Categories
Economy Legislature Local Government Notable News Open Government Research Top Issues

A conservative looks (down) the New Mexico ballot

If you’re looking for the merits and demerits of the various candidates for governor and attorney general, there are plenty of other posts on this page or podcasts at TippingPointNM.com. We’re here to discuss the so-called “down-ballot” or lower-profile issues before voters this November. In person early voting at the county clerk’s office begins Tuesday, October 11 while early voting sites open on Saturday, October 22nd.

JUDGES: without putting too fine a point on it, New Mexico’s judiciary is in need of a massive overhaul. It is one of the primary bodies responsible for the States horrendous crime problems. Currently, New Mexico’s Supreme Court is 100% Democrat with 4 of the 5 having been nominated by Gov. Lujan Grisham (only Michael Vigil who was elected in 2018 and faces retention this election was NOT appointed by MLG).

There are numerous other Metro Court and other positions, most of which are unopposed, but there are retention elections and those are VERY IMPORTANT. In New Mexico a judge must must receive at least 57% of the vote. So, it IS possible for voters outraged by deteriorating public safety conditions to push back against the judiciary in hopes of getting better judges on the bench.

In terms of constitutional amendments Amendment 1 would tap into New Mexico’s Land Grant Permanent Fund to create a host of early childhood programs, but most significantly universal pre-K. RGF has written extensively on the serious problems with this proposal here and here (for starters).

Amendment 2 would allow the Legislature to fund infrastructure projects for PRIVATE benefit. We have serious concerns about this proposal.

Amendment 3 would require that an appointed judge shall be up for election at the first general election one year after being appointed. At the election, the winning candidate would serve the remainder of the term in effect. This one is not an issue.

Bernalillo County voters are being asked to amend the County charter. After some difficulty finding out exactly what changes would be made we reached out to the County. You can read for yourself here what it would do (this information is not on the actual ballot). We have no problem with the amendment.

As a general rule we recommend voting against ALL bonds, not because all of them are bad or wasteful, but because local voters have a tendency to blindly vote YES on nearly all bonds. Bonds are simply government debt which must be paid off by your property tax dollars. Broadly speaking voters should be more careful about these, but bonds are almost never voted down at least in the Albuquerque metro area (this may not be the case in other areas of the State, so vote accordingly).

Categories
Education Legislature Notable News Open Government Research Tax and Budget Top Issues

Albuquerque Public Schools’ new budget pushes per-pupil spending above $27,000

The Rio Grande Foundation has been tracking per-pupil spending at Albuquerque Public Schools for several years. We use the simple mathematical technique of dividing the total annual budget by the number of students in the district, a number which has declined dramatically in recent years.

Most APS budgets are here while the 2023 data comes from the following Albuquerque Journal article. There was no APS budget in FY 2021 so we attempted to calculate based on recent trends.

On a PER PUPIL basis, APS spends 64% MORE in FY 2023 than it did in FY 2019.

Categories
Economy Legislature Notable News Research Top Issues

New Mexico’s low labor participation rate has plummeted during COVID

New Mexico has always struggled with low workforce participation levels. It was hardly a surprise when a national study earlier this year called New Mexico the “least hardworking state” in the entire nation. The COVID 19 pandemic AND the federal/state governments’ fear mongering, mask and vaccine mandates and massive social spending programs have done nothing to lure people back into the workforce.

Alas, as the chart below shows (using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics) New Mexico’s workforce participation rate has remained depressed even relative to other state. In January of 2020 the rate for NM was 55.5%. As of October 2021 that rate was 53.3% , a decrease of 4%.

Not only did New Mexico START with lower workforce participation than its neighbors, but it has seen a the steepest decline of any of its neighboring states. No state has gotten back to January 2020 workforce participation rates, but Oklahoma and Utah have gotten close.

Categories
Economy Legislature Notable News Research Tax and Budget Taxes Top Issues

New Mexico falls further behind in latest economic freedom report

According to the 2021 edition of the Economic Freedom Index of North America report from the free market Canadian think tank Fraser Institute, New Mexico, in calendar year 2019 (the first year of the Lujan Grisham Administration), slid from 42nd (in last year’s report which used data from the final year of the Martinez Adm.) down to 46th.

While New Mexico has long lagged its neighbors and most of the nation in economic freedom, the 2019 legislative session saw a massive uptick in government spending, tax hikes, newly-imposed regulations, and numerous other policies that make New Mexico less business-friendly. All of New Mexico’s neighbors are among the most economically-free states in the nation.

Not surprisingly, most economically-free half of jurisdictions have higher incomes than do the least economically-free jurisdictions like New Mexico. It is not surprising that New Mexico is among the most impoverished states in the nation.

New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas, were among the MOST economically-free states in the latest report (full rankings below) while California and New York were among the few states that trailed New Mexico. Click on the image below for the FULL report:

Categories
Economy Notable News Research Top Issues

Santa Fe’s fake “Guaranteed Minimum Income” experiment

According to the Albuquerque Journal, The City of Santa Fe is among about 25 U.S. cities that will be experimenting with universal basic income as part of a pilot program funded through the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income project.

The concept of a “Universal Basic Income” (UBI) that replaces traditional, top-down welfare programs with a government-provided “basic income” has been around for decades and even received support from free market adherents like Milton Friedman and Charles Murray.

Of course, while there are “UBI” supporters on the political right, the idea is to REPLACE other government welfare programs with a “basic” income. Santa Fe’s plan fails right away on that point. In fact, the COVID pandemic has been a bit of an experiment with “real world” UBI. As millions of Americans lost work, government stepped in with “stimuli” and supplemental unemployment payments that have gotten many people used to the idea of government cutting you a check regardless of whether you work or not.

A second big flaw in this “experiment” is that the money will come from voluntary sources, not taxpayers. Funding will come from Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, a group called Mayors for a Guaranteed Income project, and the Santa Fe Community Foundation. Having “free” money pay for a new welfare program may SEEM like what the government is doing now, but we are seeing the cost via inflation. Donor-driven UBI as in Santa Fe is just a nice gesture by donors.

Finally, the third major inherent issue is that the money is being targeted to help 100 people under age 30 who have children and are attending Santa Fe Community College.

Targeting certain groups to receive $400-$500 a month is a nice idea, but it’s obviously NOT “universal.”

The problem with UBI is that when it gets through the political process, it will not resemble the theory supported by Friedman and Murray. Among other problems will wind up supplementing, not a replacing other welfare programs.

 

Categories
Economy Legislature Notable News Research Tax and Budget Taxes Top Issues

A brief Rio Grande Foundation Analysis of PFM report on New Mexico’s tax structure (Part 2)

Yesterday we said we’d get an analysis of the PFM report on New Mexico’s tax code. As indicated in that post, there is some good information in the report even though we disagree with many of its findings. One of the best points made is the following which is taken directly from the report:Too often the only “equity” discussion that takes place is over “progressive” or “regressive” taxation. The PFM report acknowledges that New Mexico’s gross receipts tax is unfair to competing businesses within the same industries. As the text above points out this bias assists bigger firms and penalizes smaller ones.

Overall, the analysts seemed concern about the gross receipts and specifically argued for NOT raising rates on that tax. Unfortunately, that’s where the restraint went out the window. The report FAILED to mention New Mexico’s heavy (existing) tax burden (7th-highest as a percent of income) and bloated and inefficient government, yet it included numerous MAJOR tax hikes and NO tax cuts. The tax hikes mentioned included:

  • Higher marginal rates at higher income levels.
  • Eliminating the capital gains personal income tax exemption.
  • Re-institute an estate tax.
  • Increase the gas tax rate.
  • Establish a structure for taxing recreational marijuana (we support the policy, but of course this is still more government revenue).
  • Broaden the gross receipts tax base to include food and, for lower income taxpayers while enacting a revenue neutral refundable personal income tax credit.
  • Continue to expand excise taxes to align with new forms of goods or services, such as vapor products.
  • Consider a carbon tax or so-called “market-based approaches.”

While there are elements of some of these ideas that could be part of a broad-based, revenue-neutral tax reform plan, including “shifting greater local funding responsibility to property taxes and away from gross receipts taxes” the report is WAY too focused on generating more money for the State and focuses far too little on spurring economic growth and job creation.

Finally, although the overall report is lacking, one additional bit of good news is that PFM specifically calls out film subsidies. Again, the full text is below directly from the report:

Categories
Economy Local Government Notable News Research Top Issues

RGF President on Cato Institute Podcast: Economics of Shuttered Military Bases (as seen from Roswell/Walker AFB)

Closing military bases can disrupt economies, but those closures can present opportunities for local economics, as well. Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation details cases of military base closures in New Mexico. Our full policy paper on the issue discussed in this podcast can be found here.

Categories
Economy Energy and Environment Notable News Research Top Issues

Rio Grande Foundation Policy Brief: On Balance Evidence Points to Appointed Public Regulation Commission

(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.

Categories
Economy Notable News Research Top Issues

The Challenge and Potential of Base Closure as Viewed from Roswell, New Mexico

The Loss of a military base can be a traumatic experience for any community. Roswell experienced this phenomenon a little over 50 years ago when Walker AFB was shuttered.

In the new Rio Grande Foundation policy paper, Roswell and Walker AFB Closure: History, Analysis, and Lessons Learned,”authors Paul Gessing along with Raul Ayala and Colin McGlinchey study the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process and how Walker AFB was closed (preceding the creation of the BRAC process by nearly two decades).

In addition to BRAC, the analysts look at how Walker AFB transitioned to the Roswell Air Center (RAC) and how that process has gone. They also compare that transition and its impact to BRAC processes in other rural areas. Finally, the report offers a few thoughts on the current situation at RAC as well as considerations for state and local policymakers and considers the impact that the dramatic slowdown in air travel due to COVID 19 is having on RAC and its prospects for success.

The study offers a robust overview of the history of base closures dating back to the closing of Walker AFB and how the Vietnam era spate of base closings ultimately led to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process that is in place today.

The authors acknowledge the pain and challenges that the loss of Walker AFB caused the Roswell community. Nonetheless they argue that the BRAC process is arguably the greatest federal spending reduction effort of all time. And, if the BRAC process had been around when Walker closed (and the relevant federal programs made available), it might have benefitted the Roswell community.

The completely unexpected COVID 19 crisis which has had a devastating toll on the global airline industry has actually boosted the viability of the Roswell Air Center and its repair/maintenance operations.

Ultimately, the authors conclude, rural areas like Roswell inherently face more challenges than urban ones in recovering from a base closure. Big urban areas have numerous advantages including a “critical mass” of businesses and population, a demand for “prime real estate,” and proximity to supply chains. That being said, changing the relatively business-unfriendly policies of the State of New Mexico would help communities like Roswell attract businesses that would put facilities like Walker AFB (now the Roswell Air Center) to more economical use in the long-term.

Categories
Education Legislature Notable News Research Top Issues

New RGF brief debunks LFC report on pre-K: Why Expanding New Mexico State Pre-K Won’t Help the Children Who Need Help the Most

Today’s Albuquerque Journalcontained a report which discussed in glowing terms New Mexico’s expansion of pre-K programs. The reality is not nearly so compelling as Katharine Stevens argues in her new policy brief “Why Expanding New Mexico State Pre-K Won’t Help the Children Who Need Help the Most.”

The question of how to expand “early childhood” programs in New Mexico has long been one of the most contentious public policy issues in the state. Recently, the Legislative Finance Committee produced a new report “Prekindergarten Quality and Educational Outcomes,”The report makes multiple positive claims about the effectiveness of pre-K that Katharine Stevens addresses in her new policy brief, “Why Expanding New Mexico State Pre-K Won’t Help the Children Who Need Help the Most.”

In her brief, Stevens discusses several, glaring flaws in the LFC report.

  • Correlation vs. Causation:The LFC report assumes that improved results among students who participated in pre-K programs is the result of those programs. The reality is that participation is voluntary and motivated parents are the ones who will enroll their children in such programs and take the time to ensure they get to school every day. It is no surprise that parents who value the program the most have children who perform better than average.
  • Failure to ConsiderRigorous, Randomized Studies of Pre-K Programs: One of the serious challenges of social science is the relative lack of randomized control groups. There are, however, two important studies of pre-K that use randomized control groups (unlike the LFC or other New Mexico reports). One such study cited by Stevens is from Tennessee and another involved Head Start.

New Mexico has dramatically expanded pre-K spending over the last decade, which provides the opportunity to add to the evidence on pre-K’s effect on academic achievement. Stevens notes, however, that even as New Mexico has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into pre-K its test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have remained stagnant.  

  • Finally, the LFC misuses the concept of Cost-Effectiveness. In public policy, Stevens writes, “cost effectiveness does not mean showing that the benefit of an intervention outweighs the cost. It means comparing various interventions to determine which ones yield the greatest benefit for resources spent to accomplish a particular policy goal.”

As Stevens concludes: “The fight for pre-K, however well intended, is the wrong fight for children who need our help the most. If New Mexico’s goal is to expand the school system and provide free pre- school to wealthier parents who otherwise have to pay for it, adding a pre-K grade to the public schools makes perfect sense. If the state’s goal is to improve the life chances of the most disadvantaged children, however, it is a deeply misguided approach.”