In a Tuesday video posted to X, a clearly shaken and bitter-sounding far-left Rep. Melanie Stansbury (NM-CD-1) held back tears, announcing that she had failed to secure a committee leadership role in the House Committee on Natural Resources, losing by default to Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) after she quit the race before the vote.
“On Tuesday, Stansbury withdrew from the race, leading to a unanimous vote by the full Democratic caucus in support of Huffman,” the Santa Fe New Mexican reported.
According to Axios, “House Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee voted to recommend Huffman for the role, according to sources familiar with the matter,” adding, “The choice still has to be approved at House Democrats’ full caucus meeting – though steering picks are rarely rejected in those votes.”
In an X video, Stansbury whined that she “spent literally my entire career working at the nexus between the environment, social justice, and our communities.”
“And there were three contested races, and three women ran, including myself. And one of the reasons I ran is because in the 220 years there has been a public lands committee, there has never been a woman in charge. But unfortunately, one, only one woman won [a] leadership race today — that was Angie Craig — who won the ag race.”
It’s a new day, a new fight and as women we’re going to keep showing up and fighting for our communities and our seat at the table. Grateful for all of your support! ❤️ pic.twitter.com/fKthu1hhWS
Stansbury earned the endorsement of outgoing Natural Resources Ranking Member Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), who is a socialist, along with all members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation except Sen. Martin Heinrich, who refused to back her in the contest.
Heinrich is actively mulling a run for the governorship, while Joe Biden’s Interior Sec. Deb Haaland is setting the groundwork for a formal launch after she falls from power in January when the Donald J. Trump administration is inaugurated.
A recent op-ed by Kenneth Costello, a regulatory economist, has sparked debate over New Mexico’s aggressive clean energy policies. Published on Master Resource, the piece criticizes the state’s Energy Transition Act (ETA – also known as its Green New Deal), and related mandates, arguing they impose higher energy costs on consumers, especially low-income households, while providing minimal environmental benefits.
Costello’s critique begins with a sobering assertion: “New Mexico has one of the highest poverty rates in the country. Higher energy prices are, in effect, a regressive tax that places low-income households in the state in peril.” He argues that the ETA’s stringent renewable energy mandates, which require 50% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% by 2050, will significantly raise electricity rates. The burden of these increased costs, he notes, will fall hardest on the state’s most vulnerable populations.
The piece outlines three “hard truths” that Costello believes should shape New Mexico’s energy policy. The first is that New Mexico’s clean energy efforts will have “no climate benefit” due to the minimal impact a single state’s actions have on global climate change. Costello references data showing that even if the entire Paris Agreement were fully implemented, it would only reduce global temperatures by 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100. He points out that unless large emitters like China and India fully participate, state-level initiatives are effectively symbolic and economically self-destructive.
The second “truth” is that clean energy mandates drive up prices. Costello argues that the ETA creates a “moral hazard” for utilities like the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), which is allowed to recover costs associated with shutting down fossil fuel plants. This incentivizes PNM to comply with costly mandates while passing expenses on to ratepayers. “The losers from this bootleggers-and-Baptists coalition are energy consumers,” Costello writes, highlighting how utilities face reduced accountability under the ETA’s cost-recovery provisions.
The third truth concerns the “cost-benefit failure” of clean energy mandates. Costello contends that clean energy policies like tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy mandates fail any rigorous cost-benefit analysis. By prioritizing special interests and “quasi-religious” climate activism over practical economics, New Mexico’s policies ignore the financial toll on residents and the broader state economy.
Costello’s op-ed critiques the “specious reasoning” behind clean energy advocacy, asserting that politicians and the media exaggerate climate threats to justify costly policies. He argues that scientific uncertainty is often downplayed in public discourse, while media coverage inflates the likelihood of worst-case climate scenarios. “One must then ask why New Mexico is so committed to promoting clean energy?” Costello asks, suggesting that rent-seeking special interests, not the public good, are driving policy decisions.
Highlighting examples from other regions, Costello warns that New Mexico risks following in the footsteps of California and Germany, where aggressive clean energy policies have led to skyrocketing energy costs and economic decline. He points to data showing that electricity rates in California’s major cities increased by as much as 63% from 2020 to 2023. Germany’s “Energiewende” program, he notes, has similarly driven up power costs while diminishing the nation’s industrial competitiveness.
The op-ed concludes with a cautionary note about the unintended consequences of government-led energy transitions. Costello emphasizes that effective energy policy must balance costs and benefits, account for economic trade-offs, and prioritize the well-being of consumers. Without these considerations, he warns, New Mexico risks further economic hardship, especially for low-income households, and will see “diminished economic efficiency, lower economic growth, and amplified economic inequality.”
Kenneth Costello’s analysis offers a stark warning for New Mexico’s policymakers as they push forward with their clean energy agenda. His call for greater scrutiny of energy mandates echoes broader national debates on the economic impact of green energy policies.
Joe Biden’s Interior Secretary Deb Haaland is reportedly preparing a bid for New Mexico’s governorship in 2026, setting up a potential high-profile showdown with Senator Martin Heinrich, per an Axios report. The move would thrust New Mexico into the national political spotlight as the two influential Democrats vie for control of the state’s executive office.
“Interior Secretary Deb Haaland is quietly preparing to run for governor in New Mexico, setting up a potential Democratic showdown with Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) in 2026,” wrote the outlet.
Haaland’s candidacy could draw significant attention and financial backing from national donors eager to maintain Democratic control of the governor’s office. Haaland’s tenure as Interior Secretary, however, has not been without controversy. Critics have pointed to ethical concerns and questionable decisions that could cloud her campaign.
During her time as Secretary, Haaland faced backlash over her handling of oil and gas leases on federal land. Her role in halting drilling permits drew criticism from industry leaders and state officials concerned about New Mexico’s heavy reliance on oil and gas revenues. Additionally, reports of favoritism in awarding federal grants raised ethical red flags, with some questioning her judgment and transparency.
Fresh off a third-term Senate win, Heinrich brings political capital and over 20 years of political careering. As a sitting senator, he can maintain his position in Washington, win or lose. If he wins the gubernatorial race, Heinrich could appoint his own successor in the Senate, bolstering his political clout within the party.
“They’re both very popular. Deb Haaland is well-liked in New Mexico, well-liked in so many spheres,” Senator Ben Ray Luján told Axios. “Martin is going to come at this with resources, but Deb has a strong base with people back home. When Deb runs, Deb wins, she finds a way to win.”
While Luján’s remarks emphasize Haaland’s local appeal, her tenure in Washington may be subject to greater scrutiny. Unlike Heinrich, Haaland’s role as a Cabinet member under President Biden limits her ability to officially announce a run until the end of the president’s term on January 20, 2025. However, insiders say she’s already laying the groundwork for her campaign, with allies quietly building momentum.
If Heinrich enters the race, he’ll face a tough choice: stay in Washington as a ranking member of the powerful Senate Energy Committee or pursue the governorship. Stepping down would mean giving up seniority in the Senate, something Senator Luján highlighted as critical. “I’ve always been taught that seniority matters, especially in the United States Senate — and New Mexico’s leadership exemplified that,” Luján said.
Despite Heinrich’s political strengths, Haaland’s campaign could lean on her popularity with far-left voters. However, she’ll have to contend with scrutiny over her Cabinet tenure. Critics will likely raise issues related to her federal decisions on natural resource management and ethical lapses that surfaced during her time in office, as well as her decision to ban land around Chaco Canyon from Navajo Nation residents — crippling their economy.
With a year until the campaign can formally kick-off, Haaland’s backers hope to capitalize on her local support base. In contrast, Heinrich’s role in the Senate could tie him to Washington’s hectic schedule, giving Haaland a head start in New Mexico. Heinrich primarily lives in Silver Spring, Maryland.
As the Democrat primary approaches, New Mexico leftists will face a decision between two powerful figures with sharply different records. For Haaland, questions of ethics, transparency, and economic impact during her time as Interior Secretary may become key battlegrounds. For Heinrich, the challenge will be balancing his Senate duties with a state campaign and deciding whether to leave behind the influential post he’s built over a decade in Washington.
New Mexico’s gubernatorial race is shaping up to be a contentious contest between two Democratic power players. Haaland’s controversial record as Interior Secretary will likely be a focal point of the campaign, while Heinrich’s decision to prioritize the governorship over Senate seniority will be scrutinized. Both candidates bring unique strengths and vulnerabilities to the table, promising a primary that will be anything but ordinary.
As the 2025 New Mexico Legislative Session approaches, the leftist AARP New Mexico has made its priorities clear — and at the top of the list is a push for Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). Despite repeated failures in past legislative sessions, AARP is doubling down on its support for this controversial policy. However, for New Mexico’s small business owners and job creators, this proposal represents a looming economic disaster.
PFML, championed by Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Albuquerque) and Reps. Linda Serrato (D-Santa Fe), Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos), and Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Albuquerque) narrowly failed in the 2024 legislative session, falling just two votes short in the House.
The plan involves the creation of a state-run fund, paid into by both employers and employees. Under the prior proposal, employees would contribute $5 for every $1,000 they earn, while employers would be forced to match it with $4 for every $1,000 in payroll. Workers would be eligible for up to 12 weeks of paid leave to address personal health issues, care for sick loved ones, or even adjust to the arrival of a new child.
The reality of PFML is far from rosy for New Mexico’s small business community. Mandating these contributions amounts to a payroll tax hike, hitting employers where it hurts most — their bottom line. For many small businesses already operating on razor-thin margins — and still recovering from Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s brutal COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns — this could mean cutting employee hours, freezing hiring, or even closing their doors entirely.
AARP’s push ignores the economic strain this policy would place on the very people it claims to help.
This isn’t the first time New Mexico’s legislature has flirted with job-crushing PFML policies, and each prior attempt failed for good reason. Lawmakers recognized the burden it would place on small businesses, many of which are still recovering from the financial setbacks of the COVID-19 pandemic. The notion that businesses can easily absorb additional costs reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how small enterprises operate.
For seniors and older New Mexicans, AARP’s position raises eyebrows. Many seniors rely on small businesses for part-time work, and a PFML mandate could slash these opportunities. This is one of the reasons why an increasing number of older Americans are turning away from AARP in favor of the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC).
Unlike AARP, which aligns with progressive policies that threaten economic growth, AMAC takes a more pro-business, pro-senior stance. AMAC advocates for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and policies that protect, rather than punish, job creators. For seniors looking for an organization that respects small businesses and the livelihoods they support, AMAC is a refreshing alternative.
AARP’s advocacy for PFML may come wrapped in the language of compassion, but the economic consequences are anything but kind. It would produce harmful, unintended effects: lost jobs, shuttered small businesses, and fewer opportunities for seniors seeking employment. If New Mexico’s legislature failed to pass it before, it’s because they recognized these risks.
As the legislative session unfolds, New Mexicans should watch closely. Will lawmakers stand with small businesses, or will they bow to AARP’s job-crushing agenda? Time will tell, but one thing is certain: Seniors and small business owners alike deserve better than a policy that threatens to crush New Mexico’s economy.
U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury has received the backing of nearly every member of New Mexico’s all-Democrat congressional delegation in her campaign to become the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. However, one prominent figure remains notably silent on the matter.
While U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján, U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, and U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez have all publicly supported Stansbury’s bid to become the leading Democrat on the committee, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich has chosen not to take a stance.
“Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury is an incredible leader who’s dedicated her career to championing the issues affecting communities in New Mexico and across the country,” Heinrich said, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican. While acknowledging Stansbury’s qualifications, Heinrich emphasized his decision to remain neutral in the matter. “I am not a member of the House and do not weigh in on House leadership races, but I wish her the best as she seeks this position,” he stated.
Stansbury’s campaign to lead the House Natural Resources Committee has drawn attention, as it would position her as a key voice on matters affecting public lands, environmental policy, and natural resource management—critical issues for New Mexico. The role of ranking member is significant, especially in a politically divided Congress where the party in the minority seeks to assert influence over legislative priorities.
The decision by Heinrich to abstain from offering an endorsement is noteworthy. While it’s common for senators to refrain from involvement in House leadership races, the fact that the rest of New Mexico’s delegation has publicly supported Stansbury highlights the contrast. Some political observers may view Heinrich’s silence as a neutral stance, while others might interpret it as strategic discretion.
However, Heinrich is known to meddle in many contests across the state, including endorshing his hand-chosen candidates in Democrat primaries, including far-left Rep. Gabe Vasquez, to the chagrin of many of his party. It appears that with the governorship in his sights, Heinrich is distancing himself from Stansbury, who is a far-left extremist.
Stansbury’s rise in the House has been swift since her election in 2021 following Deb Haaland’s resignation to head Joe Biden’s Department of the Interior. Known for her activism in water policy and “environmental” issues, she has sought to leverage her background to secure a leadership role on the Natural Resources Committee. As the ranking member, she would be responsible for leading Democratic efforts on key environmental legislation and pushing back against the Republican majority.
With three of New Mexico’s four congressional Democrats backing her bid, Stansbury’s path to the position seems well-supported by New Mexico Democrat members of Congress. However, Heinrich’s decision not to offer an endorsement leaves room for speculation about internal dynamics within New Mexico’s congressional delegation.
Far-left Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration is experiencing a notable pattern of high-level departures, raising concerns about stability within key state agencies. The latest resignation is that of General Services Department Secretary Robert Doucette Jr., who will step down at the end of the year after less than a year in the role.
Doucette’s exit marks the fourth Cabinet-level resignation in as many months, underscoring a troubling trend. Health Secretary Patrick Allen resigned abruptly in November after serving less than two years.
September saw the departures of Aging and Long-Term Services Secretary Jen Paul Schroer and Public Education Secretary Arsenio Romero stepping down amid critical periods for their departments.
This pattern of turnover is familiar to Lujan Grisham’s tenure. Since her inauguration in 2019, the administration has seen a revolving door in key positions. For instance, the New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED) is now seeing its fourth secretary in five years, a stark contrast to the previous administration, which had only two education secretaries over eight years. Mariana Padilla was appointed to be the governor’s fifth pick to lead the NMPED.
The Health Department has also faced instability. Before Allen’s brief tenure, the department was led by multiple secretaries in quick succession, including Kathy Kunkel and Dr. Tracie Collins, who departed amid the governor’s brutal COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.
Such frequent leadership changes have raised questions about the administration’s ability to maintain consistent policy direction and effectively manage state affairs. As New Mexico approaches a 60-day legislative session, the absence of stable leadership in critical departments could hinder the state’s capacity to address pressing issues.
While some turnover is expected in any administration, the rate at which key officials are exiting under Governor Lujan Grisham’s leadership is unprecedented.
Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s recently unveiled $10.9 billion budget proposal is being marketed as a major investment in New Mexico’s future, but a closer look reveals troubling trends of fiscal irresponsibility, misallocation of funds, and misplaced priorities. While the administration touts its commitment to issues like homelessness, child care, and infrastructure, critics argue that the governor’s reckless spending, fueled by oil and gas revenues she simultaneously seeks to undermine, is setting New Mexico up for long-term instability.
The proposed budget represents a $720 million, or 7%, increase in state spending compared to the current fiscal year. Since Lujan Grisham took office in 2019, recurring state spending has skyrocketed by a staggering 45%. Such ballooning expenditures would be unsustainable for most states, but New Mexico’s budget is propped up by record-breaking oil and gas production from the Permian Basin—a source of revenue that accounts for 35% of the state’s total income.
This irony is not lost on many critics. On one hand, Lujan Grisham’s administration has made a habit of demonizing the oil and gas industry, promoting aggressive “climate” policies and stricter regulations. On the other hand, the state’s financial health remains dependent on that very industry. It’s a double standard that has left many New Mexicans questioning the governor’s true intentions.
Despite this influx of oil-fueled billions, many believe the money isn’t being spent wisely. Instead of prioritizing savings or trust funds (such as the rainy day fund) that could support future generations, Lujan Grisham’s proposal calls for sweeping expenditures on initiatives that have yet to prove effective. For example, the $50 million allocation for rental assistance and homeless shelters is a drop in the bucket compared to the scope of New Mexico’s housing crisis, and similar expensive policies tried out in other states prove to be ineffective or even more harmful than the original crisis. Without structural reforms or measurable outcomes, such one-time cash infusions risk becoming wasteful handouts with no lasting impact.
State employees and public school workers are set to receive pay raises under the plan—3% for teachers and education workers and targeted raises for state employees. It’s unclear if these raises are being distributed in a manner that addresses critical staffing shortages or high-need areas.
The governor’s budget also calls for significant investments in “behavioral health” programs, including $100 million to expand mental health and substance abuse facilities. While no one doubts the importance of behavioral health, critics argue that much of this money could end up in bureaucratic limbo. Rep. Nathan Small, D-Las Cruces, who chairs the New Mexico House Appropriations Committee, insists lawmakers are making “very significant” investments in behavioral health, but without clear accountability measures, it’s hard to see how New Mexicans will directly benefit.
Another point of contention is the proposal’s handling of tax relief. Despite New Mexico’s multi-year revenue boom, the governor’s budget offers no specific calls for tax cuts or rebates. In contrast, Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, a top budget official, has criticized past rebate checks as a “waste of money” and argues that excess funds should be funneled into trust funds to generate future investment returns. Muñoz’s perspective highlights a fundamental divide between short-term giveaways and long-term financial stewardship.
Meanwhile, the state’s public education system—already consuming 44% of the budget—would receive even more funding under Lujan Grisham’s plan. Despite a notable drop in statewide school enrollment, the governor proposes expanded funding for universal school meals, summer reading initiatives, and a $150 million investment in Native American education over three years. While improving educational outcomes is essential, critics argue that increased spending without addressing enrollment declines could lead to inefficiencies and wasted resources.
Supporters of the governor’s approach highlight the creation of trust funds as a silver lining. For instance, an early childhood trust fund established with a $300 million allocation in 2020 now boasts a projected $9.6 billion balance. But this success story is not replicated in all areas of the budget. In contrast, other trust fund contributions, such as $50 million for rural hospitals and $110 million for federal matching funds, come with less clarity on how they’ll be managed or evaluated.
The contradictions in Lujan Grisham’s fiscal strategy are hard to ignore. She’s banking on oil and gas revenues to support a spending spree while simultaneously pushing policies to limit that very industry’s future in New Mexico. Instead of ensuring that excess funds are saved or invested wisely, the governor’s plan leans heavily on headline-grabbing initiatives that may have little long-term impact.
New Mexico House Republicans noted, “All the creative accounting in the world can’t hide the BILLIONS of your tax dollars just sitting in the hands of Santa Fe politicians.”
Another year, another massive budget surplus in New Mexico.📈
All the creative accounting in the world can’t hide the BILLIONS of your tax dollars just sitting in the hands of Santa Fe politicians.
With the 60-day legislative session set to begin on Jan. 21, lawmakers will have their chance to amend or reject portions of this bloated budget. As debate heats up, New Mexicans deserve answers on how their oil- and gas-derived tax dollars are being spent—and how much of that money is being squandered on initiatives that lack accountability, oversight, and lasting value.
New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich is setting the stage for a likely run for governor in 2026, signaling a shift that could push the state further to the left. While Heinrich has not made an official announcement, his remarks leave little room for doubt. When asked by the outlet Semafor about a possible gubernatorial bid, he coyly responded, “I don’t really have anything to share today.” This non-denial has fueled speculation that he’s positioning himself for the role.
Heinrich’s political track record suggests he’ll bring a brand of far-left policies to the New Mexico governor’s office. Known for his advocacy of expansive green energy initiatives, Heinrich’s alignment with progressive climate policies is poised to shape his campaign platform. He’s expected to use his potential new role as the lead Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee to bolster his credentials as an environmental hardliner. Critics argue that these policies place ideology above practicality, risking energy reliability and driving up consumer costs.
Senator Ben Ray Luján, Heinrich’s colleague, underscored his influence in Washington, recalling how he urged former New Mexico Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman to remain in the Senate for the good of the state. “I think very highly of Martin,” Luján said, but many conservatives question whether Heinrich’s influence has actually benefited New Mexicans, given the economic impact of his policy priorities.
Heinrich’s record is dotted with extreme statements that have raised eyebrows. From his calls for more stringent environmental regulations to his support for “equity-driven” economic policies, critics argue his positions cater to the farthest edges of the Democrat Party.
His past support for curbing traditional energy production has drawn fire from industry leaders, who warn that such moves could cost New Mexico jobs and increase residents’ energy bills. He also primarily lives in Silver Spring, Maryland, where he moved his family after being elected to Congress.
Some speculate that Joe Biden’s lame-duck Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, a former congresswoman, could also enter the gubernatorial race, creating a potential battle between two far-left heavyweights. But for now, all eyes are on Heinrich, whose maneuvers signal that his ambitions for 2026 are already in motion.
With New Mexico’s economic future at stake, Heinrich’s potential run is likely to spark fierce debate. Critics argue that his far-left policies could push the state into deeper economic hardship, while supporters frame him as a champion of progressive values. As Heinrich himself said, he’s focused on “what’s best for New Mexico,” but for many, that’s exactly what’s up for debate.
The high-profile merger between supermarket giants Kroger and Albertsons hit significant roadblocks on Tuesday, with rulings from judges in two states halting the $24.6 billion deal. Critics are now pointing fingers at New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, and other leftist officials, accusing both of overstepping their authority and jeopardizing a merger that could have provided much-needed relief to strained grocery prices and improved competition in the retail sector.
U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson issued a preliminary injunction against the merger following a three-week hearing in Portland, Oregon. Later, on the same day, Judge Marshall Ferguson in Seattle handed down a permanent injunction, concluding that the merger would reduce competition in Washington and violate state consumer protection laws.
Kroger and Albertsons have expressed disappointment with the rulings and are evaluating their next steps, which could include appeals. The companies argue that the merger is essential to better compete with retail behemoths like Walmart, Costco, and Amazon. Without it, store closures, layoffs, and potential market exits may be unavoidable. “This merger would enhance competition, not reduce it, by giving us the scale to lower prices and improve service,” Kroger and Albertsons stated in response to the rulings.
Toulouse Oliver’s Role in the Merger Opposition
New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s involvement in the opposition to the merger has drawn sharp criticism from industry leaders and consumer advocates alike. Her decision to join a coalition of attorneys general from Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico (Torrez), Oregon, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia in supporting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) effort to block the merger is being labeled as unnecessary interference in private enterprise.
In a letter signed by Toulouse Oliver and other officials, they claimed, “The proposed merger poses a significant threat to competition and could lead to higher prices, fewer choices, and diminished service for consumers in our states. We urge the FTC to take swift action to protect the public interest.” However, opponents argue that Toulouse Oliver’s support of the letter is a politically driven attempt to bolster her regulatory influence at the expense of consumers and the broader grocery market.
Impact on Grocery Prices and Consumer Choice
According to Kroger and Albertsons, Toulouse Oliver’s actions, along with those of other state officials, risk worsening an already precarious grocery market. They argue that blocking the merger denies consumers access to the benefits of increased competition against larger players like Walmart and Amazon. “This merger is essential to maintaining competitive pressure on the largest players in the retail grocery space,” the companies stated. They further emphasized that the combined resources would allow for $1 billion in price reductions and $1 billion in higher wages for grocery workers.
Industry leaders warn that Toulouse Oliver’s interference will only drive prices higher. “Preventing this merger leaves smaller grocers unable to compete with retail giants, and it’s consumers who will bear the cost,” one industry expert noted. Kroger and Albertsons have pledged significant price cuts and investments in employee wages, but these benefits are now in jeopardy due to the regulatory roadblocks led by Toulouse Oliver and her allies.
Legal and Market Implications
The FTC’s lawsuit to block the merger received support from multiple states and labor unions, with arguments centered on reduced competition, higher prices, and potential harm to workers. However, Kroger and Albertsons contend that these claims are flawed and counterproductive. They pledged to sell 579 stores to C&S Wholesale Grocers to avoid anti-competitive overlap. But Judge Ferguson dismissed this solution, stating, “Wholesaler C&S, with its limited retail experience and infrastructure, will not be able to replicate the ferocity of that competition or compete effectively in Washington against the colossus that is a merged Kroger and Albertsons.”
An Albertsons grocery store in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Tony Webster via Wiki Commons.
Despite this, supporters of the merger argue that divesting stores to smaller retailers like C&S creates a more diverse market, which is exactly what antitrust laws are supposed to encourage. The injunctions represent significant setbacks for Kroger and Albertsons, as further litigation could take months or years. Meanwhile, critics argue that Toulouse Oliver’s overreach is actively working against consumer interests.
Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver’s opposition to the Kroger-Albertsons merger has drawn widespread criticism for being an unnecessary act of meddling that could leave consumers facing higher grocery prices and fewer options. Kroger and Albertsons argue that the merger is essential for competing against retail giants like Walmart and Amazon.
With the future of the merger hanging in the balance, consumers and industry leaders alike are calling for regulatory restraint and urging officials like Toulouse Oliver to reconsider the broader economic impact of their decisions.
New Mexico’s financial strategy to safeguard and grow its wealth from local oil production is yielding significant returns, with state investment income now surpassing personal income tax revenue for the first time, according to a recent fiscal forecast. However, this progress is unfolding against a backdrop of mounting efforts by far-left Democrats to dismantle the state’s oil and gas sector through initiatives like the so-called “Energy Transition Act,” New Mexico’s version of a Green New Deal, which was passed in 2019.
For the fiscal year spanning July 2024 to June 2025, the state’s revenue from its two multibillion-dollar permanent funds and interest on treasury accounts is projected to reach $2.1 billion. This figure edges out the $2 billion anticipated from personal income taxes. The rise in investment earnings is intended to sustain crucial public programs — such as childcare subsidies and socialized “free” college — even as New Mexico faces potential declines in oil revenue due to the push for a shift to so-called “green” energy.
Meanwhile, legislators have revised the state’s income tax brackets, lowering residents’ taxes in the nation’s second-largest oil-producing state, behind Texas.
These figures serve as a foundation for budget negotiations when the Democratic-controlled Legislature convenes in January.
The state’s financial growth remains deeply linked to oil production, which continues to drive revenue increases at a more moderate pace. However, this growth exists in tension with legislative priorities, including far-left energy policies to curb fossil fuel reliance. Efforts like the Energy Transition Act have been criticized as a direct attack on New Mexico’s oil and gas industry, threatening a vital sector supporting the state’s economy.
Economists predict New Mexico will see a record-setting $13.6 billion in general fund revenue for the fiscal year running from July 2025 to June 2026, reflecting a 2.6% increase from the prior period. This surge leaves room for an additional $892 million in state spending, representing a 7% increase. In total, the state’s general fund income is expected to exceed its core annual spending obligations by a staggering $3.4 billion.
Recognizing the windfall, lawmakers are exploring new savings initiatives to safeguard against future economic uncertainty. One proposal would create a $1 billion trust to support mental health and addiction treatment services, responding to growing public concern about crime and homelessness. Lawmakers may also revisit a proposal to establish a trust for Native American education — all cutting into oil and gas funding.
While the economic gains are undeniable, “progressive” energy policies like the Energy Transition Act risk eroding New Mexico’s economic foundation. The act, which aims to transition the state away from fossil fuels, could ultimately jeopardize funding for the very social programs lawmakers are striving to protect. The state’s oil and gas sector not only fuels public revenue but also supports tens of thousands of jobs, a fact that some believe the far-left faction of the Democrat Party has overlooked in its pursuit of environmental goals. Futile efforts to “go green” risk undercutting the very prosperity that is now enabling increased social spending, tax cuts, and trust fund expansions.
