Recent Columns

© 2025 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES  11/3/25

Importing beef from Argentina doesn’t put America first

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     Ranchers can finally take a deep breath and think about paying down long-term loans and rebuilding their herds because they finally caught a break on beef prices. 

     When the president told reporters on Air Force One that he was thinking about reducing beef prices by importing more beef from Argentina, he triggered an instant market reaction. Cattle futures dropped $9 overnight. It was a shock to cattle growers and threatened to undercut the first financial stability they’ve enjoyed in years.

     The reaction from American producers was heated.

     “This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices,” said Colin Woodall, CEO of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

     American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall said, “We know America’s families face challenges when food prices rise, but it’s important for President Trump to remember that farmers are facing an economic storm as well, and a vibrant U.S. cattle herd is at stake.”

     On social media Trump responded: “The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50% Tariff on Brazil. If it weren't for me, they would be doing just as they've done for the past 20 years — terrible! It would be nice if they would understand that, but they also have to get their prices down, because the consumer is a very big factor in my thinking, also!"

     Shoppers and the president seem to think cattle growers have a bigger impact on the market than they actually do. Those high prices tell a story. Drought forced ranchers to reduce their herds. The federal government sharply cut imports of live cattle from Mexico because of the New World screwworm outbreak. And ranchers’ costs are up. They’re also at the mercy of a few meatpackers who set prices and take the lion’s share of profits.

     Add strong demand to the mix. 

     I buy beef directly from a New Mexico rancher. When I asked her about all this, she was steamed that the president or anyone else thinks ranchers are getting rich. “It’s not like we control the price,” she said. “They (meatpackers) tell us what we’re going to get.”

     She described years of drought in the state when everyone had to sell their cattle. That drove prices down. She has struggled ever since to rebuild her herd.

     Ag economists say imports from Argentina won’t have much of an impact.

David Anderson, of Texas A&M University, told the High Plains Journal that just 2.1% of our beef imports come from Argentina. Most of U.S. beef imports come from Brazil, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and New Zealand. “We’re importing record amounts of beef already, and we still have record high prices,” he said.  

     So if that’s the case, why the beef over Argentinian imports? It’s because we begin with an unfair trade system in which gaping loopholes disadvantage American producers. As my own beef supplier explained, any imported beef that is sliced, trimmed or repackaged in the U.S. can be called a U.S. product.

     This loophole would allow foreign suppliers and multinational meatpackers to flood the U.S. market with cheaper imports “while putting U.S. ranchers on the losing end and depriving American consumers of honest transparency at the meat counter,” wrote U.S. Cattlemen’s Association President Justin Tupper in a letter to Trump. 

     "Efforts to lower prices through artificially increased imports and opaque labeling run against 'America First' ideals," he added. 

     The bottom line is that buying a little Argentinian beef increases the supply a bit but doesn’t really bring prices down for American consumers. The beef isn’t necessarily better, and its producers don’t meet U.S. standards of land stewardship. The gains are one-sided, and it’s not our side.

     Remember a line that’s normally dear to Republicans: Let the market work.

     “Eventually, ranchers will be able to expand their herds in response to these high prices, and then we will have less production, and they’ll get lower prices, and that’s really how this works,” said Anderson, the economist. “Particularly for cow-calf producers, it’s about time when we’ve had prices like this. They’ve gone through a lot of years of terrible prices, rising costs, lack of profits, and drought. This is the time that they get to recoup those losses. Let’s not screw this up.”

© 2025 NEW MEXICO NEWS SERVICES  10/27/25

Universal child care needs legislators’ close scrutiny 

By Sherry Robinson

All She Wrote

     Back in September, the governor announced that on Nov. 1 New Mexico would become the first state to offer universal child care. We made national headlines. It would be a huge benefit to working families and employers, of course, but legislative budget makers are starting to ask hard questions about costs. And they should.

     This is when I like to remind readers that I’m not Hard Hearted Hannah.      When I was a single mom on reporter wages, day care took such a big bite out of my paycheck that I had almost nothing left after rent and groceries. I didn’t resent the day care providers because I knew they were just trying to survive. 

     So I’ve been down that road and see the need, but I have a few problems with the idea.

     Under this program, the state will offer free child care to everyone, no matter how much they make. It will save families an average of $12,000 a year per child. What we’ve had since 2021 is a cap of 400% of the federal poverty level, or about $120,000 a year for a family of four. 

     New Mexico has nowhere near the capacity to add the predicted 12,000 babies and toddlers to a program that now serves 27,000 kids. Typically there are three applications for every opening, and some areas are day-care deserts. But under the new program local governments and schools can apply for low-interest loans to expand or create new facilities. Elizabeth Groginsky, secretary of the Early Childhood Education and Care Department (ECECD), projects 55 new child care centers and 1,000 new in-home providers.

     Child-care workers will make more money (we hope). Reimbursement rates to providers, according to the state’s news release, “will rise to reflect the true cost of care. Programs that commit to paying entry-level staff a minimum of $18 per hour and offer 10 hours of care per day, five days a week, will receive an incentive rate.” Groginsky expects better pay to help recruit the additional 5,000 early childhood professionals that will be needed.

     The governor intends to pay for all this from the Early Childhood Education Trust Fund. Created by a Constitutional Amendment in 2022, it’s ballooned from $300 million to $10 billion. (Thank you, oil and gas industry.) In addition, legislators increased the department’s budget by $113 million to $995 million; of that, $463 million is for child care.

     Notice that the governor didn’t ask lawmakers for their blessings before launching the new program, but she’s counting on their support. And the ask just increased. The department raised reimbursement rates following feedback from day-care providers, which bumped up its funding request for the next legislative session from $120 million to $156 million, reported the Albuquerque Journal.

     Rep. Nathan Small, chair of the House Appropriations and Finance Committee, said the ECECD budget will get close scrutiny. 

     Sen. George Muñoz, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has a problem with the agencies’ approach to funding. “They announce initiatives but don’t know how to pay for them and leave it up to us,” he told me. “They make the Legislature the bad guy.”

     When I spoke to Rep. Patty Lundstrom recently, she brought up universal child care and asked, “How are we supposed to budget for that?” As co-chair of the legislative Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee, she was astounded that the governor would kick off universal child care or any other new program at a time when the state faces daunting demands due to federal funding cuts.

     As I write this, the state is scrambling to protect 450,000 New Mexicans who will lose SNAP (food stamp) benefits. Because of the federal government shutdown, states are out of money, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has refused to use its reserves to extend aid.

     I agree with these legislators who know they’re in for a difficult session and a lot of tough decisions. I also question why I as a taxpayer should subsidize the day care of people making more money than I do. 

     What we see here is a governor heading into her final year as the state’s chief executive. She has her legacy in mind. Universal child care would be a dandy legacy during normal times. These are not normal times.