Constitutional Amendment 1 on the ballot this November asks a simple question. Do you approve taking additional money out of the state’s Land Grant Permanent Fund (LGPF) every year? The amendment earmarks the money for public schools and early childhood education programs.
If the voters pass it, the provision must be approved by Congress before we can do anything with it. This is because the LGPF was created as part of the deal that made New Mexico a state.
Our state budget for the current year (fiscal year 2023) totals nearly $8.5 billion in recurring general fund spending. A portion of that came from this fund. That’s what the LGPF does: the money sits in a lock box earning income and growing. It can’t be spent except as provided in the state constitution. Every year the constitutionally allowed portion is moved to an account from which government can spend it.
Recently that portion has been 5 percent of the LGPF, calculated as an average from the last 5 years. For the coming year, it would be about $1.1 billion.
The state constitution provides that 87 percent of the distribution goes to the “common schools.” The rest goes to a list of beneficiary institutions. The amendment proposes to distribute an additional 1.25% only from that 87 percent. According to Charles Wollman, communications director of the State Investment Council, in the fiscal year beginning next July that would be about $230 million.
At the end of August the fund was worth about $25 billion. Since the stock market has had a volatile month, it is probably worth less today and the exact value will continue to bounce around until the markets stabilize.
The income comes not only from investment earnings but from earnings of the land which is the basis of the fund – that is, land owned by the state which produces, among other things, oil and gas.
The amendment specifies that 40 percent of the additional distribution is to go to public schools for at-risk students, extending the school year and teacher compensation, and the other 60 percent is to provide early childhood education.
Now, do you want to vote for it?
We have been trying for decades to fix New Mexico’s thoroughly documented education problem. An effective program of early childhood education, plus extra services for at-risk students, would very likely make a significant difference and raise us out of our perpetual position at the bottom of the rankings. The results will no doubt take several years to show up.
The standard argument to oppose taking more money from the permanent fund has always been that it will reduce the corpus and therefore reduce revenue for the long term. With the recent growth of the fund, that argument is not so compelling.
Another argument for voting no is fearing that the education initiative won’t work. I worry about that, but I am inclined to say at this moment it’s worth the risk.
One concern is that naysayers will demand accountability too quickly and declare failure if they don’t see measurable success right away. This project could take a long time to produce meaningful results and patience will be required.
Another concern comes from the opposite perspective. New Mexico is accustomed to mediocre performance from government and one concern is that some in government could be willing to accept mediocrity in these programs.
This initiative is supposed to raise salaries for educators. We hope that will help ensure that well qualified professionals are hired, get continuous training and stay around for the long term. If the initiative passes, policy makers will have to maintain high expectations combined with patience, and so will the rest of us.
Triple Spaced Again, © New Mexico News Services 2022
I’m a big supporter of all kinds of education, including early childhood education. So why would I vote NO on Constitutional Amendment #1 which would “rob Peter to pay Paul” by taking $ out of the Permanent Land Fund to give to Early Childhood Education?
1. NM is FLUSH with FUNDS for early Childhood Education. NM doesn’t need more funds, WE need to do more with the funds that we have. We already spend more $ per child than all of our neighboring states, and our programs are ranked higher. See https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-and-worst-early-education-systems/62668
2. In 2020, the NM Legislature created the Early Childhood Education & Care Fund along with a new State Department to develop programs with those funds. Did you notice all of the advertisements for an automatic increase of $3 per hour to all early childhood workers? This is one of the first uses of the funds. This fund started with $300 million and more than doubled in a year before the new department even approved its mission statement. It is expected to reach $2 billion in 2023 and $4 billion by 2025. We should at least wait to see how this new Department does with all this oil and gas money before we take funds away from all of the other State beneficiaries of the Permanent Land Fund? This recent Albuquerque Journal Editorial agrees: See https://www.abqjournal.com/2532280/webhedline-130.html
3. The new NM Secretary of Early Childhood Education opined in the Albuquerque Journal that “NM has a world-class early childhood education, care system”. How do you improve something that is “world-class”? She convinced me that we don’t need to throw anymore money at early childhood education. See https://www.abqjournal.com/2545079/nm-has-a-worldclass-early-childhood-education-care-system.html
4. Ballotpedia does a good job of evaluating the Constitutional Amendments that are on the ballot. See https://ballotpedia.org/New_Mexico_Constitutional_Amendment_1,_Land_Grant_Permanent_Fund_Distribution_for_Early_Childhood_Education_Amendment_(2022) One thing that didn’t sit well with me is that several outside organizations have spent $2 million dollars to support the passage of this Amendment. Outsiders do not know what is best for New Mexico… in my opinion.
These are the reasons I voted NO on Constitutional Amendment #1.