5 percent. This may not seem to be a big difference but it is one of the big reasons that Colorado is one of the fastest growing states in the entire country.

In fact, over the last decade, according to Census data released at the end of 2019, Colorado was the 3rd-fastest growing state in terms of population at 12.7 percent. Only Utah and Texas which also neighbor New Mexico grew faster. And where did New Mexico rank in population growth between 2010 and 2019? The answer is 38th-fastest at 1.8 percent, a bit faster than Ohio, but not quite as fast as Kansas.

Colorado and New Mexico both have little in the way of rivers and surface water, they have good weather although New Mexico’s is much better, and New Mexico is in the midst of an unprecedented oil and gas boom. They also both happen to be “blue” states.

Colorado’s “secret sauce” is that it strictly limits spending growth and taxation. As a percentage of GDP (the overall state economy) Colorado state and local governments spend 14.8 percent. New Mexico spends 23.39 percent. Of the states surrounding New Mexico, “blue” Colorado has the smallest government while New Mexico has by far the largest.

What does this mean? Simply put it means that the tax hikes (HB 6) passed last year were totally uncalled for and unnecessary. It means that in the upcoming 30 day session, we the voters of New Mexico need to hold the Legislature accountable. Rather than growing the government even more, we need real reforms to the State’s broken and regressive gross receipts tax. We need to eliminate taxation of Social Security. And finally, the Legislature simply needs to stop the accumulation of new government spending programs that may not survive the next economic downturn or the next decline in oil and gas prices.

Colorado’s is not the only economic model worth following. People are moving in large numbers to Utah and Texas (the fastest and 2nd fastest growing states) as well as Arizona (the 7th). New Mexico can learn lessons from each of them, but the simple truth is that new government spending is not the way to make New Mexico (or any other state) more economically attractive.

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

Paul talks with Peter Mandelstam, Chief Operating Officer, of Enchant Energy about the company’s plans to add carbon capture technology to San Juan Generating Station. Enchant Energy is working with the City of Farmington to acquire a 95% interest in the plant which is currently operated by PNM.

Paul visits with Peter about the progress Enchant Energy has made to date, as well as the challenges ahead that must be overcome if the project is to raise the capital to add the carbon capture technology that would allow San Juan Generating Station to continue to operate past the 2022 date that PNM is seeking for closure. Issues discussed include the jobs and tax revenue that would be maintained by keeping the plant open, the federal tax credits that will be used in financing the carbon capture technology, and how the retrofitted plant would comply with New Mexico’s Energy Transition Act.

At the end of 2019 the US Census Bureau published population change data for each state and the nation as a whole. The data are from April 2010 to July 2019, so just under a decade. As most demographers are well-aware, the US population continues to move south and west, but the shift is uneven.

To better understand where New Mexico stacks up, check out the chart below. As you can see, neighboring Utah, Texas, and Colorado are the three fastest-growing states. Arizona is 7th-fastest growing. Even Oklahoma saw robust population growth over the past decade.

Where does New Mexico’s population growth stand? We grew just a bit slower than Kansas and a little faster than Ohio to put us in 38th place overall. It’s obviously not the weather or the sheer beauty of our State that holds us back, rather it is the bad public policy that comes out of Santa Fe and the Legislature. Can 2020 help move the needle in the right direction? We’ll see.

Click the picture below to see a larger version of the image.

Also, Paul was a guest on the ABQ Connect Radio show with Jim Williams. In that recent show which you can listen to below he discussed the upcoming legislative session.

Paul Gessing