logo
Baby's first bond? Competing bills would set aside money for New Mexico-born children

Baby's first bond? Competing bills would set aside money for New Mexico-born children

Yahoo27-02-2025

Alexandra Alarcon, a Silver City single mother of three, lives day to day.
Juggling her daughters' schooling, sports and her own work, the 33-year-old said saving for her children's futures is a challenge.
But a $6,000 baby bond her youngest daughter, Adryan Raye, received last year as part of a statewide pilot program was like a weight lifted off Alarcon's shoulders.
'It's such a relief,' she said of the bond, which is expected to grow as her daughter ages so she can use it when she's older. '… It's going to be such a proud moment to know that she's going to be 100% stable enough to do what she wants when she becomes of age.'
That pilot program, launched by a coalition of community organizations across New Mexico, has been touted as a way to test the waters for Senate Bill 397 and House Bill 7, two bills making their way through the Roundhouse aimed at establishing similar programs for children statewide.
Though both bills would create mechanisms to invest in the futures of New Mexico children far down the line, they each have distinct approaches to making those investments — including broad differences in how much startup money they would initially set aside and which children would qualify for the investments.
Teresa Madrid, deputy director of Partnership for Community Action, which helped establish the pilot program, said baby bonds provide an 'opportunity for hope for New Mexico's children and families.'
'We really believe that baby bonds is one of the solutions to bring families out of cycles of poverty, that it is a solution to build generational wealth for children in New Mexico,' she said.
The bills could reach tens of thousands of children. That said, births in New Mexico have steadily declined for over 10 years, according to a recent Legislative Finance Committee presentation. In 2023, just over 21,000 babies were born in the state, down from nearly 27,800 in 2010.
SB 397, sponsored by Sens. Leo Jaramillo, D-Española, and Moe Maestas, D-Albuquerque, would establish two funds: the Next Generation Trust Fund and the Baby Bonds Fund.
Under the bill, the former would receive a $500 million seed investment to provide children born in New Mexico on or after July 1, 2025, with $7,000 baby bonds. The money would be invested and grow until they become adults, and in 2043, a portion of the trust fund partly based on the number of children turning 18 that year would be shifted to the Baby Bonds Fund for distribution.
State Treasurer Laura Montoya said in an interview that by the time those children turn 18, the baby bonds are expected to grow to between $20,000 and $25,000. By the time they're 35, that number could shoot up close to $75,000.
'We will be building up our own economy and investing in our own people and families,' Montoya said of the bill.
It's not clear if the proposed $500 million appropriation will actually make it through the Roundhouse.
SB 397, though, faces some rivalry in HB 7, a measure sponsored by three House Democrats, including House Speaker Javier Martínez, that would create the 'Children's Future Fund' with a $5 million appropriation in seed money.
That bill would apply to children born in New Mexico this year, who, upon graduating from a New Mexico high school, could use money from the fund to pay for their education, housing and other costs. Under the bill, a task force would further analyze how to refine the program.
One of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Linda Serrato, D-Santa Fe, said that while New Mexico has done much to help low-income families in their day to day lives, the Children's Future Fund 'really acknowledges the fact that we have a poor state.'
'This is helping them envision their future and investing in that future,' she said.
Montoya, however, has publicly expressed concerns with HB 7, including the eligibility requirements the measure lays out for children.
She argued HB 7 would cut out young people who opt for a different path than finishing high school who should still benefit from baby bonds (SB 397 still has an education component, but instead requires young people to take a state-approved financial literacy course before claiming their bonds).
Montoya also argued against a requirement in HB 7 that children must have continuously lived in New Mexico, saying that mandate would exclude many people, including those whose families may have left the state for a period of time because of service in the military or a medical field.
Under SB 397, any child whose parents had lived in New Mexico for at least five years prior to their birth, or those placed in the custody of the state Children, Youth and Families Department, would be eligible for a baby bond.
Serrato, however, said the current eligibility parameters for HB 7 ensure children who spent their formative years in New Mexico are benefiting from the fund.
The bills each face concerns they would violate the anti-donation clause in the state constitution. In separate analyses of each bill, Legislative Finance Committee staff wrote that distributing money to individual beneficiaries 'could be an unconstitutional donation of public resources.'
Montoya and Serrato each acknowledged the concerns, saying the task force — or changes to the constitution — could help determine how baby bonds fit in with the clause.
'We're trying to be respectful of where we're at today in the rules, but we also want to be thoughtful about what tomorrow might look like,' Montoya said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement
House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

House to vote on repealing DC local laws on noncitizen voting, policing, immigration enforcement

The Brief House Republicans are voting on three bills that would override D.C. laws on noncitizen voting rights, limiting police powers, and restricting immigration enforcement cooperation. One bill, HR 884, repeals D.C.'s 2022 law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. HR 2056 would dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city protections by mandating cooperation with federal immigration authorities. WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives are voting Tuesday on three Republican-backed bills that would override several local D.C. laws. The bills would roll back D.C. efforts expand voting rights for non-citizens, restrict police and force the District to work with immigration enforcement efforts on a federal level. D.C. passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting noncitizens in D.C. the right to vote in local elections. That includes mayoral races, D.C. Council positions, attorney general, ANC members, attorney general and D.C. ballot measures. Noncitizens can also run for elected office in the D.C. government. HR 884 would repeal the act, removing voting powers from noncitizens. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton released a statement, pushing back at Congress' power of local D.C. matters. "Last Congress, Republicans introduced 14 bills or amendments to prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify or prohibit the carrying out of D.C.'s law that permits noncitizens to vote," said Norton. "Yet, Republicans refuse to make the only election law change D.C. residents have asked Congress to make, which is the right to hold elections for voting members of the House and Senate." The Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, would dismantle parts of D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. HR 2096 would allow D.C. police officers to negotiate disciplinary matters through collective bargaining. It would also restore a statute of limitation for claims against the Metropolitan Police Department. "This bill was introduced three days after House Republicans passed a continuing resolution that cut D.C.'s local budget by one billion dollars. That act of fiscal sabotage, which did not save the federal government any money, has led to a freeze on overtime, hiring and pay raises, and furloughs or layoffs may be next," said Norton. "Nine weeks ago today, the Senate passed the D.C. Local Funds Act to reverse the cut. The D.C. Local Funds Act is just sitting in the House. Like President Trump and the National Fraternal Order of Police, I call on the House to pass immediately the D.C. Local Funds Act." READ MORE: Congress' spending bill error leaves DC scrambling to cut $400M from budget HR 2056 would strike down D.C. policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It would prohibit DC officials from "sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual." The bill would effectively dismantle D.C.'s sanctuary city policies. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser made moves to quietly overturn a law that prevents local police from cooperating with ICE, including it in a provision of her 2026 budget proposal. Big picture view The D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 allows the city to elect its own mayor and council. It's also allowed for D.C. to choose Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners to handle community concerns. Congress still maintains control over D.C., including the ability to review all local legislation and appoint the city's judges. D.C. has no voting member in Congress, though it has a nonvoting Delegate. In February, legislators from Utah and Tennessee introduced a bill to strip D.C. of its ability to govern itself. The bill is named after D.C.'s Mayor Muriel Bowser – the "Bringing Oversight to Washington and Safety to Every Resident (BOWSER) Act." The bill would eliminate D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973 and would place D.C. under the full control of Congress. The Source This story includes information from the US House of Representatives, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and previous FOX 5 DC reporting.

Trump's CFTC pick calls for comprehensive crypto rules in nomination hearing: CNBC Crypto World
Trump's CFTC pick calls for comprehensive crypto rules in nomination hearing: CNBC Crypto World

CNBC

time26 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Trump's CFTC pick calls for comprehensive crypto rules in nomination hearing: CNBC Crypto World

On today's episode of CNBC Crypto World, major cryptocurrencies climb as investors wait for more insight on trade discussions between the U.S. and China. Plus, Brian Quintenz, President Trump's pick to lead the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, prepares to testify before the Senate. And, Matt Hougan, Bitwise Asset Management CIO, discusses the launch of the asset manager's new GameStop-focused covered call ETF.

Thune not sure what authority Trump using to deploy Marines to Los Angeles
Thune not sure what authority Trump using to deploy Marines to Los Angeles

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Thune not sure what authority Trump using to deploy Marines to Los Angeles

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) supports President Trump's deployment of federal resources to quell the riots in Los Angeles, but he's not sure what authorities Trump is relying on to deploy 700 active-duty Marines to a U.S. city. 'I don't know the particulars on what authorities exist there but my assumption is that the administration has been looking carefully at what he can and can't do under the law. Obviously, the 1798 Act is available to them if they choose to exercise it,' Thune said, citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which authorizes the president during a declared war, invasion or predatory incursion to detain and deport citizens of an enemy nation. Thune argued that a federal response was warranted because local authorities failed to contain property destruction and the threat of violence. 'In this case at least there were clear just failures on the part of state and local officials, which is why I think it required the president to take a federal response,' he told reporters. 'There was a security situation out there that needed to be addressed and I think ultimately the president's objective is to keep people safe.' The Pentagon on Monday ratcheted up the federal response to immigration enforcement protests by mobilizing 700 active-duty Marines. Trump has also deployed 4,000 National Guard soldiers to the area — doubling the 2,000 he initially mobilized. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) insist the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. Newsom accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' He said Sunday that Trump had taken over the California National Guard because 'they want a spectacle.' Bass said over the weekend that deploying the National Guard was 'completely unnecessary' and would escalate tensions. She argued that the Los Angeles Police Department was 'well equipped' to handle protests of actions by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store