NM reps say GOP bill will gut Medicaid and also reduce oil money that could help state save it
The 'big, beautiful' bill making its way through the United States House of Representatives this week not only would cut federal spending on healthcare on which 40% of New Mexicans rely, but state and federal officials say it also would reduce revenue the state could use to pay for that healthcare itself.
One provision in the 1,116-page spending bill that is making progress in the House would reduce federal oil and gas royalties from 16.75% to 12.5%, undoing a hike Congress and President Joe Biden approved in the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.
Federal law requires 50% of royalties on federal land to be distributed to states in which production took place, which in 2024 meant that New Mexico received $2.88 billion from federal royalties, the biggest share of any state, according to the State Land Office.
Reducing the rate back to pre-2022 levels will mean about $480 million less in total royalties the federal government collects between now and 2031, according to the office. In New Mexico, those funds are regularly invested in trust funds the state amasses to pay for services like early childhood education or other programs.
U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.) said in a news conference Friday decrying the bill that the provision amounts to a double-whammy for New Mexico, which relies heavily on oil and gas revenue and is also where Medicaid finances more than half of all births. Republicans are helping oil companies increase their sizable profits while making it harder for New Mexico to pay for healthcare, she said.
New Mexico mom, advocates urge Congress to protect safety net programs
'At a time when the Republicans are going to make states pay more for Medicaid, they are taking away the money that New Mexico uses to fund Medicaid,' Leger Fernandez said during a news conference Friday. 'This is why we are so angry about this bill. It is a double impact on New Mexico.'
Leger Fernandez cited a May 5 letter Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard wrote to her office that laid out concerns about the Republicans' approach to federal oil and gas extraction.
'As the top recipient of federal mineral leasing distributions, the proposed reduction in the minimum royalty rate… will hit New Mexico's working families at a time when other federal funding for essential services is being slashed by the Trump Administration,' Garcia Richard wrote in the letter, which her office provided to Source New Mexico.
This legislative session, state lawmakers created a new Medicaid Trust Fund that aims to generate enough in interest to pay for at least some of what the federal government could cut in Medicaid spending.
New Mexico has the highest per-capita Medicaid enrollment in the nation, 34%, according to the non-partisan health policy research organization KFF. The state is expected to need $8.9 billion in federal Medicaid funding to support its operations this fiscal year. For perspective, New Mexico's record operating budget for this fiscal year is $10.8 billion.
NM budget expert expects Medicaid work requirements out of Congress
It's not entirely clear, however, how money in federal oil and gas royalties would make its way into the Medicaid Trust Fund that lawmakers created for the New Mexico Treasurer's Office to oversee. The bill creating the fund does not specify, saying only that the fund 'consists of distributions, appropriations, gifts, grants and donations.'
State Land Office spokesperson Joey Keefe referred comment to the State Treasurer's Office. A spokesperson there did not immediately respond to a request for that information Monday morning.
In addition to her concerns about the lost federal royalties, Garcia Richard noted that the bill would require the federal government to lease land for oil and gas extraction to companies, even if it's not in the best interest of taxpayers, by requiring quarterly lease sales, sometimes without competitive bids.
'By enabling companies to get leases directly without a competitive auction and by requiring that an arbitrary percentage of lands [be] offered at quarterly lease sales, the federal government (and the states that share in this revenue) will receive less value than they should for the parcels,' Garcia Richard wrote.
She urged Leger Fernandez and other members of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee to vote against the proposal. Despite her effort, the committee voted to advance the bill two days later.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Trustees Say the Program Can Pay All Benefits Until 2034. It Might Be Too Optimistic
Key Points The latest Social Security Trustees Report estimates that the program could face benefit cuts in 2034 unless the government institutes reforms. Recent legislative changes could cause it to run out of money sooner. Reforms would likely include increasing taxes, reducing benefits, or both. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Earlier this summer, we got worrying news that Social Security's trust funds are expected to be depleted in 2034 -- a year earlier than what 2024 estimates projected. The latest Trustees Report suggests that everything will be business as usual, at least for the next eight years. But that estimate is based on assumptions about everything from life expectancy to income, and there's no way to know whether they're right. It might seem like all you can do right now is wait and watch to see what Congress will do to your benefits in the future. But that's not true. By understanding why the program is running short of money, you can anticipate the types of Social Security changes the government might have to make in the near future, so you can start preparing yourself now. The state of Social Security Social Security depends on three sources of income to operate smoothly: payroll taxes from workers, benefit taxes from some seniors, and interest income from money in the trust funds. Take away one of those sources -- like the trust fund income -- and the other two need to pick up the slack somehow. The only other option is benefit cuts, which the latest Trustees Report estimates would be around 23% if the government does nothing to resolve this funding issue. By far the largest of Social Security's income sources is payroll tax income. This amounted to nearly $1.3 trillion in 2024. In comparison, interest income only totaled about $69 billion, and benefit taxation was about $55 billion. So anything that could disrupt the flow of taxes coming in is a serious concern. That's a big part of why Social Security is in its current predicament. When the baby boomers retired, the number of beneficiaries ballooned quickly. The generations that followed them were smaller, so there were fewer workers to pay taxes in their stead. This upset the ratio between the number of workers and the number of beneficiaries. Legislative changes can also disrupt Social Security income and expenses. President Joe Biden's Social Security Fairness Act increased benefits for select seniors, which will also increase the program's expenses. President Donald Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which passed after the 2025 Trustees Report was released, is expected to reduce the benefit taxes the program takes in. Then there's the issue of the assumptions the Trustees Report uses to predict when the program's trust funds will be depleted. These include assumptions about life expectancy, income, and fertility rates, to name a few. If any of these are off, the insolvency date could be off too. These examples highlight that Social Security's insolvency date is always a bit of a moving target. It's not out of the question that the program could run out of money before 2034. What happens if Social Security runs out of money early? We have approximately 10 months to wait until the next Social Security Trustees Report, so it'll be a while before we get an updated estimate of how the trust funds are doing. But even if the news is bad, it's important to put it in perspective. The government is unlikely to allow Social Security to drop by nearly a quarter. It will likely intervene. We don't know what Social Security reforms Washington will decide upon, but we know that there are really only three ways to solve this: Increase revenue by raising taxes. Reduce expenses by cutting benefits. Increase revenue and reduce expenses. There are different ways to tackle each option. For example, increasing the ceiling on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes ($176,100 in 2025) would primarily affect high earners. Raising payroll taxes on everyone would affect people of all economic backgrounds. Similarly, you could cut benefits for all retirees, or raise the full retirement age (FRA), which would act as a cut only for younger adults. The only thing we know for sure is that the government will have to make some sort of a decision in the next few years. Once it does, it'll be time for retirees and workers alike to sit down and review their retirement budget to decide how they plan to cover their expenses moving forward. For some, it might require significant changes, like working longer or moving to a more affordable area in retirement. Others may not have to make too many adjustments. But it's still important to do the math so you know what you can afford. Otherwise, you run the risk of draining your savings prematurely. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Trustees Say the Program Can Pay All Benefits Until 2034. It Might Be Too Optimistic was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Teachers To Be Tested on 'Woke' Questions in Oklahoma
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Oklahoma Superintendent for Public Instruction Ryan Walters has introduced a new test for teachers coming into his state from California and New York in a bid to keep out what he called "woke indoctrination." Walters said his tests, compiled in association with conservative educational group PragerU, could be extended in the future to teachers from eight other Democratic-led states. Newsweek contacted Walters and PragerU for comment on Saturday outside regular office hours via their respective online inquiry forms. Why It Matters Since his second presidential inauguration in January, President Donald Trump has taken a number of steps to combat what he terms "woke" ideology, including issuing an executive order saying there were only two genders—male and female—and cutting funding to universities that refuse to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs. While state-level Republicans have worked to support the president's agenda, some traditionally Republican regions have recorded a significant influx of new residents from Democratic states in recent years—sparking fears that the population changes could shift red states' cultural and political identities. According to a report from StorageCafe, which rents storage units, California and New York saw the most departures in 2023. By contrast, nine of the 10 states with the largest population influx, including Oklahoma, were Republican dominated. What To Know Teachers moving to Oklahoma from California and New York will be required to pass a new test to obtain a teaching certificate for Oklahoma, according to Walters, who told CNN the move was designed to keep away "woke indoctrination." The network reported that the test was developed in association with PragerU, a conservative educational body that has acquired a large audience online and is sympathetic to the Trump administration. A stock photograph showing an American classroom in 2016. A stock photograph showing an American classroom in 2016. Elliott Kaufman/GETTY The test includes questions on the biological difference between men and women, the importance of religious freedom to American identity, and the U.S. government and political system, the New York Post reported. In recent years, about 500 new teachers have moved to Oklahoma as part of an incentive program designed to attract the "highest quality" educators. CNN said Walters declined to let the Oklahoma State Board of Education see a document on the legal status of his tests during a meeting in July. What People Are Saying The American Federation of Teachers told Newsweek: "Ryan Walters appears to be auditioning for the role of MAGA-in-chief, not educator-in-chief. His priority should be educating students, but it's not. It's getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him and think of him as their culture warrior. "This test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state that already has a huge shortage. It doesn't solve an actual problem in the classroom, but it certainly serves as a major distraction in the media as he deals with personal problems. "Teachers are patriotic, and they don't need a loyalty test from Ryan Walters to prove it. Whether they are conservative or liberal, they want what their students need: safe and welcoming public schools that are engaging and relevant and that prepare students for college, career and life." Oklahoma Superintendent for Public Instruction Ryan Walters told CNN: "We will not allow these leftists' plans and schemes to take place here in Oklahoma. They are trying to warp the minds of our kids to turn them into social justice warriors, instead of kids that are getting the most of their god given talents to go get a good job, to go live a fulfilling life." He told the New York Post: "Here in Oklahoma, our academics are going to be grounded in fact. "We've seen states like New York and California go so radical with gender theory and Marxist indoctrination, they are warping the minds of young people. … We need our teachers to agree to not be woke indoctrinators in the classroom. "We're also going to be teaching the foundations of American history. … So we can continue to be the greatest country in the world. We want our students to be patriots." PragerU CEO Marissa Streit told CNN that the questions were aimed at "undoing the damage of gender ideology that is forced and taught through some of these other tests like the PRISM test." PRISM is a training program created to help teachers support LGBTQ+ students in California. Oklahoma Democratic Party Chair John Waldron, a former teacher, told the outlet that Walters' plan was a "loyalty test" and an "insult to our profession." What Happens Next If Walters goes ahead with his tests, they are likely to face legal challenge. If they pass the courts, it remains to be seen what effects they will have on Oklahoma's education system and whether they will be extended to teachers coming from beyond New York and California.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
We can't gerrymander our way back to democracy
Hundreds of people came to the Capitol on Thursday, Oct. 28 2021 to testify against the new voting maps drawn by Republican legislative leaders which advocates characterized as 'gerrymandering 2.0' | Wisconsin Examiner photo The drama in Texas, where President Donald Trump has demanded that Republicans quickly draw new GOP districts to thwart the will of the voters and ensure his party retains control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections, has created massive discord. Progressives and voting rights advocates are divided on whether California and New York should fight the Texas power grab by gerrymandering their own states, creating more safe Democratic seats, even if that means undermining fair maps and the authority of those states' nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In Wisconsin, which just got out from under one of the worst partisan gerrymanders in the U.S., and the impenetrable, outsized Republican majorities in the state Legislature it protected for a decade and a half, this issue hits particularly close to home. It's head-spinning to hear arguments for Democratic counter-gerrymandering in other states from the same people in Wisconsin who were recently crying out for fair maps. If Democrats are going to mount a serious challenge to the fascist takeover of our country by Trump and his minions, it's hard to see how ceding the moral high ground and running roughshod over the principle that the will of the majority of voters should prevail is going to help. If we want democracy, fairness, and the rule of law, we need to champion, well, democracy, fairness and the rule of law. I get that it's more satisfying to imagine a quick fix to the fascist takeover of every branch of government than to listen to a lot of vague talk about long-term plans to rebuild democracy. After all, election deniers and the architects of the Jan. 6 attack are now running the federal government, demanding access to voter lists across the country and deploying the FBI to arrest political opponents, including the Texas Democrats who've fled their state to stall the gerrymandering scheme there. But here in Wisconsin, where we've just finally beaten back the most gerrymandered map in the country, it's depressing to imagine Democrats abandoning the high ground and scrambling to do exactly what Republicans did when they controlled all three branches of government, attempting to lock in permanent political control against the will of the people. If we want democracy, fairness, and the rule of law, we need to champion, well, democracy, fairness and the rule of law. In this most extreme political moment, with every public institution and the continued existence of U.S. democracy in doubt, I understand why the long view frustrates people. The emergency is now. I understand that many voters want to see Democrats 'fight fire with fire,' as Newsom put it. But consider this: Republicans control more state legislatures (28 Republican versus 18 controlled by Democrats) and have trifecta control of all branches of government in more states (23 all-GOP states versus 15 all-Democratic). JD Vance just launched a tour of Republican states to encourage more mid-decade gerrymandering. And Trump wants to hold a new census for the purpose of redefining who can vote. Even if Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom and Kathy Hochul succeed in gerrymandering California and New York, Democrats are not likely to win the nationwide redistricting war. Meanwhile, democracy will be the first casualty of that war. California and New York would have to suspend the work of their nonpartisan redistricting commissions — the gold standard for fair, nonpartisan map-drawing — and take back partisan control of the process in order to carry out their threats. If they succeed, it is beyond unlikely that the politicians who pull off that short-term victory will ever cede back their power over the voting maps to the nonpartisan commissions again. On a deeper level, the Democratic gerrymandering fantasy takes the whole movement to oppose Trump in exactly the wrong direction. Instead of building grassroots support to counter an unpopular, authoritarian leader, it rigs the system to benefit a party whose whole problem is that it has lost the broad, popular support it needs to win elections and create a better, more enlightened government. Instead of trying to rig the maps to ensure a Democratic House majority in the next election, Democrats need to focus on winning elections and flipping seats in areas of the rural and industrial Midwest that were once reliably blue but have turned deep red. To do that they need to make the case that health care, education and an adequate social safety net are bedrock rights in the richest nation on earth, and that we should not be giving tax breaks to billionaires by taking food out of the mouths of hungry children. They need to offer something to the farmers and factory workers and disaffected voters in rural and urban areas alike that is clearly different and better than the hate, corruption, and a determination to run roughshod over democracy that Republicans offer. In Wisconsin, voting rights groups have been working on a campaign to push through a constitutional amendment modeled on one in our neighboring state of Michigan, to make sure that our voting maps are never again drawn up by partisan legislators. That's the kind of grassroots fight that helped Wisconsin finally overcome Republican gerrymandering. One important aspect of the fair maps movement is the way it engaged citizens to feel like participants, not spectators, in democracy, and to find their common interests instead of focusing on the politics of division. This, not more politicians in safe seats who don't have to listen to voters, is what we need right now. The battle to beat back fascism does not turn on a handful of Democrats in protected districts. It turns on an organized uprising by the majority of people in the U.S. who are willing to join together despite their differences because they are sick and tired of having their democracy stolen from them, along with their health, safety, opportunity and hope. There's no short cut to leading that fight. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
