May 2009
Governor Brewer's Political Advisor Pushes Tax Increase
According to recent news stories, Governor Brewer’s political advisor, Chuck Coughlin, seeks to pressure Arizona legislators into accepting a state sales tax increase that would put Arizona in the same tax bracket as California and New York.
The plan would cost at least $225,000 to pressure legislators to support the Governor’s proposal through letters to the editor, telephone calls, interviews, mass emails, talk radio and contacting their local legislators.
If Arizona were to go to a 6.6 percent state sales tax, this would give us the seventh highest rate in the nation. And it would result in the combined state and local tax rates in 30 Arizona cities surpassing 10 percent, putting us at the same infamous rank with California and New York.
Yet an even higher tax would deter people from making major purchases - the kind of purchases on which Arizona’s economy depends to help pay for necessary programs and services.
With the second highest budget deficit in the country, now is not the time to put out the “Not Welcome For Business” signs in Arizona by raising taxes even further.
Do we really want to make it any worse?
The plan would cost at least $225,000 to pressure legislators to support the Governor’s proposal through letters to the editor, telephone calls, interviews, mass emails, talk radio and contacting their local legislators.
If Arizona were to go to a 6.6 percent state sales tax, this would give us the seventh highest rate in the nation. And it would result in the combined state and local tax rates in 30 Arizona cities surpassing 10 percent, putting us at the same infamous rank with California and New York.
Yet an even higher tax would deter people from making major purchases - the kind of purchases on which Arizona’s economy depends to help pay for necessary programs and services.
With the second highest budget deficit in the country, now is not the time to put out the “Not Welcome For Business” signs in Arizona by raising taxes even further.
Do we really want to make it any worse?
Republicans Reject Democrats' Non-Solution to Arizona's Growing Budget Crisis
Republicans reject Democrats’ non-solution to Arizona’s growing budget crisis. Their proposal consists of property tax increases, a massive expansion of items and services subject to sales taxation, and a proposed increase in local sales tax collections.
Democrats claim their new budget proposal avoids “high tax increases,” but in fact, they increase the qualifying tax rate to the maximum allowable by law and add a new tax on services. All of this, at a time when any tax increase will further damage Arizona’s economy and make life harder for already struggling families.
Increasing business property taxes is by far the biggest obstacle to attracting and retaining employers in the state. Rather than redressing and learning from past errors by not taking steps to reduce unsustainable government spending, Democrats are asking Arizonans to pay for their fiscal mismanagement.
Instead of proposing reasonable cuts and addressing how spending got over $3 billion dollars out of alignment, Democrats propose to take billions more from Arizonans.
Republicans continue to work on a solution to our fiscal deficit which addresses our structural deficit without raising taxes and further damaging Arizona’s already struggling economy.
Democrats claim their new budget proposal avoids “high tax increases,” but in fact, they increase the qualifying tax rate to the maximum allowable by law and add a new tax on services. All of this, at a time when any tax increase will further damage Arizona’s economy and make life harder for already struggling families.
Increasing business property taxes is by far the biggest obstacle to attracting and retaining employers in the state. Rather than redressing and learning from past errors by not taking steps to reduce unsustainable government spending, Democrats are asking Arizonans to pay for their fiscal mismanagement.
Instead of proposing reasonable cuts and addressing how spending got over $3 billion dollars out of alignment, Democrats propose to take billions more from Arizonans.
Republicans continue to work on a solution to our fiscal deficit which addresses our structural deficit without raising taxes and further damaging Arizona’s already struggling economy.
Republicans Protect Students, Provide Choice
May 27 2009 17:02 Filed in: Education
The Arizona House and Senate Republicans voted today to send HB2001 up to Governor Brewer, which will allow disabled and foster children to continue attending the private school of their parent’s choice.
Democrats however, voted “no”.
HB2001 saves the state money, allows parents to choose which school best serves the needs of their students, and allows the state to redirect more money for public education.
How could anyone who says they support education vote against such a good piece of legislation?
“I proudly vote ‘no’,” Rep. Sinema said.
“I’m a proud ‘no’ on this bill,” Rep. Ableser said.
“We support the million plus students who are in public education. And so I am proud to vote ‘no’ on this bill…,” Rep. Lujan said.
Yet even if Democratic amendments would have passed (and there were many), Democrats are on record saying they still wouldn’t have supported the bill.
Since legislation goes into affect 90 days after session, Republicans worked with Governor Brewer, bringing this bill to Special Session when it did to allow students to continue going to the school of their choice and not disrupt their upcoming school year.
“By delaying the bill you compromise the ability of those students to continue at those schools who are serving them well and condemn them to the schools who are not serving them well,” Rep. Murphy said.
Democrats however, voted “no”.
HB2001 saves the state money, allows parents to choose which school best serves the needs of their students, and allows the state to redirect more money for public education.
How could anyone who says they support education vote against such a good piece of legislation?
“I proudly vote ‘no’,” Rep. Sinema said.
“I’m a proud ‘no’ on this bill,” Rep. Ableser said.
“We support the million plus students who are in public education. And so I am proud to vote ‘no’ on this bill…,” Rep. Lujan said.
Yet even if Democratic amendments would have passed (and there were many), Democrats are on record saying they still wouldn’t have supported the bill.
Since legislation goes into affect 90 days after session, Republicans worked with Governor Brewer, bringing this bill to Special Session when it did to allow students to continue going to the school of their choice and not disrupt their upcoming school year.
“By delaying the bill you compromise the ability of those students to continue at those schools who are serving them well and condemn them to the schools who are not serving them well,” Rep. Murphy said.
School Choice Saves AZ Money
Democrats act as if there’s no $3.3 billion dollar budget deficit, as if they have no responsibility for the current fiscal crisis the state faces, nor that the current bill they criticize (HB 2001) actually saves the state money.
The most recent Democratic press release criticizes Republicans for budget cuts in the FY09 budget fix, yet without these cuts, Arizona would face an even higher deficit than the current one.
Democrats act irresponsibly in their pseudo budget proposal and their criticism of Republican proposals, yet like the Obama budget plan, would only indebt current and future Arizonans to more permanent spending and debt.
Democratic leadership has given us growth in state government at an unprecedented level. We’ve seen an increase in spending of $3.7 billion dollars in the last five years alone!
In another act of irresponsibility, Democrats attack contributions to School Tuition Organizations saying it costs the state more money when in reality it actually saves the state money. Arizona could definitely use any savings wherever we can find it in the midst of a historic budget deficit.
The Institute for Justice reports the corporate tax credit scholarships will save the State of Arizona an estimated $57.2 million over the life of the program, or an average of $11.4 million annually. This means the state could educate many more students at a private school than what the state would have spent had they remained in the public school system.
Additionally, the bill gives current students the ability to stay in the schools they currently attend, and parents with limited options will now have enhanced options in sending their child to a school that best fits their child’s educational needs.
Democrats have instead decided to take a vulnerable population and use them as political pawns to attack Republicans for a budget crisis due largely to the last several Democratic budgets that obligated the state to permanent spending the state could never afford.
Not only should we be finding ways to save the state money as in the case of HB 2001, but we should also look to find ways to enact good policy, another benefit of HB 2001.
Unfortunately this program is capped at $5 million when there are approximately 120,000 students who could potentially qualify for and benefit from this program.
The most recent Democratic press release criticizes Republicans for budget cuts in the FY09 budget fix, yet without these cuts, Arizona would face an even higher deficit than the current one.
Democrats act irresponsibly in their pseudo budget proposal and their criticism of Republican proposals, yet like the Obama budget plan, would only indebt current and future Arizonans to more permanent spending and debt.
Democratic leadership has given us growth in state government at an unprecedented level. We’ve seen an increase in spending of $3.7 billion dollars in the last five years alone!
In another act of irresponsibility, Democrats attack contributions to School Tuition Organizations saying it costs the state more money when in reality it actually saves the state money. Arizona could definitely use any savings wherever we can find it in the midst of a historic budget deficit.
The Institute for Justice reports the corporate tax credit scholarships will save the State of Arizona an estimated $57.2 million over the life of the program, or an average of $11.4 million annually. This means the state could educate many more students at a private school than what the state would have spent had they remained in the public school system.
Additionally, the bill gives current students the ability to stay in the schools they currently attend, and parents with limited options will now have enhanced options in sending their child to a school that best fits their child’s educational needs.
Democrats have instead decided to take a vulnerable population and use them as political pawns to attack Republicans for a budget crisis due largely to the last several Democratic budgets that obligated the state to permanent spending the state could never afford.
Not only should we be finding ways to save the state money as in the case of HB 2001, but we should also look to find ways to enact good policy, another benefit of HB 2001.
Unfortunately this program is capped at $5 million when there are approximately 120,000 students who could potentially qualify for and benefit from this program.
Statement From The State Treasurer's Office
May 26 2009 14:06
Due to complications from childbirth, Kerry Martin, 34, wife of State Treasurer Dean Martin, passed away late Monday night on May 25, 2009. Kerry and Dean’s son, Austin Michael Martin, was born on Monday at 7:31 p.m. weighing eight pounds and measuring 21.5 inches in length. Austin remains in grave condition.
Dean is standing vigil at his son’s bedside with family. Dean and his family ask that you join him in prayer for his son’s health.
Kerry was a loving wife of 13 years, as well as a mother, sister, aunt, and daughter. Prayers for the family are also appreciated.
Kerry is survived by her father Edward Mabey, her aunt Phyllis Pulice, her sister Tracy Smitherman, her brother John Mabey, and a niece and two nephews. Funeral arrangements for Kerry are pending.
The family kindly requests no cards or flowers be sent at this time. Notes of encouragement can be sent to Treasurer Martin at dean@americanvisuals.com.
House To Hear Health Care Freedom Act
May 22 2009 16:51 Filed in: Healthcare
Health and Human Services Committee Chairwoman Nancy Barto is holding a hearing on Tuesday, May 26th on HCR2014, “The Arizona Health Care Freedom Act,” which is designed to secure the rights of Arizonans by allowing them to spend their money on the health care of their choice.
The resolution, if passed by the Legislature, will go to the ballot in 2010. While a similar measure, Prop. 101, was narrowly defeated in 2008, HCR2014 has been specifically re-worked to address concerns the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act (AHCFA) might interfere with government programs for low-income residents.
“It is not the intent of the legislation to risk publicly-funded programs but to prevent the state from forcing residents to be subject to the practice of medicine by government,” Rep. Barto says.
According to John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute, “the plain language of the AHCFA makes clear the state cannot forbid any Arizonan from buying private health insurance, but neither can it compel him to do so. It protects Arizonans from either a government-monopoly system (like Canada’s), or mandatory private health insurance (imposed in Massachusetts in 2006).”
Citing examples from the British government imposed National Health Service (NHS) and Canada’s taxpayer-funded “universal” healthcare, Mr. Graham describes how other single-payer health care systems have prevented citizens from ‘topping up’ government-rationed health care with their own funds.
“A recent NHS scandal involves breast-cancer patients taking the new drug, Avastin, for which the NHS would not pay. The NHS told some patients that the bureaucracy would give them no breast-cancer care at all if they paid for Avastin with their own money, although their doctors had prescribed it. Supporters of government monopoly argued that it was unfair that some citizens were able to pay for Avastin and others not - even though the state would not provide it at all.”
HCR2014 supporters are concerned that new federal legislation will mandate similar laws and regulations in the U.S., making it illegal for medical providers to deliver certain kinds of health care at a price that both the patient and provider agree upon. And an Arizona constitutional provision protecting patients’ rights will provide stronger protection against such mandates, if enacted, than a regular statute.
The resolution, if passed by the Legislature, will go to the ballot in 2010. While a similar measure, Prop. 101, was narrowly defeated in 2008, HCR2014 has been specifically re-worked to address concerns the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act (AHCFA) might interfere with government programs for low-income residents.
“It is not the intent of the legislation to risk publicly-funded programs but to prevent the state from forcing residents to be subject to the practice of medicine by government,” Rep. Barto says.
According to John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute, “the plain language of the AHCFA makes clear the state cannot forbid any Arizonan from buying private health insurance, but neither can it compel him to do so. It protects Arizonans from either a government-monopoly system (like Canada’s), or mandatory private health insurance (imposed in Massachusetts in 2006).”
Citing examples from the British government imposed National Health Service (NHS) and Canada’s taxpayer-funded “universal” healthcare, Mr. Graham describes how other single-payer health care systems have prevented citizens from ‘topping up’ government-rationed health care with their own funds.
“A recent NHS scandal involves breast-cancer patients taking the new drug, Avastin, for which the NHS would not pay. The NHS told some patients that the bureaucracy would give them no breast-cancer care at all if they paid for Avastin with their own money, although their doctors had prescribed it. Supporters of government monopoly argued that it was unfair that some citizens were able to pay for Avastin and others not - even though the state would not provide it at all.”
HCR2014 supporters are concerned that new federal legislation will mandate similar laws and regulations in the U.S., making it illegal for medical providers to deliver certain kinds of health care at a price that both the patient and provider agree upon. And an Arizona constitutional provision protecting patients’ rights will provide stronger protection against such mandates, if enacted, than a regular statute.
McComish, Pollack and Bidwill Discuss Changing Tax Policy, Budget
House Majority Leader John McComish, economist Elliott Pollack, and Arizona Cardinals President Michael Bidwill discuss the need to cut corporate taxes and the state’s budget.
Click on this link or click on the picture below to go to the Horizon website to view the video in it’s entirety.
Click on this link or click on the picture below to go to the Horizon website to view the video in it’s entirety.
Legislature Aids Disabled & Foster Kids
May 21 2009 13:29 Filed in: Education
Governor Brewer has convened a Special Session of the Legislature today to enact new state income tax credits for disabled and foster students since the Arizona Supreme Court ruled vouchers unconstitutional.
Without the state’s voucher program, 473 disabled and foster children will be pulled from the private schools they currently attend and be placed in public schools. This Special Session is designed to correct that.
Critics of the Special Session have said the Legislature needs to focus on overall funding for education and not concern itself with this specific population.
The Legislature is able to multitask and can do both budget and policy issues simultaneously.
Critics of the Special Session also say tax credit programs take away money from the public schools. What they fail to mention is the state will pay LESS since the tax credit they give to the parent or foster parent is less than what the state would have to spend in per pupil spending.
Meanwhile the Democratic budget proposal is not only $1 billion short of a balanced budget, but it would also increase taxes by almost $1 billion and ultimately hurt those same disabled and foster children they claim to support.
Critics’ view of a “humane and forward-looking budget” includes increasing permanent spending and harming every single Arizonan by obligating us to debt we cannot afford now or in the future.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is quoted as saying “nobody knows better than parents what’s best for their children, and that’s especially true for a child’s educational needs.”
He’s talking about school choice and he’s right. This is why the Legislature seeks to allow these parents to continue sending their children to the schools that best meet the child’s needs.
As reported by the Arizona Republic, Andrea Weck is the mother of a 6-year-old daughter with autism and used one of Arizona's voucher programs to send her child to a small, private Tempe academy. Weck said her daughter wasn't thriving in a public school setting.
"The opportunity created by the scholarship program changed Lexie from the inside out," Weck said
Without the state’s voucher program, 473 disabled and foster children will be pulled from the private schools they currently attend and be placed in public schools. This Special Session is designed to correct that.
Critics of the Special Session have said the Legislature needs to focus on overall funding for education and not concern itself with this specific population.
The Legislature is able to multitask and can do both budget and policy issues simultaneously.
Critics of the Special Session also say tax credit programs take away money from the public schools. What they fail to mention is the state will pay LESS since the tax credit they give to the parent or foster parent is less than what the state would have to spend in per pupil spending.
Meanwhile the Democratic budget proposal is not only $1 billion short of a balanced budget, but it would also increase taxes by almost $1 billion and ultimately hurt those same disabled and foster children they claim to support.
Critics’ view of a “humane and forward-looking budget” includes increasing permanent spending and harming every single Arizonan by obligating us to debt we cannot afford now or in the future.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is quoted as saying “nobody knows better than parents what’s best for their children, and that’s especially true for a child’s educational needs.”
He’s talking about school choice and he’s right. This is why the Legislature seeks to allow these parents to continue sending their children to the schools that best meet the child’s needs.
As reported by the Arizona Republic, Andrea Weck is the mother of a 6-year-old daughter with autism and used one of Arizona's voucher programs to send her child to a small, private Tempe academy. Weck said her daughter wasn't thriving in a public school setting.
"The opportunity created by the scholarship program changed Lexie from the inside out," Weck said
CA Voters Reject Excessive Spending
Due to overspending and a structural deficit that obligates California to spend much more than it can afford, Governor Schwarzenegger and many unions pushed for a list of ballot proposals that would help narrow California’s projected $21 billion budget deficit.
California voters rejected five out of six of these budget proposals yesterday by an overwhelming margin in spite of substantial union support and supporters outspending the ballot opposition ten to one.
The powerful California Teachers Association and the National Education Association collectively spent $12.2 million in support of the propositions alone, not to mention the other 146 unions who supported the propositions.
The ballot propositions would have increased taxes $15 billion dollars, borrowed and diverted voter protected funds into the General Fund.
Californians voted no as the propositions merely maintained the status quo in terms of spending yet did nothing to decrease the size of state government.
"No more budget gimmicks, no more legislative shenanigans. Balance this budget by making the type of structural cuts you need to make," the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers' Association said.
California voters were unimpressed with an expensive marketing campaign that did nothing to address the state’s structural deficit but instead insulates the public sector from the same strains and stresses felt by families and businesses.
They realized for every threatened teacher or state employee that would be laid off there are businesses that will close and employees that will lose their jobs to pay for unsustainable levels of state spending.
Meanwhile, 75 percent of voters disapprove of the job performance of the California State Legislature.
Here’s a list of the propositions and how they fared:
California voters rejected five out of six of these budget proposals yesterday by an overwhelming margin in spite of substantial union support and supporters outspending the ballot opposition ten to one.
The powerful California Teachers Association and the National Education Association collectively spent $12.2 million in support of the propositions alone, not to mention the other 146 unions who supported the propositions.
The ballot propositions would have increased taxes $15 billion dollars, borrowed and diverted voter protected funds into the General Fund.
Californians voted no as the propositions merely maintained the status quo in terms of spending yet did nothing to decrease the size of state government.
"No more budget gimmicks, no more legislative shenanigans. Balance this budget by making the type of structural cuts you need to make," the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers' Association said.
California voters were unimpressed with an expensive marketing campaign that did nothing to address the state’s structural deficit but instead insulates the public sector from the same strains and stresses felt by families and businesses.
They realized for every threatened teacher or state employee that would be laid off there are businesses that will close and employees that will lose their jobs to pay for unsustainable levels of state spending.
Meanwhile, 75 percent of voters disapprove of the job performance of the California State Legislature.
Here’s a list of the propositions and how they fared:
- Proposition 1A would have extended tax increases on income, sales, vehicles, and gasoline to as much as 5 years. Outcome - Failed by 2:1 margin
- Proposition 1B would have agreed to pay back schools for any cuts that were made to education; a measure added to appease the California Teachers’ Union and get their support for the fixes. Outcome - Failed by 2:1 margin
- Proposition 1C would have allowed the state to bond for more than $5 billion through an enhanced Lottery. Outcome - Failed 2:1 margin
- Propositions 1D & E would have diverted dedicated money from certain state programs to pay for general government operations. Outcome – Failed 2:1 margin
Dems Broadcast False Narrative
Democratic Leadership and their surrogates are pushing a false narrative – they continue to repeat the mantra of “there’s a ‘better’ way to balance the budget and fix the $3.3 billion dollar budget deficit.”
The problem - it’s simply untrue.
Arizona faces an enormous budget deficit. Even if the Democratic budget proposal were passed and signed into law, it’d be at least $1,000,000,000 short of being balanced.
Their proposal of a ‘better’ way includes raising taxes in “fair and practical ways” that is somehow supposed to keep us competitive with other states.
Their tax increases include:
Since Arizona sits geographically in a seven-state region, we must compete with surrounding states for business.
Arizona is higher in corporate income taxes than the region with the exception of California and New Mexico.
Arizona business property taxes are not only the highest in the region, but the fifth highest in the nation!
Sales tax collections in Arizona are already the fourth highest per $1,000 of income in the nation!
So while we’re competing with these six other states for retaining and inviting businesses into our state, there are those who would seek to make our uncompetitive playing field even less uncompetitive – something bad for all of Arizona.
A sales tax as one example would deter people from making major purchases - the kind of purchases on which Arizona’s economy depends to help pay for necessary programs and services.
The ‘better’ budget solution is certainly not the Democratic proposal, nor their surrogates.
The problem - it’s simply untrue.
Arizona faces an enormous budget deficit. Even if the Democratic budget proposal were passed and signed into law, it’d be at least $1,000,000,000 short of being balanced.
Their proposal of a ‘better’ way includes raising taxes in “fair and practical ways” that is somehow supposed to keep us competitive with other states.
Their tax increases include:
- $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 - $233 million in utilities taxes
- $45 million on consumer and business warranty and service contracts
Since Arizona sits geographically in a seven-state region, we must compete with surrounding states for business.
Arizona is higher in corporate income taxes than the region with the exception of California and New Mexico.
Arizona business property taxes are not only the highest in the region, but the fifth highest in the nation!
Sales tax collections in Arizona are already the fourth highest per $1,000 of income in the nation!
So while we’re competing with these six other states for retaining and inviting businesses into our state, there are those who would seek to make our uncompetitive playing field even less uncompetitive – something bad for all of Arizona.
A sales tax as one example would deter people from making major purchases - the kind of purchases on which Arizona’s economy depends to help pay for necessary programs and services.
The ‘better’ budget solution is certainly not the Democratic proposal, nor their surrogates.
Critics Refuse To Help Disabled/Foster Kids
The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that school vouchers are unconstitutional for appropriating public money for private or religious schools.
Without the state’s voucher program, 473 disabled and foster children will be pulled from the private schools they currently attend and be placed in public schools. It’s never a good idea to rip a student out of a school they’re already attending.
This is why the Legislature and the Governor are working together to develop a solution in a possible Special Session.
The voucher program saves the state money since the tax credit covers up to 90 percent of the tuition, while the parent covers the difference in cost. Without this tax credit, the state would have to pay 100 percent of the per pupil spending at a public school.
The savings from the voucher program can go to help offset other education spending. Critics of school vouchers have said the Legislature is kowtowing to “corporate interests.”
Those critics need to explain how allowing disabled and foster children to go to the school of their choice is a bad thing. They also need to explain how lowering state expenditures in this historic deficit is a bad thing too.
The voucher discussion is about kids, parents and educational choices. Critics will find something to condemn with the voucher program for the sake of political mileage. This time the causalities are disabled and foster kids.
Without the state’s voucher program, 473 disabled and foster children will be pulled from the private schools they currently attend and be placed in public schools. It’s never a good idea to rip a student out of a school they’re already attending.
This is why the Legislature and the Governor are working together to develop a solution in a possible Special Session.
The voucher program saves the state money since the tax credit covers up to 90 percent of the tuition, while the parent covers the difference in cost. Without this tax credit, the state would have to pay 100 percent of the per pupil spending at a public school.
The savings from the voucher program can go to help offset other education spending. Critics of school vouchers have said the Legislature is kowtowing to “corporate interests.”
Those critics need to explain how allowing disabled and foster children to go to the school of their choice is a bad thing. They also need to explain how lowering state expenditures in this historic deficit is a bad thing too.
The voucher discussion is about kids, parents and educational choices. Critics will find something to condemn with the voucher program for the sake of political mileage. This time the causalities are disabled and foster kids.
CA Voters Decide ANOTHER Tax Increase
California voters will decide today if they want to help solve their state’s gaping budget deficit through a series of ballot propositions including: tax increases, securitizing the lottery and ballot reform.
California already passed a nearly $15 billion annual tax last February. If passed, today’s ballot proposals would allow these taxes to last as long as five years.
Arizona voters should pay particularly close attention to how one of the most (arguably) liberal states in the country and the world’s ninth largest economy votes on these propositions. Would they like to see the tax and spending continue to increase permanent spending?
Legislators have offered one-time sales of state assets including the L.A. Coliseum and San Quentin as potential solutions for California’s cash deficit, but, like Arizona, this would do nothing to fix the state’s overall permanent obligations in spending.
- Tax increases – taxes would increase by $15 billion including sales, income, vehicles and gasoline taxes.
- Securitizing the lottery – this would authorize California officials to borrow $5 billion that would be repaid by profits from the California state lottery.
- Ballot reform – Similar to Arizona’s First Things First Initiative, this would allow the state to divert a portion of voter protected funds for childhood development and mental health into the General Fund to help fund other basic programs and operations.
California already passed a nearly $15 billion annual tax last February. If passed, today’s ballot proposals would allow these taxes to last as long as five years.
Arizona voters should pay particularly close attention to how one of the most (arguably) liberal states in the country and the world’s ninth largest economy votes on these propositions. Would they like to see the tax and spending continue to increase permanent spending?
Legislators have offered one-time sales of state assets including the L.A. Coliseum and San Quentin as potential solutions for California’s cash deficit, but, like Arizona, this would do nothing to fix the state’s overall permanent obligations in spending.
House Awaits Action On Student Religious Liberties Bill
May 18 2009 08:36 Filed in: Education
The Student Religious Liberties Act (HB2357) prohibits a public educational institution from discriminating against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoint or expression.
Rep. Rich Crandall sponsored the bill due to Deborah Chambers, a seventh grade charter school student who had a picture of Jesus dying on the cross. A fellow student complained and the principal told her she couldn’t bring the folder to school any more.
The bill passed the House 37 to 23 on May 6 and is awaiting action at the Senate. Since the Senate is only hearing budget related bills, it’s unknown when this legislation will get a hearing.
If HB2357 passes, students will be able to pray or participate in religious activities in public schools in the same manner students can engage in non-religious activities.
Students will also be allowed to wear clothing, jewelry or other apparel displaying religious messages to the same extent students can display non-religious apparel.
If this bill passes out of the Senate and is signed into law by the Governor, it will be known as, “The Students’ Religious Liberties Act.”
photo by Cronkite News Service
Rep. Rich Crandall sponsored the bill due to Deborah Chambers, a seventh grade charter school student who had a picture of Jesus dying on the cross. A fellow student complained and the principal told her she couldn’t bring the folder to school any more.
The bill passed the House 37 to 23 on May 6 and is awaiting action at the Senate. Since the Senate is only hearing budget related bills, it’s unknown when this legislation will get a hearing.
If HB2357 passes, students will be able to pray or participate in religious activities in public schools in the same manner students can engage in non-religious activities.
Students will also be allowed to wear clothing, jewelry or other apparel displaying religious messages to the same extent students can display non-religious apparel.
If this bill passes out of the Senate and is signed into law by the Governor, it will be known as, “The Students’ Religious Liberties Act.”
photo by Cronkite News Service
Speaker & President Discuss Excess Cash Balances/Budget On Horizon
As reported yesterday, Democrats have voted once again to harm education by voting “no” on two bills that will allow school districts to utilize excess school cash balances.
House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Bob Burns explain this issue with Horizon Host Ted Simons. They also discuss the overall state budget.
Click on this link or click on the picture below to go to the Horizon website to view the video in it’s entirety.
House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Bob Burns explain this issue with Horizon Host Ted Simons. They also discuss the overall state budget.
Click on this link or click on the picture below to go to the Horizon website to view the video in it’s entirety.
State Reps. Discuss Budget On Horizon
House Appropriations Chairman John Kavanagh and Assistant Minority Leader Kyrsten Sinema debate the state budget including the deficit and potential fixes.
Click on this link or click on the picture below to go to the Horizon website to view the video in it’s entirety.
Click on this link or click on the picture below to go to the Horizon website to view the video in it’s entirety.
Democrats Harm Education Once Again
Democrats have voted once again to harm education by voting “no” on two bills that will allow school districts to utilize excess school cash balances.
With this legislation, school districts will be allowed to spend dollars they are otherwise not legally allowed to spend on school operations during one of the most severe deficits in the state’s history.
HB2028 and HB2029 avoid sweeping these excess cash balances into the General Fund to be used for state general operating purposes.
These bills also avoid additional cuts to K-12 spending in FY09.
So instead of harming education, it helps education by allowing districts to use their funds the districts currently have no legal authority to utilize.
Not only does it protect school funding but it also helps the State solve our deficit in 2010 so budget cuts will not have to be any deeper towards Education.
In an effort to score political points, Democrats have chosen to continue their false narrative of Republicans balancing the state budget on the backs of children and teachers.
This is simply untrue.
These bills attempt to address the larger than anticipated FY09 deficit that has grown to $650M since February 2009.
“Every month, revenues decline further. It’s just in the last few days we’ve discovered a decline in revenue from April of $200 million dollars. It is irresponsible if we do not act quickly and decisively to fix this problem. There has been much talk about the budget process. I’ve received bills from the minority leadership that still does not solve the $650 million dollar deficit problem,” Speaker Kirk Adams said.
With this legislation, school districts will be allowed to spend dollars they are otherwise not legally allowed to spend on school operations during one of the most severe deficits in the state’s history.
HB2028 and HB2029 avoid sweeping these excess cash balances into the General Fund to be used for state general operating purposes.
These bills also avoid additional cuts to K-12 spending in FY09.
So instead of harming education, it helps education by allowing districts to use their funds the districts currently have no legal authority to utilize.
Not only does it protect school funding but it also helps the State solve our deficit in 2010 so budget cuts will not have to be any deeper towards Education.
In an effort to score political points, Democrats have chosen to continue their false narrative of Republicans balancing the state budget on the backs of children and teachers.
This is simply untrue.
These bills attempt to address the larger than anticipated FY09 deficit that has grown to $650M since February 2009.
“Every month, revenues decline further. It’s just in the last few days we’ve discovered a decline in revenue from April of $200 million dollars. It is irresponsible if we do not act quickly and decisively to fix this problem. There has been much talk about the budget process. I’ve received bills from the minority leadership that still does not solve the $650 million dollar deficit problem,” Speaker Kirk Adams said.
AZ Spends More Than It Brings In
May 13 2009 14:04 Filed in: Budget
The Legislature and Governor may utilize unexpended taxpayer monies the schools have to close the state’s $650 million FY09 budget shortfall.
While legislators argue over whether this is the right approach to fixing the state’s Constitutional obligation to balance its budget every year, we have yet to address the real issue – the State’s structural deficit. The State’s spending is not in line with its revenue.
“You’re literally out of cash and living paycheck to paycheck,” State Treasurer Dean Martin said.
Martin testified to the House Appropriations committee that before the fiscal year 2009 budget fix, the state was spending $28 million a day and bringing in $22 million a day. This is what led to the $2.2 billion budget deficit.
Since the fiscal year 2009 budget fix, the state has lowered the spending from $28 million a day to $26 million a day but the state must still reduce its spending to make its expenditures line up with its revenues.
Clearly the State is spending more money than it brings in.
The Legislature can fix its cash deficit in any given year through one-time payments.
However, structural deficits are a permanent, year-to-year deficit that needs permanent revenue streams to cover these expenses. Chronic year after year cash deficits are a consequence of a structural deficit.
There are only two options to balance a structural deficit – permanent cuts or permanent revenue increases. Unless the structural deficit is balanced by either or both of these options, recurring cash deficits will follow.
There is no third option.
The budget bills passed out of the House Appropriations Committee on May 5 use more stimulus money so the State would not have to borrow as much to close the FY09 budget gap. These bills allow the Legislature to reduce the State’s structural deficit in FY10.
Instead, the current agreement solves the statutory problem of tomorrow’s deadline but does nothing to address the State’s structural deficit.
“There are some scenarios where even a consortium of banks could not provide us [State of Arizona] enough cash. That’s why it’s so important to get your expenses and revenue in line,” Martin said.
The JLBC 2010 baseline summary report says if current policies are continued, the projected structural shortfall is $3.33 billion in FY 2011 and $3.14 billion in FY 2012.
While legislators argue over whether this is the right approach to fixing the state’s Constitutional obligation to balance its budget every year, we have yet to address the real issue – the State’s structural deficit. The State’s spending is not in line with its revenue.
“You’re literally out of cash and living paycheck to paycheck,” State Treasurer Dean Martin said.
Martin testified to the House Appropriations committee that before the fiscal year 2009 budget fix, the state was spending $28 million a day and bringing in $22 million a day. This is what led to the $2.2 billion budget deficit.
Since the fiscal year 2009 budget fix, the state has lowered the spending from $28 million a day to $26 million a day but the state must still reduce its spending to make its expenditures line up with its revenues.
Clearly the State is spending more money than it brings in.
The Legislature can fix its cash deficit in any given year through one-time payments.
However, structural deficits are a permanent, year-to-year deficit that needs permanent revenue streams to cover these expenses. Chronic year after year cash deficits are a consequence of a structural deficit.
There are only two options to balance a structural deficit – permanent cuts or permanent revenue increases. Unless the structural deficit is balanced by either or both of these options, recurring cash deficits will follow.
There is no third option.
The budget bills passed out of the House Appropriations Committee on May 5 use more stimulus money so the State would not have to borrow as much to close the FY09 budget gap. These bills allow the Legislature to reduce the State’s structural deficit in FY10.
Instead, the current agreement solves the statutory problem of tomorrow’s deadline but does nothing to address the State’s structural deficit.
“There are some scenarios where even a consortium of banks could not provide us [State of Arizona] enough cash. That’s why it’s so important to get your expenses and revenue in line,” Martin said.
The JLBC 2010 baseline summary report says if current policies are continued, the projected structural shortfall is $3.33 billion in FY 2011 and $3.14 billion in FY 2012.
Exploring the Great Indoors
Yesterday, House Democrats voted against continuing funding for state parks. HB2088, proposed by Rep. Warde Nichols, would have transferred $20 million from the Land Conservation Fund to offset cuts earlier in the year and prevent the reduction of services or closure of state parks.
The Land Conservation Fund was approved by voters in 1998 to help prevent urban sprawl. Since the economic downturn has essentially frozen construction, the $70 million in the Land Conservation Fund currently has no use.
A three-quarters vote was needed to pass the measure and keep parks open, however only two rural Democrats joined the Republicans to support the measure. Unfortunately, this kind of partisan approach to common-sense measures has been the norm for House Democrats all session.
So this summer, leave the sleeping bags in storage and thank your nearest Democrat for voting to cancel your family’s summer camping trip.
The Land Conservation Fund was approved by voters in 1998 to help prevent urban sprawl. Since the economic downturn has essentially frozen construction, the $70 million in the Land Conservation Fund currently has no use.
A three-quarters vote was needed to pass the measure and keep parks open, however only two rural Democrats joined the Republicans to support the measure. Unfortunately, this kind of partisan approach to common-sense measures has been the norm for House Democrats all session.
So this summer, leave the sleeping bags in storage and thank your nearest Democrat for voting to cancel your family’s summer camping trip.
First Things First Brief
The Speaker and President have filed a brief asking the Arizona Supreme Court to find that the First Things First initiative (Proposition 203 from 2006) is constitutionally defective.
The brief argues the proposition has an inadequate revenue source and a negative impact upon the State’s General Fund.
You can view the brief here - EARLY CHILDHOOD BRIEF (PDF)
In 2004, Arizona voters amended the State Constitution to respond to problems with initiatives that created ongoing funding obligations where the State is obligated to spend money for initiatives without an adequate funding stream.
Because of these problems, the voters enacted Article 9 Section 23, the constitutional Revenue Source Rule, which creates special protection for the State’s General Fund.
As a result, initiatives are now required by the State Constitution to identify a revenue source for current and future costs and it cannot have an impact on the General Fund.
So far, the First Things First initiative has had an approximately $50 million negative impact upon the State General Fund.
In November 2006 Arizona voters approved Proposition 203 that established the First Things First Initiative. The Fund consists of revenues generated by an 88 cents tax on every pack of cigarettes. A pack of cigarettes went from $1.18 per pack to $1.98 per pack.
The brief says “The Revenue Source rule requires that programs prescribed through the ballot measures must be funded from a new revenue source that meets the entire needs of the programs, both at inception and in the future. And, the funding source cannot cause a reduction in State general fund revenues. Proposition 203 failed to meet both of these requirements, because the tobacco tax it imposed caused an immediate reduction in State general fund revenues. Also the funding source cannot meet the future needs of the Board’s programs.”
The brief argues the proposition has an inadequate revenue source and a negative impact upon the State’s General Fund.
You can view the brief here - EARLY CHILDHOOD BRIEF (PDF)
In 2004, Arizona voters amended the State Constitution to respond to problems with initiatives that created ongoing funding obligations where the State is obligated to spend money for initiatives without an adequate funding stream.
Because of these problems, the voters enacted Article 9 Section 23, the constitutional Revenue Source Rule, which creates special protection for the State’s General Fund.
As a result, initiatives are now required by the State Constitution to identify a revenue source for current and future costs and it cannot have an impact on the General Fund.
So far, the First Things First initiative has had an approximately $50 million negative impact upon the State General Fund.
In November 2006 Arizona voters approved Proposition 203 that established the First Things First Initiative. The Fund consists of revenues generated by an 88 cents tax on every pack of cigarettes. A pack of cigarettes went from $1.18 per pack to $1.98 per pack.
The brief says “The Revenue Source rule requires that programs prescribed through the ballot measures must be funded from a new revenue source that meets the entire needs of the programs, both at inception and in the future. And, the funding source cannot cause a reduction in State general fund revenues. Proposition 203 failed to meet both of these requirements, because the tobacco tax it imposed caused an immediate reduction in State general fund revenues. Also the funding source cannot meet the future needs of the Board’s programs.”
Setting the Tax Record Straight
May 11 2009 14:56 Filed in: Taxes
Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb sets the record straight on Arizona taxes.
Whereas the tax and spenders have argued Arizona remains low in the amount of taxes Arizonans must pay, their data failed to include nearly $2 billion dollars in unreported tax collections.
So instead of Arizona being 39th in the nation in tax collections per capita, Arizona is 32nd in the nation including ALL taxes.
Additionally, Arizona taxpayers earn less per capita than most other states.
What this means practically - higher taxes coupled with lower wage paying jobs amounts to the average Arizona taxpayer paying the 15th highest tax rate in the entire country!
Other states can offset their higher tax rate due to local businesses offering higher wage paying jobs. Arizona doesn’t have this luxury.
As Robb says, “So, rather than being a low-tax state, Arizona actually ranks more toward the middle in terms of nominal tax load and higher than average based upon ability to pay.”
Whereas the tax and spenders have argued Arizona remains low in the amount of taxes Arizonans must pay, their data failed to include nearly $2 billion dollars in unreported tax collections.
So instead of Arizona being 39th in the nation in tax collections per capita, Arizona is 32nd in the nation including ALL taxes.
Additionally, Arizona taxpayers earn less per capita than most other states.
What this means practically - higher taxes coupled with lower wage paying jobs amounts to the average Arizona taxpayer paying the 15th highest tax rate in the entire country!
Other states can offset their higher tax rate due to local businesses offering higher wage paying jobs. Arizona doesn’t have this luxury.
As Robb says, “So, rather than being a low-tax state, Arizona actually ranks more toward the middle in terms of nominal tax load and higher than average based upon ability to pay.”
ABC's of a Bad Budget
May 08 2009 09:44 Filed in: Budget
The Arizona Budget Coalition (ABC) announced their formation yesterday and presented what appears to be not much more than the current Republican proposal with a tax increase.
They want a budget that “works for Arizona” and say “massive” cuts to education, health and human services take Arizona in the wrong direction.
The problem is that Arizona government is simply too large to pay for itself, even if we were to increase taxes.
For Arizona to emerge from this financial crisis, we must work to solve the state’s cash and structural deficits.
By using federal stimulus dollars, we chip away at the “cash” deficit, but until we bring government spending in line with revenues, we cannot correct the structural deficit.
ABC said they oppose cuts and provide an alternative. The only problem with their alternative is it’s impossible, and irresponsible.
The problem with the ABC alternative is we’ve already tried it with the last three state budgets. It’s a large part of why we’re where we are today – an obligation to spending that we cannot afford.
They want a budget that “works for Arizona” and say “massive” cuts to education, health and human services take Arizona in the wrong direction.
The problem is that Arizona government is simply too large to pay for itself, even if we were to increase taxes.
For Arizona to emerge from this financial crisis, we must work to solve the state’s cash and structural deficits.
By using federal stimulus dollars, we chip away at the “cash” deficit, but until we bring government spending in line with revenues, we cannot correct the structural deficit.
ABC said they oppose cuts and provide an alternative. The only problem with their alternative is it’s impossible, and irresponsible.
The problem with the ABC alternative is we’ve already tried it with the last three state budgets. It’s a large part of why we’re where we are today – an obligation to spending that we cannot afford.
Cutting Government Easier in Theory
As Americans we like to read polls. Some of us like to answer questions from pollsters, but mostly we like to read about polls and see what the “average Joe” thinks.
O’Neil Associates conducted a poll in late 2008 asking citizens what they thought about the state’s budget shortfall and if Legislators should increase taxes or cut government spending.
Interestingly, 93 percent of respondents said the state should cut government spending to fix the budget shortfall.
Here’s where the poll gets interesting…
Since 93 percent of respondents said the state should cut spending, respondents were asked EXACTLY what they would cut.
When given actual agencies with actual budgets to cut, respondents time and again answered they did not want to cut K-12, Mass Transit, Freeways, Police services, Universities or Fire services.
Instead they actually wanted to see those budgets increased.
The point is this – it’s very easy to say “cut government spending,” but when presented with what comprises that spending, they wanted more money to go to those services, not less.
This is the challenge this Legislature faces every day as they work to balance a huge state budget with a deficit of $3.3 billion.
It’s easy to criticize a process…what’s far less common are actual solutions to the problems.
Lawmakers are working very diligently to produce a responsible budget that maintains our quality of life, which the poll clearly demonstrates.
O’Neil Associates conducted a poll in late 2008 asking citizens what they thought about the state’s budget shortfall and if Legislators should increase taxes or cut government spending.
Interestingly, 93 percent of respondents said the state should cut government spending to fix the budget shortfall.
Here’s where the poll gets interesting…
Since 93 percent of respondents said the state should cut spending, respondents were asked EXACTLY what they would cut.
When given actual agencies with actual budgets to cut, respondents time and again answered they did not want to cut K-12, Mass Transit, Freeways, Police services, Universities or Fire services.
Instead they actually wanted to see those budgets increased.
The point is this – it’s very easy to say “cut government spending,” but when presented with what comprises that spending, they wanted more money to go to those services, not less.
This is the challenge this Legislature faces every day as they work to balance a huge state budget with a deficit of $3.3 billion.
It’s easy to criticize a process…what’s far less common are actual solutions to the problems.
Lawmakers are working very diligently to produce a responsible budget that maintains our quality of life, which the poll clearly demonstrates.
School Districts Suffering From Poor Economy Too
The teacher’s union would love you all to believe the Legislature is to blame for the funding problems within the state’s school districts. That, however, simply isn’t true! The poor economy actually is the culprit – not the Legislature.
Several issues impacting the state’s educational system have nothing to do with legislative action like declining enrollment, declining Proposition 301 revenues and a loss of gaming funds.
Setting the record straight is important; and although it is true the Legislature made reductions to the state’s K-12 education budget, the fiscal year 2009 Special Session DID NOT decimate public education as critics would have you believe.
In fact, the K-12 budget was reduced by $133 million, but even after that reduction, the funding levels for education in ’09 were still $61 million more than they were in FY08.
Lawmakers have tough budget decisions ahead, but they will do everything within their power to keep education cuts as low a possible as they work to balance the budget.
Several issues impacting the state’s educational system have nothing to do with legislative action like declining enrollment, declining Proposition 301 revenues and a loss of gaming funds.
- Declining enrollment is having a huge impact to school districts because fewer students means fewer dollars for districts; and with funding at $9,700 per pupil, depending on how badly enrollment numbers are off, the district may be losing out on significant funding. Not the Legislature’s fault.
- Declining Proposition 301 revenues has hurt districts too because this funding is tied to the state’s tax revenue. Unfortunately, Arizona’s state tax revenues are down 21.5 percent from where they were last year – making fewer dollars available for education.
- Declining gaming revenues are off because people just aren’t gambling as much in this poor economy. Districts receive a portion of gaming revenues for dropout prevention programs, school readiness and reading programs.
Setting the record straight is important; and although it is true the Legislature made reductions to the state’s K-12 education budget, the fiscal year 2009 Special Session DID NOT decimate public education as critics would have you believe.
In fact, the K-12 budget was reduced by $133 million, but even after that reduction, the funding levels for education in ’09 were still $61 million more than they were in FY08.
Lawmakers have tough budget decisions ahead, but they will do everything within their power to keep education cuts as low a possible as they work to balance the budget.
Budget Moves Without Raising Taxes
May 05 2009 17:12 Filed in: Budget
Today the House Appropriations voted 10 budget bills out of Committee, moving one step closer to finalizing and delivering a balanced budget to the Governor that does not include a tax increase.
The fiscal year 2010 budget had to solve a $3.3 billion shortfall, which lawmakers were successfully able to balance by utilizing a combination of $989 million in stimulus funding, $670 million in spending reductions, $394 million in fund transfers, $51 million in additional revenue and $615 million in non-tax revenue enhancements.
According to Speaker Kirk Adams he is pleased the appropriations process has been allowed to work. “The FY10 budget that passed out of the Appropriations Committee today effectively tackles the state’s structural deficit and makes thoughtful reductions to agencies in an effort to limit impact to government services and the citizens in the state,” Rep. Adams said.
Arizona’s economy is in bad shape, but with few options and a Constitutional mandate, Lawmakers have no choice but to reduce agency budgets to solve the state’s deficit and balance the budget.“ Regardless of what critics say about the FY10 budget, the cumulative budget reductions DO NOT decimate state services. The fact of the matter is that state government is simply too large to pay for itself,” Majority Leader John McComish said.
“General Fund spending has increased by $3.7 billion since 2004, a third of the General Fund is voter protected and tax revenues in the state are down by 25 percent from this time last year. Lawmakers have no choice but to reduce state agency budgets to help solve the budget shortfall,” Rep. McComish explained.
“The Legislature was asked to keep permanent reductions to state agencies reasonable." Majority Whip Andy Tobin said and added, “Lawmakers have tried very hard to deliver on that request.”
“We have been looking at all options, everything is on the table. It is clear that a crisis of this magnitude will require us to think out side of the box and we must work hard to limit mistakes. Clearly, we could simply make an assumption that the economy will grow at 8 percent, like last year, and balance the budget. We know that number is irresponsible, just as it was last year. Trying to fool the public to push off our crisis to someone else is Napolitanoesque,” Tobin explained.
“Tough choices are being made and compromises will be made by everyone. I welcome the opportunity to look into any idea that does not harm the working community by driving more people to the unemployment line,” Tobin added.
Lawmakers understand citizen’s concerns about education, health services and other state service reductions and struggle with how to maintain quality of life for Arizonans. Reducing state agency appropriations to balance the budget is an extremely difficult process and in many cases, just plain agonizing for Legislators.
Speaker Pro Tem Steve Yarbrough said, “I applaud the work of the Appropriations Committee. The budget that passed today is distinctly different in size and scope from the reduction options released in the Chairmen’s Options in January. The FY10 budget will provide more flexibility for state agencies by allowing directors to make decisions about where and how to implement reductions within their own organizations.”
The House is moving toward delivering a final budget and is looking forward to working with the Governor on finalizing the FY10 budget.
For more information about the House budget bills, please review the fact sheets at: HB2633;HB2634;HB2635;HB2636;HB2637;HB2638;HB2639;HB264;HB2641; and HB2642. Or view the entire list of bills at www.azleg.gov
What Would YOU Cut and Why?
May 05 2009 08:47 Filed in: Budget
Citizens often criticize the Legislature for many different reasons.
Some think government is too big, whereas others think the money should be spent more in areas they think are important.
Put yourself in the legislator’s shoes…
What would you cut and why?
Facing the largest fiscal crisis in Arizona’s history would you cut K-12? AHCCCS? Department of Economic Security? Do you cut the Department of Health Services? Universities? Corrections?
These agencies help provide for the developmentally disabled, the blind, vaccinations, health care for the poor, public safety and the future of Arizona amongst many, many others. Of these, which one do you cut and why?
Arizona’s budget shortfall is the largest in state history at $3.3 billion dollars.
There are no good options.
Only horrible and worse options.
A third of the budget is off limits as Arizona statute prevents legislators from managing it. Another third of the budget is protected by the will of Arizona voters. This leaves you only a third of the state budget to actually manage and balance.
Of this, K-12 already comprises 42 percent of the budget, with another six state agencies making up 92 percent of the entire state budget, leaving just eight percent left over for all other state services.
Unlike the federal government, Arizona cannot print money and the State Constitution mandates a balanced budget every year.
In spite of the enormous budget shortfall, more emails and phone calls come in telling you “not to cut,” and to increase spending in certain areas. If you increase spending in one area you must cut more spending in another. This is already on top of the cuts that must be made to balance the current $3.3 billion shortfall.
So the million dollar question once again becomes “what do you cut and why?”
In theory it’s easy to say government should cut from a specific agency, but in practice there are no easy solutions.
Some think government is too big, whereas others think the money should be spent more in areas they think are important.
Put yourself in the legislator’s shoes…
What would you cut and why?
Facing the largest fiscal crisis in Arizona’s history would you cut K-12? AHCCCS? Department of Economic Security? Do you cut the Department of Health Services? Universities? Corrections?
These agencies help provide for the developmentally disabled, the blind, vaccinations, health care for the poor, public safety and the future of Arizona amongst many, many others. Of these, which one do you cut and why?
Arizona’s budget shortfall is the largest in state history at $3.3 billion dollars.
There are no good options.
Only horrible and worse options.
A third of the budget is off limits as Arizona statute prevents legislators from managing it. Another third of the budget is protected by the will of Arizona voters. This leaves you only a third of the state budget to actually manage and balance.
Of this, K-12 already comprises 42 percent of the budget, with another six state agencies making up 92 percent of the entire state budget, leaving just eight percent left over for all other state services.
Unlike the federal government, Arizona cannot print money and the State Constitution mandates a balanced budget every year.
In spite of the enormous budget shortfall, more emails and phone calls come in telling you “not to cut,” and to increase spending in certain areas. If you increase spending in one area you must cut more spending in another. This is already on top of the cuts that must be made to balance the current $3.3 billion shortfall.
So the million dollar question once again becomes “what do you cut and why?”
In theory it’s easy to say government should cut from a specific agency, but in practice there are no easy solutions.