Apr 2009
Parental Involvement & Student Achievement
Many sources have recently said Arizona is near the bottom in per pupil spending. For sake of argument, say this is true. Say Arizona is near the bottom in per pupil spending…what exactly does this mean?
The goal of education should never consist of how much money we spend on education, but what comes out - student achievement. Yes, funding is extremely critical but so is parental involvement and teacher discipline.
Critics have held an obsessive, tunnel-vision focus on per pupil spending to the detriment of student achievement.
Yet higher student achievement does not necessarily correspond with more money.
Let’s take Utah and Washington D.C. as a practical example.
Utah spends roughly $7,215 per pupil in overall expenditures whereas Washington D.C. spends roughly $17,600 per pupil. Yet Utah continuously scores well above Washington D.C. in student achievement. So money, although necessary, is not sufficient.
Arizona spends roughly 42 percent of the ENTIRE state budget on education. In fact, six state agencies comprise over 91 percent of our state budget.
And despite the $133 Million in Fiscal Year 2009 budget correction reductions in K – 12, education still received $61 Million more than their Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
Most people value quality education and most people believe that a highly qualified workforce is critical for the emerging economy. This is not disputed.
These same critics who say Arizona is near the bottom in per pupil spending assume that student achievement in Arizona is extremely poor and thus the ONLY way to increase student achievement is to increase per pupil spending.
The literature suggests that parental involvement remains the number one indicator of student achievement.
Higher student achievement directly corresponds to higher parental involvement.
Although we cannot legislate parental involvement perhaps we can reduce taxes and allow parents to keep more of their own money thus giving them the opportunity to spend more time with their children.
The goal of education should never consist of how much money we spend on education, but what comes out - student achievement. Yes, funding is extremely critical but so is parental involvement and teacher discipline.
Critics have held an obsessive, tunnel-vision focus on per pupil spending to the detriment of student achievement.
Yet higher student achievement does not necessarily correspond with more money.
Let’s take Utah and Washington D.C. as a practical example.
Utah spends roughly $7,215 per pupil in overall expenditures whereas Washington D.C. spends roughly $17,600 per pupil. Yet Utah continuously scores well above Washington D.C. in student achievement. So money, although necessary, is not sufficient.
Arizona spends roughly 42 percent of the ENTIRE state budget on education. In fact, six state agencies comprise over 91 percent of our state budget.
And despite the $133 Million in Fiscal Year 2009 budget correction reductions in K – 12, education still received $61 Million more than their Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
Most people value quality education and most people believe that a highly qualified workforce is critical for the emerging economy. This is not disputed.
These same critics who say Arizona is near the bottom in per pupil spending assume that student achievement in Arizona is extremely poor and thus the ONLY way to increase student achievement is to increase per pupil spending.
The literature suggests that parental involvement remains the number one indicator of student achievement.
Higher student achievement directly corresponds to higher parental involvement.
Although we cannot legislate parental involvement perhaps we can reduce taxes and allow parents to keep more of their own money thus giving them the opportunity to spend more time with their children.
House Democrats Propose More Than $1 Billion Dollars in Tax Increases
April 29 2009 11:45 Filed in: Taxes
During the worst economic crisis in Arizona’s history, members of the House minority caucus have proposed several measures to increase taxes on items crucial to the lives of every Arizonan. They have introduced legislation that would increase taxes on electricity, food and gas.
“I would like to thank Ways and Means Chairman Rick Murphy and Commerce Chair Michelle Reagan for not letting these harmful pieces of legislation see the light of day. Especially at a time when Arizonans need more help…not more taxes,” House Majority Leader John McComish said.
On the heels of recent utility rate increases as high as 17 percent in some parts of the state, Representative Steve Farley, Minority Whip Chad Campbell and Representatives Tom Chabin and Nancy Young Wright proposed HB2490, which increases utility rates on residential and business customers again. Increasing utility rates at a time when requests for assistance have increased by 77 percent in parts of the state is irresponsible and short sighted.
Representative David Bradley introduced two pieces of legislation with massive tax implications. HB2107 increases the tax on soft drinks and HB2447 increases the tax on liquor, both by unspecified amounts, which would likely result in tax increases of more than half a billion dollars.
With gas prices hovering at $2 per gallon and rising, two pieces of legislation have been introduced to increase the fuel tax. HB2165, introduced by Representative David Bradley, increases the fuel tax by 33 percent per gallon, for an estimated total tax increase of $222.4 million a year.
HB2586, introduced by Representatives Phil Lopes, Clovis Campbell, Matt Heinz, Daniel Patterson, Steve Farley and Minority Leader David Lujan, increases the fuel tax by 22 percent or $.04 per gallon in 2010, $.08 in 2011 and $.12 in 2012 for a total increase of $890.2 million by 2013. Each $.04 increase in fuel taxes results in an additional tax increase of approximately $148 million.
The House Minority tax plan does nothing to solve the state’s structural deficit, which is the root of this state’s economic woes. “We cannot tax our way out of this financial crisis and believe we have solved our budget problems,” Rep. McComish said. “Adding new taxes to citizens in this struggling economy is not a solution to our problem. New taxes will only create bigger problems for the state by prolonging the economic crisis plaguing families, businesses and this Legislature.”
Washington Democrats - "No New Taxes"
The State of Arizona and the State of Washington have a lot in common. They both have roughly the same population, state budget size and each are faced with historic budget deficits.
Last week, the State of Washington balanced their state budget by cutting almost $800 million from K–12, $255 million from healthcare and $250 million in government spending by instituting furloughs.
Washington did not raise taxes to balance their budget. They instead opted to utilize federal stimulus, one time sweeps of construction accounts and skipped pension payments to balance their budget.
The Seattle Times Editorial Board praised their work and said, “In the end, lawmakers knew constituents had no stomach for higher taxes. Nixing a planned sales-tax hike for a range of health services was the wise course considering the state’s sputtering economy.”
Washington Democrats in the Legislature felt a tax increase was not the right approach to solve the state’s fiscal crisis and solved their problem without new taxes.
Arizona Republican lawmakers are of the same mindset. Washington is proof a balanced budget can be done without a tax increase, but Arizona Democrats believe only taxing will solve our state’s budget deficit.
In Washington, Democrats balanced a budget without raising taxes and the press praised them.
Last week, the State of Washington balanced their state budget by cutting almost $800 million from K–12, $255 million from healthcare and $250 million in government spending by instituting furloughs.
Washington did not raise taxes to balance their budget. They instead opted to utilize federal stimulus, one time sweeps of construction accounts and skipped pension payments to balance their budget.
The Seattle Times Editorial Board praised their work and said, “In the end, lawmakers knew constituents had no stomach for higher taxes. Nixing a planned sales-tax hike for a range of health services was the wise course considering the state’s sputtering economy.”
Washington Democrats in the Legislature felt a tax increase was not the right approach to solve the state’s fiscal crisis and solved their problem without new taxes.
Arizona Republican lawmakers are of the same mindset. Washington is proof a balanced budget can be done without a tax increase, but Arizona Democrats believe only taxing will solve our state’s budget deficit.
In Washington, Democrats balanced a budget without raising taxes and the press praised them.
Legislature Releases Detailed Joint Draft Budget Proposal
The Legislative FY2010 budget has been released as a DRAFT Monday, April 27. Click here to see a copy – Joint Draft Budget Proposal 4_27_9 (PDF)
Democratic "Budget Proposal" Takes State in Wrong Direction
The Democratic “budget proposal” was never a serious proposal. Not only do they want to raise taxes by $1 Billion dollars, their “proposal” leaves a $1 Billion dollar hole they cannot fill.
There also isn’t any discussion on what a $1 Billion dollar tax increase would have on an already flailing Arizona economy. Arizona unemployment has gone from 7.4 percent to 7.8 percent and Democrats would like to raise taxes by a Billion dollars? What kind of impact would this have on the private sector?
Although the Legislature has helped to extend unemployment benefits utilizing federal stimulus funding, we still have much to do in solving and preventing future unemployment. Stemming an increase in taxes is the first step.
Democrats $1 Billion dollar tax increase includes an increase of $360 Million on property taxes for businesses and homeowners, $80 Million in additional income taxes, an additional tax of $233 million in utilities, a new tax of $45 million on consumer and business warranty and service contacts and an elimination of $100 million of tax credits for contributions to public and private schools which will mean higher costs to the state.
Democrats cannot consistently talk about job creation and taxes in the same breath, as these are mutually contradictory concepts. While they blame Republicans for cutting government, Democrats hurt those who provide the economic tax base in Arizona – the private sector. Ultimately, Democrats end up harming those they claim to represent.
As Robert Robb said, research has been conducted and found that states that are decreasing taxes have a higher growth rate than states that are increasing taxes – the lower the taxes the higher the growth.
There also isn’t any discussion on what a $1 Billion dollar tax increase would have on an already flailing Arizona economy. Arizona unemployment has gone from 7.4 percent to 7.8 percent and Democrats would like to raise taxes by a Billion dollars? What kind of impact would this have on the private sector?
Although the Legislature has helped to extend unemployment benefits utilizing federal stimulus funding, we still have much to do in solving and preventing future unemployment. Stemming an increase in taxes is the first step.
Democrats $1 Billion dollar tax increase includes an increase of $360 Million on property taxes for businesses and homeowners, $80 Million in additional income taxes, an additional tax of $233 million in utilities, a new tax of $45 million on consumer and business warranty and service contacts and an elimination of $100 million of tax credits for contributions to public and private schools which will mean higher costs to the state.
Democrats cannot consistently talk about job creation and taxes in the same breath, as these are mutually contradictory concepts. While they blame Republicans for cutting government, Democrats hurt those who provide the economic tax base in Arizona – the private sector. Ultimately, Democrats end up harming those they claim to represent.
As Robert Robb said, research has been conducted and found that states that are decreasing taxes have a higher growth rate than states that are increasing taxes – the lower the taxes the higher the growth.
Federal Stimulus To Aid Arizonans Now
Today the House of Representatives passed two emergency measures with overwhelming bipartisan support designed to immediately tackle obstacles related to accepting $93 million available in federal stimulus funding for out-of-work Arizonans and another $1.6 billion in stimulus for the state’s Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) program; the bills will be enacted without delay upon the Governor’s signature.
Rep. Russ Jones (R-Yuma) sponsored the bill that will utilize 100 percent of federal stimulus funding to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for the state’s out-of-work citizens for this year. A sunset clause for the measure has been included and pursuant to the federal stimulus legislation the federal funding will begin to be phased out January 1 and will cease by June 30, 2010.
“Arizona’s unemployment rate jumped from 7.4 percent in February to 7.8 percent by March, which is the state’s highest unemployment rate since 1983,” Rep. Jones said. “Rural Arizona has been hit particularly hard by the poor economy, posting double digit unemployment rates. In Yuma, the unemployment rate is at 22 percent. I believe this legislation will bring immediate aide for many families struggling to make ends meet as they look for work,” he added.
According to Rep. Frank Pratt (R-Casa Grande), the primary sponsor on the bill that changes the eligibility re-application requirement for AHCCCS from every six-months to a year, this bill makes a technical change and clears the way for Arizona to receive $1.6 billion in federal stimulus.
“The bipartisan actions of lawmakers today demonstrates our willingness to work together to implement solutions that immediately help the citizens in this state,” Rep. Pratt said. “We have been criticized for not getting these funds out sooner, but people need to remember the federal stimulus package wasn’t even voted on by Congress until mid-February. I believe the state and this Legislature did an excellent and responsible job of accepting these funds as quickly as possible,” he explained.
Rep. Russ Jones (R-Yuma) sponsored the bill that will utilize 100 percent of federal stimulus funding to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for the state’s out-of-work citizens for this year. A sunset clause for the measure has been included and pursuant to the federal stimulus legislation the federal funding will begin to be phased out January 1 and will cease by June 30, 2010.
“Arizona’s unemployment rate jumped from 7.4 percent in February to 7.8 percent by March, which is the state’s highest unemployment rate since 1983,” Rep. Jones said. “Rural Arizona has been hit particularly hard by the poor economy, posting double digit unemployment rates. In Yuma, the unemployment rate is at 22 percent. I believe this legislation will bring immediate aide for many families struggling to make ends meet as they look for work,” he added.
According to Rep. Frank Pratt (R-Casa Grande), the primary sponsor on the bill that changes the eligibility re-application requirement for AHCCCS from every six-months to a year, this bill makes a technical change and clears the way for Arizona to receive $1.6 billion in federal stimulus.
“The bipartisan actions of lawmakers today demonstrates our willingness to work together to implement solutions that immediately help the citizens in this state,” Rep. Pratt said. “We have been criticized for not getting these funds out sooner, but people need to remember the federal stimulus package wasn’t even voted on by Congress until mid-February. I believe the state and this Legislature did an excellent and responsible job of accepting these funds as quickly as possible,” he explained.
Appropriations Chairmen Discuss Budget
Appropriations Chairman John Kavanagh and Russell Pearce discuss the State budget deficit, a tax increase and education with Channel 12’s Mark Curtis.
Key quotes include:
Key quotes include:
Representative John Kavanagh - “Year after year she [Governor Napolitano] oversaw double digit increases in state spending in years of single revenue growth. And when it became apparent that the economy was tanking last year, rather than cut back then, she created overly optimistic projections of future revenue and she continued to go into fund sweeps…”
Senator Russell Pearce - “We voted in mass against the Democratic budget.”
Representative John Kavanagh - “A tax increase will give us revenue but at the cost of massive job losses.”
Politics & the New Media
April 22 2009 16:27 Filed in: Technology
Last week Pew Internet reported that 74 percent of internet users (55 percent of the adult American population) used the internet to get information about the election in 2008. This is the first time in history that more than half of Americans were politically engaged online.
1 in 3 internet users forwarded each other political content in 2008. While young adults became engaged politically at an unprecedented rate, seniors also forwarded political content to their friends and family at a high rate.
The Pew Internet also reported social networking is becoming increasingly popular, especially among young people. Last year, 83 percent of 18-24 year olds had active profiles on social networking sites including Facebook and Twitter.
1 in 3 internet users forwarded each other political content in 2008. While young adults became engaged politically at an unprecedented rate, seniors also forwarded political content to their friends and family at a high rate.
The Pew Internet also reported social networking is becoming increasingly popular, especially among young people. Last year, 83 percent of 18-24 year olds had active profiles on social networking sites including Facebook and Twitter.
Legislature To Hear AHCCCS & Unemployment Insurance Bills Today
The House and Senate are hearing identical bills today in their respective Commerce Committees dealing with AHCCCS eligibility and Unemployment Insurance.
HB2631 (eligibility determination; AHCCCS) fixes a problem with last year’s Democratic budget that changed the AHCCCS requirement of re-applying every six months instead of the annual application requirement.
Federal stimulus dollars are contingent upon compliance with a prohibition of reducing the maintenance of effort. The “stimulus” legislation required all modifications to have been made by July 1, 2008. Since the modification did not take affect until September 26, 2008 the Legislature is now required to fix it.
HB2632 (unemployment insurance; benefits) extends the length of unemployment benefits with no programmatic changes. When the federal money is no longer available, the state will not have to continue the extension.
If the bills pass out of Commerce Committee, they will go to Caucus tomorrow and more than likely onto the Committee of the Whole (COW) and Third Read on Thursday. This means both bills could go up to Governor Brewer’s desk as early as Thursday.
Both bills have an emergency clause meaning they have to pass with a two-thirds majority so the bills need 41 votes in the House and 21 votes in the Senate.
HB2631 (eligibility determination; AHCCCS) fixes a problem with last year’s Democratic budget that changed the AHCCCS requirement of re-applying every six months instead of the annual application requirement.
Federal stimulus dollars are contingent upon compliance with a prohibition of reducing the maintenance of effort. The “stimulus” legislation required all modifications to have been made by July 1, 2008. Since the modification did not take affect until September 26, 2008 the Legislature is now required to fix it.
HB2632 (unemployment insurance; benefits) extends the length of unemployment benefits with no programmatic changes. When the federal money is no longer available, the state will not have to continue the extension.
If the bills pass out of Commerce Committee, they will go to Caucus tomorrow and more than likely onto the Committee of the Whole (COW) and Third Read on Thursday. This means both bills could go up to Governor Brewer’s desk as early as Thursday.
Both bills have an emergency clause meaning they have to pass with a two-thirds majority so the bills need 41 votes in the House and 21 votes in the Senate.
SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in ELL Case
April 21 2009 10:28 Filed in: Supreme Court | ELL
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the ELL case.
You can find the transcript to the oral argument here at the SCOTUS website.
Additionally, a good article by the Arizona Republic on yesterday’s oral arguments can be found here.
Some key graphs include:
“The bottom line is these kids are going to learn English and quickly," David Cantelme said.
"Our fundamental quarrel with the approach of the District Court is it blinded itself to the significant changes structurally, as well as the progress that had been made, and just said it doesn't matter because this is all about funding," Starr told the court. "And that is not true."
You can find the transcript to the oral argument here at the SCOTUS website.
Additionally, a good article by the Arizona Republic on yesterday’s oral arguments can be found here.
Some key graphs include:
“The bottom line is these kids are going to learn English and quickly," David Cantelme said.
"Our fundamental quarrel with the approach of the District Court is it blinded itself to the significant changes structurally, as well as the progress that had been made, and just said it doesn't matter because this is all about funding," Starr told the court. "And that is not true."
AZ's ELL Issue Before SCOTUS Today
April 20 2009 09:50 Filed in: Supreme Court | ELL
Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Speaker of the Arizona House and President of the Arizona Senate v. Flores, 08-294. The Court will render a decision before June 30, 2009.
The Nation’s High Court will consider whether the lower federal courts improperly refused to modify an eight-year old injunction addressing the state-wide funding that Arizona provides for programs for English language learners. Specifically, the Supreme Court will decide whether the refusal to modify the injunction complies with its earlier precedents given the significant changes that have occurred over the last eight years both in Arizona’s schools and in federal educational policy.
Ken Starr argued the case on behalf of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Kirk D. Adams, and President of the Arizona Senate, Robert L. Burns. “It is clear from the Justices’ questions that they understand the importance of this case,” Starr said. “We are hopeful that the Court will restore local control back to Arizona’s Legislature over funding the state’s ELL school programs.”
“One size does not fit all,” Speaker Adams explained. “Only the Legislature has the authority and the ability to tailor policy solutions that meet the diverse educational needs of our state. It’s time for the federal courts to return this area of policy to the elected representatives of the People of Arizona.”
Speaker Adams continued: “I hope the Court issues a decision that enables Arizona to return to the task of implementing its highly-effective, intensive, four-hour a day program of immersion in English language instruction. This program was designed by national experts to immerse Arizona ELL students in a course of reading, writing, grammar, and listening and speaking skills. We are confident that this program will work, and will quickly and cost-effectively teach these students English.”
For more information about this case please see our previous post at this link.
The Nation’s High Court will consider whether the lower federal courts improperly refused to modify an eight-year old injunction addressing the state-wide funding that Arizona provides for programs for English language learners. Specifically, the Supreme Court will decide whether the refusal to modify the injunction complies with its earlier precedents given the significant changes that have occurred over the last eight years both in Arizona’s schools and in federal educational policy.
Ken Starr argued the case on behalf of Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Kirk D. Adams, and President of the Arizona Senate, Robert L. Burns. “It is clear from the Justices’ questions that they understand the importance of this case,” Starr said. “We are hopeful that the Court will restore local control back to Arizona’s Legislature over funding the state’s ELL school programs.”
“One size does not fit all,” Speaker Adams explained. “Only the Legislature has the authority and the ability to tailor policy solutions that meet the diverse educational needs of our state. It’s time for the federal courts to return this area of policy to the elected representatives of the People of Arizona.”
Speaker Adams continued: “I hope the Court issues a decision that enables Arizona to return to the task of implementing its highly-effective, intensive, four-hour a day program of immersion in English language instruction. This program was designed by national experts to immerse Arizona ELL students in a course of reading, writing, grammar, and listening and speaking skills. We are confident that this program will work, and will quickly and cost-effectively teach these students English.”
For more information about this case please see our previous post at this link.
Tea Party Draws Sizeable Crowd Protesting Higher Taxes, Big Government
This past Wednesday, thousands of Arizonans showed up to protest government spending and high taxes. There were more than a dozen tea parties statewide with the tea party at the State Capitol receiving around 5,000 visitors.
"Can't Fix Budget w/o Fixing Economy"
House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Bob Burns discuss Budget solutions, transparency and taxes with Horizon’s Ted Simons last Tuesday evening.
"Mr. Speaker, Don't Raise Taxes!"
The Speaker received a constituent call yesterday morning by an 80 year old lady who is adamantly against a tax increase.
Please click on the following link to hear the call.
Constituent call 4_15_9
Please click on the following link to hear the call.
Constituent call 4_15_9
GPEC Budget Presentation Pt. I
April 15 2009 08:45 Filed in: Budget
The following presentation was delivered last Thursday (4/9/9) at the Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC) by Speaker Kirk Adams and President Bob Burns.
The purpose of the event was to better educate the community regarding Arizona’s multi-year budget shortfall and provide potential solutions.
The presentation is broken up into three segments.
The purpose of the event was to better educate the community regarding Arizona’s multi-year budget shortfall and provide potential solutions.
The presentation is broken up into three segments.
Education Receives More Money Than What's Reported
Despite the $133 Million in Fiscal Year 2009 budget correction reductions in K – 12, education still received $61 Million more than their Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
Lack of Transparency Claim False
April 14 2009 09:36 Filed in: Budget | Transparency
Majority lawmakers are being criticized for not being transparent as they continue to work on the budget. Critics are claiming the budget process is being “cloaked in secrecy” and that most GOP Members are not involved in the process.
Majority Members are in fact working hard with their Caucus to find a solution for this budget and providing more information than in years past. There was a time when Members used to meet behind closed doors and Democrats never got to see the budget until it was presented in a bill format.
This session, multiple public budget meetings have taken place, including business and municipal leader’s public roundtable discussions. There has also been a public release of DRAFT budget documents that list proposed solutions and cut options. Neither of these took place last year and releasing a draft of the budget before memorializing it in a bill is unprecedented.
A Caucus website has been established in order to open up transparency to the public. The web site includes budget updates and documents. The public also had the opportunity to attend discussions in multiple cities around the state where Leadership traveled to discuss the budget and explain the legislative process. The Education Committee also traveled the state discussing the Education Budget with the public.
Members of the Caucus are kept informed through a newsletter developed by the Majority Whip and are asked for their input. It is a top priority of the Majority Staff to involve all members of the Caucus in the budget process. In creating this budget, Leadership has been working with all of the Caucus Members by meeting with them in small groups.
It may seem that Majority Leadership is leading the budget from the outside with little input, but the House Appropriations Committee, made up of both Republicans and Democrats, has played a primary role in developing the budget and the committee reflects the actual body of the House.
In a push for transparency, Leadership has also established a Speaker’s Bureau and they are holding weekly Chairmen’s meetings.
Majority Leaders are not hiding the budget behind closed doors, and are instead introducing new steps in making the process more transparent than it ever was in the past.
Dems would rather have teachers protesting than in the classroom
April 13 2009 15:46 Filed in: Education | Reduction-in-force
Numerous school districts are laying off teachers at an unprecedented rate.
It could have been avoided.
Democrats decided to support the teacher’s union (Arizona Education Association) instead of supporting teachers.
Here’s what Democratic Representative Tom Chabin had to say on his refusal to support school districts in having more time to deal with the state’s fiscal crisis:
“The hesitancy really revolves around putting a face on a decision that we make. The truth is, the truth is, that if we give notice to teachers on April 15th and their families, and the schools, and the children they teach, we will see who is affected by our decisions. They will be here and it will put more pressure on us to develop a budget in education sooner. Now that’s honest.”
Honest indeed.
Democrats would rather have teachers protesting at the Capitol than teaching in the classroom.
It could have been avoided.
Democrats decided to support the teacher’s union (Arizona Education Association) instead of supporting teachers.
Here’s what Democratic Representative Tom Chabin had to say on his refusal to support school districts in having more time to deal with the state’s fiscal crisis:
“The hesitancy really revolves around putting a face on a decision that we make. The truth is, the truth is, that if we give notice to teachers on April 15th and their families, and the schools, and the children they teach, we will see who is affected by our decisions. They will be here and it will put more pressure on us to develop a budget in education sooner. Now that’s honest.”
Honest indeed.
Democrats would rather have teachers protesting at the Capitol than teaching in the classroom.
SCOTUS to hear AZ ELL case next Monday
Next Monday morning, April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and President of the Senate v. Flores. The issue involves the interference of the federal courts with the authority of the Arizona legislature to establish education policy for English Language Learners.
The Court will decide whether the judgement put in place in 2000 should be modified or ended given significant developments in the intervening years.
Developments include: Prop 203 (2001), the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, and HB2064 (2006).
Here are the Speaker’s legal filings with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for writ of certiori brief (PDF)
2. Petitioner's Opening Brief (PDF)
3. Petitioner's Reply Brief (PDF)
For more resources on this case, click here.
Additionally, from the Arizona Republic, read Robert Robb’s most recent column on ELL issues.
The Court will decide whether the judgement put in place in 2000 should be modified or ended given significant developments in the intervening years.
Developments include: Prop 203 (2001), the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, and HB2064 (2006).
Here are the Speaker’s legal filings with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for writ of certiori brief (PDF)
2. Petitioner's Opening Brief (PDF)
3. Petitioner's Reply Brief (PDF)
For more resources on this case, click here.
Additionally, from the Arizona Republic, read Robert Robb’s most recent column on ELL issues.
Republican Leaders Working to Balance Budget
Speaker of the House Kirk Adams said a tax increase would hinder Arizona’s economic recovery because it would burden both businesses and consumers...
Click here for entire story
Click here for entire story
GPEC presentation by Speaker Adams & President Burns
The following presentation was delivered this morning at the Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC) by Speaker Kirk Adams and President Bob Burns.
The purpose of the event was to better educate the community regarding Arizona’s multi-year budget shortfall and provide potential solutions.
Click on the following link to view the presentation.
GPEC Presentation 4_9_9
The purpose of the event was to better educate the community regarding Arizona’s multi-year budget shortfall and provide potential solutions.
Click on the following link to view the presentation.
GPEC Presentation 4_9_9
Budget Discussions Continue
April 08 2009 14:26 Filed in: Budget
Please click on the link below to view a working draft of the FY2010 budget reductions. This is a WORKING document and should not be treated as an official budget proposal.
When the Appropriations Chairmen develop a full budget proposal with input from members, we will release it as an official proposal.
Working Document 3_26_9
When the Appropriations Chairmen develop a full budget proposal with input from members, we will release it as an official proposal.
Working Document 3_26_9
Teacher Layoffs Could've Been Avoided
The following links consist of a few headlines regarding teacher layoffs.
These layoffs could have been avoided if Democrats had voted with Republicans to give school districts more time to make teachers aware of their employment status.
State law requires notices go out by April 15.
The following news stories are more than likely just the beginning of Reduction-in-force (RIF) notices...
Gilbert School District votes to cut 400 teachers
TUSD Board approves layoffs for 605 workers, mostly teachers
Chino Valley sends out 227 RIF letters to employees
Peoria School District approves layoff of 300 teachers
Deer Valley Unified School District laying off 121 Employees
Dysart Unified School District to recommend elimination of 175 jobs
Queen Creek School Board approves cutting 35 teachers
34 teachers leaving Kingman Unified School District
Mayer School Board RIFs 8 employees
Mesa school jobs in ‘confusing’ limbo
Torren Eilhelmsen, a Desert Ridge High School student recently wrote a letter to the Gilbert Public Schools Governing Board. The student’s experience is not unlike many of her counterparts in schools all across Arizona.
Eilhelmsen wrote, “I am very involved with student leadership. Specifically, I am part of the Principal's Advisory Council that helps deal with different issues at the school. This morning, April 6, 2009, students walked into class knowing something wasn't right. Then, when the bell rang, distraught first-year teachers gave their students the news that they very likely would not have a job with Gilbert Public School District next year. This announcement was made to them on Friday, April 3, 2009, after school. This announcement comes after Dr. Allison told the parents of the Parent Superintendent Council, that he and the governing board would do everything in their power not to cut teachers and increase class sizes. We all trusted that was what was to happen. Now, they have said that first year teachers may not get to teach with Gilbert Public Schools next year. This would raise the class size at Desert Ridge to approximately double the size of this year's classes. Now I ask you, are we supposed to still trust you when you tell us something? I find it hard to believe that there would be logic in that in the least amount. There are other things that can and should be cut long before it comes to teachers.”
These layoffs could have been avoided if Democrats had voted with Republicans to give school districts more time to make teachers aware of their employment status.
State law requires notices go out by April 15.
The following news stories are more than likely just the beginning of Reduction-in-force (RIF) notices...
Gilbert School District votes to cut 400 teachers
TUSD Board approves layoffs for 605 workers, mostly teachers
Chino Valley sends out 227 RIF letters to employees
Peoria School District approves layoff of 300 teachers
Deer Valley Unified School District laying off 121 Employees
Dysart Unified School District to recommend elimination of 175 jobs
Queen Creek School Board approves cutting 35 teachers
34 teachers leaving Kingman Unified School District
Mayer School Board RIFs 8 employees
Mesa school jobs in ‘confusing’ limbo
Torren Eilhelmsen, a Desert Ridge High School student recently wrote a letter to the Gilbert Public Schools Governing Board. The student’s experience is not unlike many of her counterparts in schools all across Arizona.
Eilhelmsen wrote, “I am very involved with student leadership. Specifically, I am part of the Principal's Advisory Council that helps deal with different issues at the school. This morning, April 6, 2009, students walked into class knowing something wasn't right. Then, when the bell rang, distraught first-year teachers gave their students the news that they very likely would not have a job with Gilbert Public School District next year. This announcement was made to them on Friday, April 3, 2009, after school. This announcement comes after Dr. Allison told the parents of the Parent Superintendent Council, that he and the governing board would do everything in their power not to cut teachers and increase class sizes. We all trusted that was what was to happen. Now, they have said that first year teachers may not get to teach with Gilbert Public Schools next year. This would raise the class size at Desert Ridge to approximately double the size of this year's classes. Now I ask you, are we supposed to still trust you when you tell us something? I find it hard to believe that there would be logic in that in the least amount. There are other things that can and should be cut long before it comes to teachers.”
Democrats Side With Union Against Teachers
By Andy Tobin
House Majority Whip
Instead of doing what’s right for teachers and students, the teachers union (Arizona Education Association) has decided politics are more important. This same teacher’s union colluded with the House Democrats to make sure school districts do not have the ability to have more time to notify teachers about whether or not they will be retained for the following school year.
The Democrats voted party line against HB2630 with the exception of one Democrat. This bill would have given school districts the time they needed to make teachers aware of their employment status and not frighten or lose good teachers because of unnecessary contract termination letters.
In March the Legislature attempted to pass HB2630, which would have extended the statutory teacher notification deadline for all Arizona school districts. The Republicans attempted, at the request of the Arizona School Boards Association, to give an emergency extension so school districts could finalize their budgets without frightening or losing good teachers with contract termination letters that were based on worst-case scenarios.
Unfortunately, the Arizona Education Association went against the school districts and convinced all but one of the House Democrats to vote ‘no’ on HB2630. Rep. Rae Waters voted with the Republicans on this issue. In addition to the 35 Republicans, five Democrats needed to vote ‘yes’ to pass the emergency measure. Instead, the Arizona Education Association and the Democrats decided to play political games with teachers’ livelihoods and killed the emergency measure.
- Click here to see Highlights of the HB2630 Debate
If you are truly concerned about the situation Arizona teachers are in, I suggest you contact your Democratic legislators and ask them why they voted to send layoff notices to teachers that may still have jobs.
You can find their contact information at this link.
House Majority Whip
Instead of doing what’s right for teachers and students, the teachers union (Arizona Education Association) has decided politics are more important. This same teacher’s union colluded with the House Democrats to make sure school districts do not have the ability to have more time to notify teachers about whether or not they will be retained for the following school year.
The Democrats voted party line against HB2630 with the exception of one Democrat. This bill would have given school districts the time they needed to make teachers aware of their employment status and not frighten or lose good teachers because of unnecessary contract termination letters.
In March the Legislature attempted to pass HB2630, which would have extended the statutory teacher notification deadline for all Arizona school districts. The Republicans attempted, at the request of the Arizona School Boards Association, to give an emergency extension so school districts could finalize their budgets without frightening or losing good teachers with contract termination letters that were based on worst-case scenarios.
Unfortunately, the Arizona Education Association went against the school districts and convinced all but one of the House Democrats to vote ‘no’ on HB2630. Rep. Rae Waters voted with the Republicans on this issue. In addition to the 35 Republicans, five Democrats needed to vote ‘yes’ to pass the emergency measure. Instead, the Arizona Education Association and the Democrats decided to play political games with teachers’ livelihoods and killed the emergency measure.
- Click here to see Highlights of the HB2630 Debate
If you are truly concerned about the situation Arizona teachers are in, I suggest you contact your Democratic legislators and ask them why they voted to send layoff notices to teachers that may still have jobs.
You can find their contact information at this link.
Welcome to the AZ House Republicans New Website!
April 06 2009 15:27
Welcome to the official website of the Arizona House Republican Caucus!
We will be posting on issues that are of importance to Arizona and we look forward to communicating more fully and transparently regarding our actions here at the State Capitol.
We look forward to hearing from you. Please drop us a note at the “Contact Us” tab.
Additionally, you can find us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter (AZHouseGOP) and sign up for our RSS feed so you can follow up-to-date, accurate information on what’s happening at the Arizona State Legislature.
We will be posting on issues that are of importance to Arizona and we look forward to communicating more fully and transparently regarding our actions here at the State Capitol.
We look forward to hearing from you. Please drop us a note at the “Contact Us” tab.
Additionally, you can find us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter (AZHouseGOP) and sign up for our RSS feed so you can follow up-to-date, accurate information on what’s happening at the Arizona State Legislature.
AZ Desperately Needs Tax Reform
Arizona needs tax reform, and we need it now.
The Legislature has received countless letters and emails from businesses that talk of the stifling effect government – both state and federal, has had on their companies, their innovation and their desire to grow.
Instead of forcing businesses to base their saving and investment decisions on taxes, we should provide the grounds that foster economic growth meanwhile encourage innovation and investment.
Not every economist (or politician) will agree that lowering taxes on capital income fosters greater investment, greater economic growth and higher standards of living. Yet every business takes capital income taxes into consideration when deciding whether to move into a state or even move out...as in the case of California.
The question we must ask – is Arizona as business friendly as we could be?
In comparison to our neighboring states (with the exception of California), we lag far behind in terms of having a business friendly environment.
Raising taxes on an already flailing economy will only harm businesses and in turn harm families – the very families that help sustain our great state.
Even if Democrats were able to squeeze $1 billion more from businesses and families that are already struggling, they would still be unable to close the $1 billion budget deficit that they’ve admitted they are short in their budget proposal.
As Speaker Pro Tem Steve Yarbrough said, “Instead of reducing unaffordable expenditures to bring them into alignment with revenues like every other household, business, and local government is doing, the House Minority wants to take more from Arizonans.”
The question we must answer is how can we make Arizona a more business friendly state and what can we do to foster long term growth?
This will take real leadership who can provide for a qualified workforce and a business friendly environment.
The Legislature has received countless letters and emails from businesses that talk of the stifling effect government – both state and federal, has had on their companies, their innovation and their desire to grow.
Instead of forcing businesses to base their saving and investment decisions on taxes, we should provide the grounds that foster economic growth meanwhile encourage innovation and investment.
Not every economist (or politician) will agree that lowering taxes on capital income fosters greater investment, greater economic growth and higher standards of living. Yet every business takes capital income taxes into consideration when deciding whether to move into a state or even move out...as in the case of California.
The question we must ask – is Arizona as business friendly as we could be?
In comparison to our neighboring states (with the exception of California), we lag far behind in terms of having a business friendly environment.
Raising taxes on an already flailing economy will only harm businesses and in turn harm families – the very families that help sustain our great state.
Even if Democrats were able to squeeze $1 billion more from businesses and families that are already struggling, they would still be unable to close the $1 billion budget deficit that they’ve admitted they are short in their budget proposal.
As Speaker Pro Tem Steve Yarbrough said, “Instead of reducing unaffordable expenditures to bring them into alignment with revenues like every other household, business, and local government is doing, the House Minority wants to take more from Arizonans.”
The question we must answer is how can we make Arizona a more business friendly state and what can we do to foster long term growth?
This will take real leadership who can provide for a qualified workforce and a business friendly environment.
Stemming the Size of Government
While we’re cutting government growth in Arizona, the Federal government is expanding at an unprecedented rate. The “changed” Washington seems to be eerily similar to what Reagan said “if it moves...tax it, if it slows down...regulate it, if it stops moving...subsidize it.” Now we can say “if it fails...bail it out!”
Meanwhile, Arizona faces an unprecedented fiscal crisis never seen before in the history of our great state. Our ongoing expenses greatly outweigh our incoming revenue – to the tune of $3 Billion dollars.
We must cut non-essential services and grow our way out of this topsy-turvy imbalance and provide pro-growth tax policy that accomplishes this.
We are trying to align our structural deficit, which has come about due to a doubling and sometimes tripling of state services in the last several years.
Last January, the Legislature passed a fix to the Fiscal Year 2009 budget that became the largest reduction in government in Arizona’s history. While House Republicans are trying to stem the growth of government and fix our structural deficit, Democrats are seeking to bring it back and even increase the size and scope of government with their most recent budget proposal.
Conversely, the ongoing discussions of the House and Senate FY10 Republican budget proposal includes not raising taxes nor growing government.
The minority proposal includes an increase in taxes by $1 billion in FY10. These taxes include increases of $360 million in property taxes on homeowners and businesses, $80 million in additional income taxes, $100 million from the elimination of tax credits for contributions to public and private schools, a new assessment of $233 million on the generation of electricity, and a new levy of $45 million on consumer and business warranty and service contracts.
We can and we must continue to attract and retain businesses as a major piece to fixing our fiscal crisis.
Additionally, spending reductions, non-tax revenue enhancements, and federal stimulus funding will help us to correct the state's budget shortfall.
Meanwhile, Arizona faces an unprecedented fiscal crisis never seen before in the history of our great state. Our ongoing expenses greatly outweigh our incoming revenue – to the tune of $3 Billion dollars.
We must cut non-essential services and grow our way out of this topsy-turvy imbalance and provide pro-growth tax policy that accomplishes this.
We are trying to align our structural deficit, which has come about due to a doubling and sometimes tripling of state services in the last several years.
Last January, the Legislature passed a fix to the Fiscal Year 2009 budget that became the largest reduction in government in Arizona’s history. While House Republicans are trying to stem the growth of government and fix our structural deficit, Democrats are seeking to bring it back and even increase the size and scope of government with their most recent budget proposal.
Conversely, the ongoing discussions of the House and Senate FY10 Republican budget proposal includes not raising taxes nor growing government.
The minority proposal includes an increase in taxes by $1 billion in FY10. These taxes include increases of $360 million in property taxes on homeowners and businesses, $80 million in additional income taxes, $100 million from the elimination of tax credits for contributions to public and private schools, a new assessment of $233 million on the generation of electricity, and a new levy of $45 million on consumer and business warranty and service contracts.
We can and we must continue to attract and retain businesses as a major piece to fixing our fiscal crisis.
Additionally, spending reductions, non-tax revenue enhancements, and federal stimulus funding will help us to correct the state's budget shortfall.
AZ Speaker & President on Horizon
Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Bob Burns discuss the budget deficit, the upcoming FY2010 budget and how to bridge the shortfall without raising taxes.
Abortion Consent Act Defies Argument
April 06 2009 15:27 Filed in: Abortion | Healthcare
By Representative Nancy Barto
HB 2564-the Abortion Consent Act-passed out of the House Health and Human Services committee 5-0 with hardly a dissent. Several committee members decided to leave the scene during deliberations of the bill.
Even Planned Parenthood and NARAL, predictably opposed to the bill, did not speak against it in committee even while facilitating hundreds of stock e-mails to Legislators’ inboxes - spreading all manner of misinformation. Interestingly, not one of the e-mail senders testified in committee.
Perhaps they simply could not refute the fact that the legislation would not prohibit one abortion.It may be a number of other reasons, though. Perhaps they did not want to admit that current parental consent laws, supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, are meaningless without the legislation.
Perhaps they didn’t want to go on record opposing women seeking an abortion should receive the complete and accurate information she needs before making her decision. After all, specific informed consent protocols are required for a number of medical circumstances including HIV-related testing, admission of a minor to a hospital, genetic testing and immunizations, to name a few. And it is standard practice for virtually every other medical surgical procedure that a physician communicate to their patients a raft of information, including the available alternatives, before they consent.
Except for abortion.
Maybe it is the fact that the bill’s provisions, including the 24 hour reflection period in which to process the information, are already law in 30 other states. Even a woman deciding whether to give a baby up for adoption must be given a full 72 hours within which she has the right to change her mind.
Perhaps they couldn’t make the argument that the availabililty of emergency contraception would not be affected even while protecting a pharmacist’s right not to fill an abortion-inducing prescription. After all, emergency contraception (Plan B) is now available over the counter and on the internet for $29.99!
Whatever the reasons the opposition chose not to make their case in committee, testimony in favor of the bill was powerful. And 37 Arizona physicians, many of whom are OB/GYNs, signed onto a letter recommending these changes to our abortion laws. If legislators had any doubt as to the need for the legislation, by the end of the hearing, they were erased.
To access committee testimony, click here. Then click on 2/25/09 House Health and Human Services meeting.
With the passage of the Abortion Consent Act, chances are excellent vulnerable minors will be less at risk of being taken advantage of, the doctor-patient relationship will be strengthened and the quality of care for women seeking abortions will improve. These are common sense provisions that are hard to argue with.
HB 2564-the Abortion Consent Act-passed out of the House Health and Human Services committee 5-0 with hardly a dissent. Several committee members decided to leave the scene during deliberations of the bill.
Even Planned Parenthood and NARAL, predictably opposed to the bill, did not speak against it in committee even while facilitating hundreds of stock e-mails to Legislators’ inboxes - spreading all manner of misinformation. Interestingly, not one of the e-mail senders testified in committee.
Perhaps they simply could not refute the fact that the legislation would not prohibit one abortion.It may be a number of other reasons, though. Perhaps they did not want to admit that current parental consent laws, supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, are meaningless without the legislation.
Perhaps they didn’t want to go on record opposing women seeking an abortion should receive the complete and accurate information she needs before making her decision. After all, specific informed consent protocols are required for a number of medical circumstances including HIV-related testing, admission of a minor to a hospital, genetic testing and immunizations, to name a few. And it is standard practice for virtually every other medical surgical procedure that a physician communicate to their patients a raft of information, including the available alternatives, before they consent.
Except for abortion.
Maybe it is the fact that the bill’s provisions, including the 24 hour reflection period in which to process the information, are already law in 30 other states. Even a woman deciding whether to give a baby up for adoption must be given a full 72 hours within which she has the right to change her mind.
Perhaps they couldn’t make the argument that the availabililty of emergency contraception would not be affected even while protecting a pharmacist’s right not to fill an abortion-inducing prescription. After all, emergency contraception (Plan B) is now available over the counter and on the internet for $29.99!
Whatever the reasons the opposition chose not to make their case in committee, testimony in favor of the bill was powerful. And 37 Arizona physicians, many of whom are OB/GYNs, signed onto a letter recommending these changes to our abortion laws. If legislators had any doubt as to the need for the legislation, by the end of the hearing, they were erased.
To access committee testimony, click here. Then click on 2/25/09 House Health and Human Services meeting.
With the passage of the Abortion Consent Act, chances are excellent vulnerable minors will be less at risk of being taken advantage of, the doctor-patient relationship will be strengthened and the quality of care for women seeking abortions will improve. These are common sense provisions that are hard to argue with.
State Property Tax Kills Jobs
Arizona has the dubious distinction of being ranked fifth in the nation for having the highest business property tax burden. Regionally, Arizona is the worst (with the exception of California).
This means when a business is considering moving to a state, they factor in the additional costs state government will impose, along with regulations. In comparison to Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, Arizona has a much lower business friendly environment than our neighbouring states.
Allowing the State Property Tax to return this fall without a complete repeal is a tax increase - the worst possible thing we could allow in a troubled economy. Our businesses and homeowners cannot afford an added financial burden during a time when many are struggling to hold onto what they have.
It is an extremely dangerous proposition to raise taxes during an economic crisis. As lawmakers we must make wise tax decisions to grow our economy, expand our economic base and create jobs. We do that by attracting business and innovation to Arizona.
Tax cuts didn’t lead to the state’s recent budget crisis. We must correct the $3B deficit in Arizona now because the two previous budgets under Governor Napolitano ignored the economic warning signs and relied heavily on borrowing and accounting schemes.
If the State Property Tax is not permanently repealed, it will be incorporated into property tax bills in the fall of 2009 and we will fail to attract and encourage greater diversity and investment in our state among businesses that could bring jobs to Arizona.
We must do all we can to retain and invite business into Arizona. We can continue this process by passing HB2073, the State Property Tax Repeal.
Small Businesses Can't Afford State Property Tax
I am a small business owner. My business was created from an idea thirty-one years ago. Today, I employ 28 people and my business generates more than $5 million in annual sales. The business is profitable but earns only about 1.5 percent of sales. Over the past ten years, earnings during the most profitable year were 2.5 percent. As you might imagine there is little room for error or frivolous spending in our operations. Focus, discipline, and hard work by everyone involved make my company function.
The biggest beneficiary of my company…GOVERNMENT. The taxes we paid or generated during 2008 were $654,602.
While I earned $72,000 to sustain and grow my business, government received $654,602 from my effort. Small business is being taxed to death. The small business engine of the U.S. economy is being suffocated with taxes. Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Remove or lessen some of these taxes so I can invest more to develop jobs, grow my company and stimulate economic growth.
Unfortunately one of the consequences of high taxation is to discourage individuals from going into business. New ideas are left dormant because the obstacles to success seem too great or the reward too little. Our tax system should support individuals with new and creative ideas to develop their potential, provide jobs and create wealth. I ask you to support such a system and to oppose programs that restrict entrepreneurial spirit.
Sincerely,
Keith Stephens, President
Woodworkers Source
________________________________________________________________________
Although I do not own any real estate at this time, the State Property Tax Relief provision should remain as it is and not be allowed to expire. In light of all the new developments out of Washington, D.C., and the new taxes that are going to be levied, businesses do not need any further taxes. To do so would force businesses to increase its prices, possibly lay off employees, and/or reduce employees’ hours to that of part time, thereby saving on benefits i.e. vacations, health, sick days, workman’s compensation. We could not keep our businesses open longer or add hours, as this would only increase our overhead costs.
Frank de Rosa , PhD, President. Advance Paper & Maintenance Supply, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________
In spite of the Temporary Property tax relief provisions passed in 2006, I have seen my property tax payment increase over 25 percent in the last two years while the full cash value of my property has declined 43 percent. In other words, the state revenues collected for 2008 and 2009 will be based on the higher cash values from the housing bubble since it takes two years for declines in value to equate to tax liability.
By my estimate I will not see relief from taxes caused by declines in my property values until tax payments are due in 2010. We need this relief provision to be extended for this reason alone.
We are a small service business, employing and paying healthcare for five employees. We are experiencing a significant reduction in revenues and are struggling to keep our workers employed. Our business credit line has been closed by our bank. Our house which we have owned since 2005 is upside down according to our lender. We have cut back on all unnecessary expenses. The next step will be to cut salaries, hours or benefits.
Linda M. Day
Day Enterprises, Inc.
The biggest beneficiary of my company…GOVERNMENT. The taxes we paid or generated during 2008 were $654,602.
While I earned $72,000 to sustain and grow my business, government received $654,602 from my effort. Small business is being taxed to death. The small business engine of the U.S. economy is being suffocated with taxes. Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Remove or lessen some of these taxes so I can invest more to develop jobs, grow my company and stimulate economic growth.
Unfortunately one of the consequences of high taxation is to discourage individuals from going into business. New ideas are left dormant because the obstacles to success seem too great or the reward too little. Our tax system should support individuals with new and creative ideas to develop their potential, provide jobs and create wealth. I ask you to support such a system and to oppose programs that restrict entrepreneurial spirit.
Sincerely,
Keith Stephens, President
Woodworkers Source
________________________________________________________________________
Although I do not own any real estate at this time, the State Property Tax Relief provision should remain as it is and not be allowed to expire. In light of all the new developments out of Washington, D.C., and the new taxes that are going to be levied, businesses do not need any further taxes. To do so would force businesses to increase its prices, possibly lay off employees, and/or reduce employees’ hours to that of part time, thereby saving on benefits i.e. vacations, health, sick days, workman’s compensation. We could not keep our businesses open longer or add hours, as this would only increase our overhead costs.
Frank de Rosa , PhD, President. Advance Paper & Maintenance Supply, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________
In spite of the Temporary Property tax relief provisions passed in 2006, I have seen my property tax payment increase over 25 percent in the last two years while the full cash value of my property has declined 43 percent. In other words, the state revenues collected for 2008 and 2009 will be based on the higher cash values from the housing bubble since it takes two years for declines in value to equate to tax liability.
By my estimate I will not see relief from taxes caused by declines in my property values until tax payments are due in 2010. We need this relief provision to be extended for this reason alone.
We are a small service business, employing and paying healthcare for five employees. We are experiencing a significant reduction in revenues and are struggling to keep our workers employed. Our business credit line has been closed by our bank. Our house which we have owned since 2005 is upside down according to our lender. We have cut back on all unnecessary expenses. The next step will be to cut salaries, hours or benefits.
Linda M. Day
Day Enterprises, Inc.
AZ Chamber of Commerce Supports State Property Tax Repeal
By the Arizona Chamber of Commerce
Introduction
In 2006 the Arizona Legislature passed the Omnibus Tax Relief Act suspending the State Equalization Property Tax Rate for three years. According to research from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, this legislation saved property owners a projected $250 million a year.[1]
Bills currently in the state legislature would make this temporary suspension permanent. Repealing the statewide property tax will prevent further job loss and will make Arizona more competitive by lowering taxes for homeowners and businesses in this struggling economy. If the Legislature does not act, businesses will face a dramatic tax increase when the tax returns following fiscal year 2009. Businesses both large and small will undertake the difficult decision of whom to layoff when the new property tax bill comes due. Taxing our citizens and businesses in a time of economic crisis will result in a longer recession and less capital to retain employees and create jobs.
Background
The State Equalization Property Tax Rate was enacted in 1981 to support local communities’ public school financing. The state legislature sets the rate for this property tax.
Prior to 1981, Arizona’s public schools, like in most states, received their funding from local property taxes. If real estate in a particular area had high valuations, the town or city could impose a relatively low tax rate and still meet its school system's financial needs. In areas where valuations were low, property owners were forced to bear a greater burden to pay for schools.
In an effort to comply with the state constitution's call for "a general and uniform public school system,”[2]the legislature established a formula to determine an "equalization base" of guaranteed funding. If local property taxes fail to meet this minimum, money raised from the State Equalization Property Tax Rate is used to top those districts’ coffers until they reach the set equalization base level.[3]
Because a fixed statewide property tax rate combined with rising real estate values meant owners’ tax bills were constantly increasing, the legislature passed Truth in Taxation (TNT) laws in 1998. TNT was intended to lower tax rates to offset the rise in property valuations, thereby stabilizing owners’ tax liability.
From 2001 to 2006, TNT lowered the State Equalization Property Tax Rate from 51 to 44 cents per $100 valuation –a 16 percent drop. However, statewide primary valuations jumped 55 percent over the same period resulting in property tax increases for many residents.[4] In Maricopa County the increase was nearly 60 percent.[5]
Although most property taxes are collected at the local level, state lawmakers wanted to provide some form of relief from this tax surge. They negotiated a three-year suspension of the State Equalization Property Tax Rate (one of the two property taxes the state controls) saving owners over $250 million a year.
The degree to which education and statewide property taxes are truly separate issues was made clear in the Joint Legislative Budget Committee's December 2007 fiscal note. The Committee reported that the Department of Education had a $61.1 million budget surplus. Additionally, the legislature appropriated $145 million in additional funding last year.[6] In the FY 2009 budget adjustments signed into law on January 31, 2009, the legislature cut $133 million from education, which translates to only 3.2% of its General Fund budget.
It is important to remember that the State’s General Fund counterbalanced the loss of this revenue stream, ensuring no school district fell below the base funding level. The business community supports a strong educational system. High property taxes, however, detract from the ability to create wealth and employment for Arizona.
Property Tax Differences for Business and Homeowners
In Arizona, property is divided up into nine classes. A property’s valuation will vary depending on its classification,.
Owner-occupied homes are listed in Class 3 and assessed at 10 percent of full cash value (market value). Business property, however, is placed in Class 1 and subject to 22 percent of full cash value.[7]That means if a home and business have the same market value, say $200,000,[8] the business will pay primary tax on $44,000 while the home will pay tax on only $20,000 worth of value.
A further distortion comes in the form of the Homeowner’s Rebate. In 2006, the State covered 36 percent of homeowners’ primary school district tax rate. In Phoenix Union School District the primary property tax rate for a business was 9.76 cents per $100 valuation. The primary tax rate for a home, on the other hand, was 7.29 cents per $100 valuation. By applying those rates to the above valuations, we find a tax bill of $4,294 for the business and $1,458 for the home —a difference of $2,836.[9]
The State Equalization Property Tax portion of these two tax bills is similarly affected. Applying the State Equalization rate of $0.33 cents per $100 valuation to this example results in a $145 tax for business owner and a $66 tax for the homeowner —120 percent less.
Many businesses, however, own property worth more than $200,000. Perhaps a more realistic example is that of a commercial development valued at $3.9 million in Tempe. The State Equalization Tax part of the owner’s property tax bill would come to over $15,000.[10]
Competitive Arizona
High property taxes are particularly damaging. A growing body of research has found property taxes, because they must be paid regardless of a company's profitability, negatively impact business start-ups.[11]According to the Minnesota Taxpayers Association and the Arizona Tax Research Association, Arizona ranked 5thhighest in the nation for industrial property taxes payable in 2007.[12]Furthermore, business property in Arizona suffers much higher taxes than neighboring states.
To remain a competitive and attractive location for business, to preserve and create more jobs, and to increase individual incomes, Arizona needs to eliminate the state equalization property tax.
To Critics of the Repeal
Some worry repealing the statewide property tax would unfairly benefit big business. What it would actually do is benefit everyone. According to the Arizona Department of Commerce, property-intensive industries employ over 20 percent of the civilian labor force.[13]Lower property taxes would provide companies with additional financial resources to stave off job loss in the short term and support higher wages and expansion in the long term. The ongoing result would be the creation of more jobs to keep Arizona’s economy healthy. Lowering the cost of business in Arizona by cutting property taxes will benefit the future of all residents.
Another criticism of the repeal focuses on the state’s looming budget deficit, projected to reach $3 billion for fiscal year 2010. Opponents question how the legislature can contemplate eliminating the State Equalization Property Tax when revenue is coming in below expectations?
There are a few problems with this argument. First, if the State Equalization tax had been collected in fiscal year 2009, it would have added approximately $250 million in revenue, leaving a deficit of at least $1.35 billion.[14]This suggests the Arizona budget problem lies with too much spending and an antiquated tax system that does not promote investment, capital formation, and job creation.
Second, while sales and income tax collections are down approximately 11 percent from last year, the corporate income tax is down 24.6 percent.[15]Simple economic rationale affirms that increasing taxes on homeowners and business by $250 million is not the way to grow an economy that is in crisis. When business suffers during an economic downturn workers suffer. Now is the time to aid in the sustainability and development of the private sector.
Position
In a globalized economy, Arizona can no longer set fiscal policy as if it were in a vacuum. Companies and individual entrepreneurs are watching to see what Arizona does in comparison to other states and countries. Then, they will react accordingly.
To make sure they react in a positive way, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports the permanent elimination of the State Equalization Property Tax Rate. Now is the time for Arizona to position itself for economic growth and job creation. The repeal is a critical and important step as Arizona looks to improve its competitiveness.
[1] Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “Fiscal Impact of Statutory Tax Changes,” September 20, 2007,http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/taxchanges07.pdf
[2] Arizona State Constitution, Article XI Section 1,http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/11/1.htm
[3] In addition to the State Equalization Property Tax, which is actually collected by the counties, revenue from the Qualifying Tax Rate and Basic State Aid from the General Fund is used to guarantee funding levels. If a district collects enough money on its own to meet the equalization base level, then the State does not provide any funds.
[4] Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “State of Arizona 2006 Tax Handbook,” September 12, 2006, p 82,http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/06taxbook/06taxbk.pdf
[5]Maricopa County Department of Finance, “Tax Rate 2001-2006,”http://www.maricopa.gov/Finance/tax_pub.aspx
[6] Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “FY2009 Appropriations Report,” August 2008,http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/09app/apprpttoc.pdf.
[7] For Tax Year 2007; the percent will drop .5 percent each year until it is reduced to 20 percent for business in 2015
[8] The Arizona State University Real Estate Center records the median sale price for a single family home in Greater Phoenix between 2004 and 2007 at $255,000. For more information seehttp://www.poly.asu.edu/realty/marketupdate/sales/Annual%20Sales.xls.
[9] For a full explanation see the Arizona Tax Research Association’s “An Explanation of Property Tax,” 2007,http://www.maricopa.gov/Finance/tax_pub.aspx
[10] EJM Developers, Co., “Good Cents Presentation,” January 16, 2008
[11] For more seeTimothy J. Bartik (1989). “Small Business Start-Ups in the United States: Estimates of the Effects of Characteristics of States,”Southern Economic Journal, pp. 1004-1018; Stephen T. Mark, Therese J. McGuire and Leslie E. Papke (2000). “The Influence of Taxes on Employment and Population Growth: Evidence from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area,”National Tax Journal,Volume 53, pp. 105-123; Sanjay Gupta and Mary Ann Hofmann (2003). “The Effect of State Income Tax Apportionment and Tax Incentives on New Capital Expenditures,”The Journal of the American Taxation Association,Supplement 2003, pp. 1-25.
[12]Minnesota Taxpayers Association, Arizona Tax Research Association, “Residential Property Tax Rankings vs. Industrial Property Tax Rankings,” March 3, 2009
[13] Arizona Department of Commerce – Research Administration, “State of Arizona Labor Force and Non-Farm Employment,” 2007,http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/1970_aznaics01-06.pdf
[14] Joint Legislative Budget Committee “Joint Caucus Budget Update: FY 2009 and FY 2010 Revenues and Budget Shortfall Estimates,” January 14, 2009,http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/JointCaucusBudgetUpdate 011409.pdf.
[15] Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “2009 Revenue Update,” February 12, 2009http://www.azleg.gov/ jlbc/09janrevupdate.pdf.
Introduction
In 2006 the Arizona Legislature passed the Omnibus Tax Relief Act suspending the State Equalization Property Tax Rate for three years. According to research from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, this legislation saved property owners a projected $250 million a year.[1]
Bills currently in the state legislature would make this temporary suspension permanent. Repealing the statewide property tax will prevent further job loss and will make Arizona more competitive by lowering taxes for homeowners and businesses in this struggling economy. If the Legislature does not act, businesses will face a dramatic tax increase when the tax returns following fiscal year 2009. Businesses both large and small will undertake the difficult decision of whom to layoff when the new property tax bill comes due. Taxing our citizens and businesses in a time of economic crisis will result in a longer recession and less capital to retain employees and create jobs.
Background
The State Equalization Property Tax Rate was enacted in 1981 to support local communities’ public school financing. The state legislature sets the rate for this property tax.
Prior to 1981, Arizona’s public schools, like in most states, received their funding from local property taxes. If real estate in a particular area had high valuations, the town or city could impose a relatively low tax rate and still meet its school system's financial needs. In areas where valuations were low, property owners were forced to bear a greater burden to pay for schools.
In an effort to comply with the state constitution's call for "a general and uniform public school system,”[2]the legislature established a formula to determine an "equalization base" of guaranteed funding. If local property taxes fail to meet this minimum, money raised from the State Equalization Property Tax Rate is used to top those districts’ coffers until they reach the set equalization base level.[3]
Because a fixed statewide property tax rate combined with rising real estate values meant owners’ tax bills were constantly increasing, the legislature passed Truth in Taxation (TNT) laws in 1998. TNT was intended to lower tax rates to offset the rise in property valuations, thereby stabilizing owners’ tax liability.
From 2001 to 2006, TNT lowered the State Equalization Property Tax Rate from 51 to 44 cents per $100 valuation –a 16 percent drop. However, statewide primary valuations jumped 55 percent over the same period resulting in property tax increases for many residents.[4] In Maricopa County the increase was nearly 60 percent.[5]
Although most property taxes are collected at the local level, state lawmakers wanted to provide some form of relief from this tax surge. They negotiated a three-year suspension of the State Equalization Property Tax Rate (one of the two property taxes the state controls) saving owners over $250 million a year.
The degree to which education and statewide property taxes are truly separate issues was made clear in the Joint Legislative Budget Committee's December 2007 fiscal note. The Committee reported that the Department of Education had a $61.1 million budget surplus. Additionally, the legislature appropriated $145 million in additional funding last year.[6] In the FY 2009 budget adjustments signed into law on January 31, 2009, the legislature cut $133 million from education, which translates to only 3.2% of its General Fund budget.
It is important to remember that the State’s General Fund counterbalanced the loss of this revenue stream, ensuring no school district fell below the base funding level. The business community supports a strong educational system. High property taxes, however, detract from the ability to create wealth and employment for Arizona.
Property Tax Differences for Business and Homeowners
In Arizona, property is divided up into nine classes. A property’s valuation will vary depending on its classification,.
Owner-occupied homes are listed in Class 3 and assessed at 10 percent of full cash value (market value). Business property, however, is placed in Class 1 and subject to 22 percent of full cash value.[7]That means if a home and business have the same market value, say $200,000,[8] the business will pay primary tax on $44,000 while the home will pay tax on only $20,000 worth of value.
A further distortion comes in the form of the Homeowner’s Rebate. In 2006, the State covered 36 percent of homeowners’ primary school district tax rate. In Phoenix Union School District the primary property tax rate for a business was 9.76 cents per $100 valuation. The primary tax rate for a home, on the other hand, was 7.29 cents per $100 valuation. By applying those rates to the above valuations, we find a tax bill of $4,294 for the business and $1,458 for the home —a difference of $2,836.[9]
The State Equalization Property Tax portion of these two tax bills is similarly affected. Applying the State Equalization rate of $0.33 cents per $100 valuation to this example results in a $145 tax for business owner and a $66 tax for the homeowner —120 percent less.
Many businesses, however, own property worth more than $200,000. Perhaps a more realistic example is that of a commercial development valued at $3.9 million in Tempe. The State Equalization Tax part of the owner’s property tax bill would come to over $15,000.[10]
Competitive Arizona
High property taxes are particularly damaging. A growing body of research has found property taxes, because they must be paid regardless of a company's profitability, negatively impact business start-ups.[11]According to the Minnesota Taxpayers Association and the Arizona Tax Research Association, Arizona ranked 5thhighest in the nation for industrial property taxes payable in 2007.[12]Furthermore, business property in Arizona suffers much higher taxes than neighboring states.
To remain a competitive and attractive location for business, to preserve and create more jobs, and to increase individual incomes, Arizona needs to eliminate the state equalization property tax.
To Critics of the Repeal
Some worry repealing the statewide property tax would unfairly benefit big business. What it would actually do is benefit everyone. According to the Arizona Department of Commerce, property-intensive industries employ over 20 percent of the civilian labor force.[13]Lower property taxes would provide companies with additional financial resources to stave off job loss in the short term and support higher wages and expansion in the long term. The ongoing result would be the creation of more jobs to keep Arizona’s economy healthy. Lowering the cost of business in Arizona by cutting property taxes will benefit the future of all residents.
Another criticism of the repeal focuses on the state’s looming budget deficit, projected to reach $3 billion for fiscal year 2010. Opponents question how the legislature can contemplate eliminating the State Equalization Property Tax when revenue is coming in below expectations?
There are a few problems with this argument. First, if the State Equalization tax had been collected in fiscal year 2009, it would have added approximately $250 million in revenue, leaving a deficit of at least $1.35 billion.[14]This suggests the Arizona budget problem lies with too much spending and an antiquated tax system that does not promote investment, capital formation, and job creation.
Second, while sales and income tax collections are down approximately 11 percent from last year, the corporate income tax is down 24.6 percent.[15]Simple economic rationale affirms that increasing taxes on homeowners and business by $250 million is not the way to grow an economy that is in crisis. When business suffers during an economic downturn workers suffer. Now is the time to aid in the sustainability and development of the private sector.
Position
In a globalized economy, Arizona can no longer set fiscal policy as if it were in a vacuum. Companies and individual entrepreneurs are watching to see what Arizona does in comparison to other states and countries. Then, they will react accordingly.
To make sure they react in a positive way, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports the permanent elimination of the State Equalization Property Tax Rate. Now is the time for Arizona to position itself for economic growth and job creation. The repeal is a critical and important step as Arizona looks to improve its competitiveness.
[1] Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “Fiscal Impact of Statutory Tax Changes,” September 20, 2007,http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/taxchanges07.pdf
[2] Arizona State Constitution, Article XI Section 1,http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/11/1.htm
[3] In addition to the State Equalization Property Tax, which is actually collected by the counties, revenue from the Qualifying Tax Rate and Basic State Aid from the General Fund is used to guarantee funding levels. If a district collects enough money on its own to meet the equalization base level, then the State does not provide any funds.
[4] Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “State of Arizona 2006 Tax Handbook,” September 12, 2006, p 82,http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/06taxbook/06taxbk.pdf
[5]Maricopa County Department of Finance, “Tax Rate 2001-2006,”http://www.maricopa.gov/Finance/tax_pub.aspx
[6] Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “FY2009 Appropriations Report,” August 2008,http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/09app/apprpttoc.pdf.
[7] For Tax Year 2007; the percent will drop .5 percent each year until it is reduced to 20 percent for business in 2015
[8] The Arizona State University Real Estate Center records the median sale price for a single family home in Greater Phoenix between 2004 and 2007 at $255,000. For more information seehttp://www.poly.asu.edu/realty/marketupdate/sales/Annual%20Sales.xls.
[9] For a full explanation see the Arizona Tax Research Association’s “An Explanation of Property Tax,” 2007,http://www.maricopa.gov/Finance/tax_pub.aspx
[10] EJM Developers, Co., “Good Cents Presentation,” January 16, 2008
[11] For more seeTimothy J. Bartik (1989). “Small Business Start-Ups in the United States: Estimates of the Effects of Characteristics of States,”Southern Economic Journal, pp. 1004-1018; Stephen T. Mark, Therese J. McGuire and Leslie E. Papke (2000). “The Influence of Taxes on Employment and Population Growth: Evidence from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area,”National Tax Journal,Volume 53, pp. 105-123; Sanjay Gupta and Mary Ann Hofmann (2003). “The Effect of State Income Tax Apportionment and Tax Incentives on New Capital Expenditures,”The Journal of the American Taxation Association,Supplement 2003, pp. 1-25.
[12]Minnesota Taxpayers Association, Arizona Tax Research Association, “Residential Property Tax Rankings vs. Industrial Property Tax Rankings,” March 3, 2009
[13] Arizona Department of Commerce – Research Administration, “State of Arizona Labor Force and Non-Farm Employment,” 2007,http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/1970_aznaics01-06.pdf
[14] Joint Legislative Budget Committee “Joint Caucus Budget Update: FY 2009 and FY 2010 Revenues and Budget Shortfall Estimates,” January 14, 2009,http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/JointCaucusBudgetUpdate 011409.pdf.
[15] Joint Legislative Budget Committee, “2009 Revenue Update,” February 12, 2009http://www.azleg.gov/ jlbc/09janrevupdate.pdf.
More Taxes Means Less Growth
Background
In 2006, the Arizona Legislature and Governor were faced with extraordinary uncertainty in the property tax system. Property valuations in many counties skyrocketed, forcing county assessors to increase values on some homeowners up to 60 percent. Angry citizens began circulating initiatives to roll back the valuation increases and cap overall property taxes.
The Legislature and Governor responded by reducing its property tax rate while also prohibiting local governments from increasing primary property taxes. In addition, the Legislature referred Proposition 101 to the 2006 general election ballot to ensure that the constitutional levy limits of counties, cities and community colleges would limit future primary property taxes to 2 percent plus growth.
Regrettably, the state property tax relief was made temporary in last minute negotiations with Governor Napolitano. Unless the Legislature takes further action, the state equalization tax rate will return to tax bills this year, resulting in a $247 million tax increase.
Arizona Tax Research Association’s (ATRA’s) Recommendation:
Clearly, the environment that led to the reduction in property taxes in 2006 has changed. Residential property valuations are decreasing substantially and home foreclosures are at record levels. Moreover, theArizonaeconomy continues to contract and businesses shed workers to try to stay afloat. Arizona’s unemployment rate is up to 7 percent and more than 155,000 Arizonans have lost their jobs over the last year.
ATRA recognizes that the depth of Arizona’s budget crisis leaves very few good options to balance the FY 2010 budget. The federal stimulus money provides some short term relief and a potential bridge to better economic times. However, a statewide property tax increase this year will only serve to dampen and delay any potential economic recovery.
Study after study has demonstrated that Arizona’s tax system discourages business location and expansion in the state. In particular, Arizona’s high business property taxes (ranked 5th highest nationally) are a major impediment to economic growth. As the attached table reflects, whileArizonabusinesses account for only 16 percent of the property tax base, they will pay 33 percent of the $247 million tax increase.
Simply put, ATRA believes that a major tax increase in the area of our tax system that is already a major impediment to economic growth is the worst possible option for balancing the FY 2010 budget.
In 2006, the Arizona Legislature and Governor were faced with extraordinary uncertainty in the property tax system. Property valuations in many counties skyrocketed, forcing county assessors to increase values on some homeowners up to 60 percent. Angry citizens began circulating initiatives to roll back the valuation increases and cap overall property taxes.
The Legislature and Governor responded by reducing its property tax rate while also prohibiting local governments from increasing primary property taxes. In addition, the Legislature referred Proposition 101 to the 2006 general election ballot to ensure that the constitutional levy limits of counties, cities and community colleges would limit future primary property taxes to 2 percent plus growth.
Regrettably, the state property tax relief was made temporary in last minute negotiations with Governor Napolitano. Unless the Legislature takes further action, the state equalization tax rate will return to tax bills this year, resulting in a $247 million tax increase.
Arizona Tax Research Association’s (ATRA’s) Recommendation:
Clearly, the environment that led to the reduction in property taxes in 2006 has changed. Residential property valuations are decreasing substantially and home foreclosures are at record levels. Moreover, theArizonaeconomy continues to contract and businesses shed workers to try to stay afloat. Arizona’s unemployment rate is up to 7 percent and more than 155,000 Arizonans have lost their jobs over the last year.
ATRA recognizes that the depth of Arizona’s budget crisis leaves very few good options to balance the FY 2010 budget. The federal stimulus money provides some short term relief and a potential bridge to better economic times. However, a statewide property tax increase this year will only serve to dampen and delay any potential economic recovery.
Study after study has demonstrated that Arizona’s tax system discourages business location and expansion in the state. In particular, Arizona’s high business property taxes (ranked 5th highest nationally) are a major impediment to economic growth. As the attached table reflects, whileArizonabusinesses account for only 16 percent of the property tax base, they will pay 33 percent of the $247 million tax increase.
Simply put, ATRA believes that a major tax increase in the area of our tax system that is already a major impediment to economic growth is the worst possible option for balancing the FY 2010 budget.
Legislative Leadership Discusses Fiscal Crisis
Speaker Adams and President Burns discuss Arizona’s historical fiscal crisis and the best way we can get out of it.