Economy
Statement from Speaker of the House RE: Today's Special Session
December 17 2009 17:23
“Nearly 12 months into the worst budget deficit and economic crisis this State has ever faced, not a single Democrat has voted to reduce government spending by even one dollar. The Democrats have yet to produce a detailed budget proposal, and have decided to use procedural tactics to block these necessary cuts from coming to the Floor, cuts that even they acknowledged are necessary.
The Democrats partisan gamesmanship will result in the wasting of thousands of taxpayer dollars. We ask our Democratic members to stop the stall tactics and get into the game.”
The Democrats partisan gamesmanship will result in the wasting of thousands of taxpayer dollars. We ask our Democratic members to stop the stall tactics and get into the game.”
Healthcare "Reform" Hurts AZ Pt. II
November 25 2009 09:50
By Representative Nancy Barto (R-Legislative District 7)
Far from achieving the objectives of providing healthcare to all Americans and lowering costs, Arizona citizens can count on these outcomes instead if healthcare “reform” passes as is:
Increased unemployment
The imposition of $135 billion in new taxes on businesses who cannot afford to finance their workers’ health coverage will increase unemployment.
Even the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that this tax on jobs, called a “pay-or-play” mandate, “could reduce the hiring of low-wage workers,” and that as many as 5.5 million jobs could be lost as a result of the new taxes.
The employer mandate isn’t the only new tax targeting businesses.
The bill includes nearly half a trillion dollars in other taxes – including a surtax on the so-called “wealthy” that actually hit more than half of small businesses right where they live.
This will greatly stifle job creation and hinder expansion at a time when unemployment is at a 26 year high. Together this equals new taxes totaling $729.5 billion just on businesses.
Unfunded mandate on states
Arizona is $2 billion in the red this year and the 2011 budget is looking almost twice as bad - yet Washington’s plan forces states to increase eligibility in their Medicaid programs, costing Arizona as much as $5.9 billion more over five years.
Governor Brewer expressed these concerns in the Arizona Republic, saying, “We can’t afford it. We can’t afford the AHCCCS program we have currently.”
Which is why Congress included a $90 billion Medicaid bailout in the “Stimulus” package and another $23.5 billion bailout in this bill.
Higher insurance costs
Contrary to Congress’ goal to lower healthcare costs, this plan will raise the cost of insurance significantly - for everyone. Here’s why:
First, new Federal rules mandate all plans, whether private, employer or government-run, will have to meet minimum benefits standards and comply with community rating and guaranteed issue mandates. We would basically model the nation’s plan after what the state of New York put in place in the early 1990’s. Their average premiums in the individual market are more than twice the national average and still 14% of the population remains uninsured.
Second, the bill does not allow for lower cost plans, such as high deductible health plans and consumer-directed accounts like HSAs, to exist going forward, removing this option for 5% of Americans under 65.
Third, young and healthy persons, whose insurance premiums now cost about ¼ the average premium paid by individuals aged 60-64, will subsidize the premiums of more disease-prone and older adults under the new plan - and it will cost them. As a result, many will choose or be forced to pay the 2.5% of their income in penalties rather than the high cost of insurance. Mandates don’t work. Hawaii has had an individual insurance mandate since 1973 and a 10% uninsured rate.
Healthcare freedom threatened
Nowhere does the United States Constitution provide Congress the right to force its citizens to purchase health insurance.
This bill usurps fundamental freedoms Arizonans enjoy - to be able to purchase health care privately and whether or not to participate in a health plan.
The Arizona Legislature referred the Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act to the ballot next year so Arizona citizens have the opportunity to preserve these fundamental rights in our state constitution.
Real and substantive health care reforms are critical to Arizona, but only with freedom as a foundation.
Far from achieving the objectives of providing healthcare to all Americans and lowering costs, Arizona citizens can count on these outcomes instead if healthcare “reform” passes as is:
Increased unemployment
The imposition of $135 billion in new taxes on businesses who cannot afford to finance their workers’ health coverage will increase unemployment.
Even the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that this tax on jobs, called a “pay-or-play” mandate, “could reduce the hiring of low-wage workers,” and that as many as 5.5 million jobs could be lost as a result of the new taxes.
The employer mandate isn’t the only new tax targeting businesses.
The bill includes nearly half a trillion dollars in other taxes – including a surtax on the so-called “wealthy” that actually hit more than half of small businesses right where they live.
This will greatly stifle job creation and hinder expansion at a time when unemployment is at a 26 year high. Together this equals new taxes totaling $729.5 billion just on businesses.
Unfunded mandate on states
Arizona is $2 billion in the red this year and the 2011 budget is looking almost twice as bad - yet Washington’s plan forces states to increase eligibility in their Medicaid programs, costing Arizona as much as $5.9 billion more over five years.
Governor Brewer expressed these concerns in the Arizona Republic, saying, “We can’t afford it. We can’t afford the AHCCCS program we have currently.”
Which is why Congress included a $90 billion Medicaid bailout in the “Stimulus” package and another $23.5 billion bailout in this bill.
Higher insurance costs
Contrary to Congress’ goal to lower healthcare costs, this plan will raise the cost of insurance significantly - for everyone. Here’s why:
First, new Federal rules mandate all plans, whether private, employer or government-run, will have to meet minimum benefits standards and comply with community rating and guaranteed issue mandates. We would basically model the nation’s plan after what the state of New York put in place in the early 1990’s. Their average premiums in the individual market are more than twice the national average and still 14% of the population remains uninsured.
Second, the bill does not allow for lower cost plans, such as high deductible health plans and consumer-directed accounts like HSAs, to exist going forward, removing this option for 5% of Americans under 65.
Third, young and healthy persons, whose insurance premiums now cost about ¼ the average premium paid by individuals aged 60-64, will subsidize the premiums of more disease-prone and older adults under the new plan - and it will cost them. As a result, many will choose or be forced to pay the 2.5% of their income in penalties rather than the high cost of insurance. Mandates don’t work. Hawaii has had an individual insurance mandate since 1973 and a 10% uninsured rate.
Healthcare freedom threatened
Nowhere does the United States Constitution provide Congress the right to force its citizens to purchase health insurance.
This bill usurps fundamental freedoms Arizonans enjoy - to be able to purchase health care privately and whether or not to participate in a health plan.
The Arizona Legislature referred the Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act to the ballot next year so Arizona citizens have the opportunity to preserve these fundamental rights in our state constitution.
Real and substantive health care reforms are critical to Arizona, but only with freedom as a foundation.
Healthcare "Reform" Hurts AZ Pt. I
November 23 2009 13:16
By Rep. Nancy Barto (R-Legislative District 7)
Congress’ Healthcare “Reform” bill is a mere handful of votes shy of passage.
Far from achieving the objectives of providing healthcare to all Americans and lowering costs, Arizona citizens can count on these outcomes instead:
Fundamental change in the standard of care. While more people may technically be “covered,” over-utilization of services will lead to longer waits for health care and inevitable rationing of care.
Not to worry, though. The bill plans for this.
A 15-member health commission, much like those in countries with similar nationalized healthcare, will have extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered, for whom and how it will be paid for.
This change will bring a fundamental shift to our system - from doctors providing medical treatment based upon whether it is safe and effective to a cost-effectiveness standard.
Trust between the doctor and patient will be compromised as patients question in whose best interest their doctor may be acting. Reducing medical care to a commodity-driven business model places every patient’s life at the mercy of a panel’s worthiness criteria.
Being denied care or waiting to see your primary care physician, or obtain diagnostic tests results in inferior medical outcomes and higher mortality rates, such as are evidenced in Canada and the U.K. Why these outcomes are not an integral part of the healthcare debate is troubling.
There is a reason medical tourism is booming business in the U.S. We have the best medical care in the world.
Most other nations, especially those with nationalized healthcare, lack what it takes to be the best – a system that rewards the best – the best hospitals, the best surgeons, the best drug therapies available.
Is it a coincidence that the incentives in medicine drive medical innovation? Changing the incentives will also drive physicians out of the profession as they will no longer be caring for patients, but delivering treatment according to formula.
Practicing physicians will be further negatively affected by this bill as it does not address a major cause of rising costs of health care: medical malpractice lawsuits.
An AMA survey reported 93% of physicians report practicing defensive medicine, costing the U.S. $865 billion in indirect costs. Instead, the plan rewards states that ignore this issue and withholds funding from those that cap non-economic damages and pass other tort reforms.
Under the current system people are divorced from health care cost considerations since a third party – either an employer or insurance – is managing them. Fixing this disconnect is key to promoting an economically and physically fit citizenry.
In other words, people taking responsibility for their health, staying well and spending their healthcare dollars wisely. Instead, Congress’ plan emulates failing government programs that do just the opposite. The result is an unsustainable Medicare system with a $38 trillion liability...
Congress’ Healthcare “Reform” bill is a mere handful of votes shy of passage.
Far from achieving the objectives of providing healthcare to all Americans and lowering costs, Arizona citizens can count on these outcomes instead:
Fundamental change in the standard of care. While more people may technically be “covered,” over-utilization of services will lead to longer waits for health care and inevitable rationing of care.
Not to worry, though. The bill plans for this.
A 15-member health commission, much like those in countries with similar nationalized healthcare, will have extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered, for whom and how it will be paid for.
This change will bring a fundamental shift to our system - from doctors providing medical treatment based upon whether it is safe and effective to a cost-effectiveness standard.
Trust between the doctor and patient will be compromised as patients question in whose best interest their doctor may be acting. Reducing medical care to a commodity-driven business model places every patient’s life at the mercy of a panel’s worthiness criteria.
Being denied care or waiting to see your primary care physician, or obtain diagnostic tests results in inferior medical outcomes and higher mortality rates, such as are evidenced in Canada and the U.K. Why these outcomes are not an integral part of the healthcare debate is troubling.
There is a reason medical tourism is booming business in the U.S. We have the best medical care in the world.
Most other nations, especially those with nationalized healthcare, lack what it takes to be the best – a system that rewards the best – the best hospitals, the best surgeons, the best drug therapies available.
Is it a coincidence that the incentives in medicine drive medical innovation? Changing the incentives will also drive physicians out of the profession as they will no longer be caring for patients, but delivering treatment according to formula.
Practicing physicians will be further negatively affected by this bill as it does not address a major cause of rising costs of health care: medical malpractice lawsuits.
An AMA survey reported 93% of physicians report practicing defensive medicine, costing the U.S. $865 billion in indirect costs. Instead, the plan rewards states that ignore this issue and withholds funding from those that cap non-economic damages and pass other tort reforms.
Under the current system people are divorced from health care cost considerations since a third party – either an employer or insurance – is managing them. Fixing this disconnect is key to promoting an economically and physically fit citizenry.
In other words, people taking responsibility for their health, staying well and spending their healthcare dollars wisely. Instead, Congress’ plan emulates failing government programs that do just the opposite. The result is an unsustainable Medicare system with a $38 trillion liability...
Congressional Ds Push Same Failed Policies
November 18 2009 16:03
The Obama Administration promised unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8 percent with the passage of the “stimulus,” however, unemployment currently stands at 10.2 percent nationally, which is the highest unemployment rate this country has seen in 26 years.
Congressional Democrats are now concerned about the 2010 election and as a result will push a “jobs” bill before the end of the year, perhaps to try and convince the public they really are rolling up their sleeves and doing something, anything really, to create jobs.
They hope to get a “jobs” bill out before the House is slated for adjournment on December 18, although this date could change depending on what happens with the job killing “Healthcare reform” bill that’s already passed the House.
Concerning the “jobs” bill, Congressional Democrats have put ideas on the table that merely push the same policies found in the already passed “stimulus” bill. They have communicated a desire to extend unemployment benefits and provide additional funding for highway and other “critical” infrastructure projects.
Sure, government can hire a potentially infinite number of “employees” to dig a hole and then fill the hole, but that doesn’t mean such action is good for the economy, or that it bodes well for long-term growth. It simply means there are now new workers on the public’s dime that may or may not be contributing to long-term growth while saddling taxpayers with massive debt obligations.
According to Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press, all of the ideas Congressional Democrats have proposed don’t directly create new jobs.
Rather, stimulus packages merely fund one-off bouts of consumption spending. By contrast, job creation and economic growth require capital accumulation via savings; firms cannot invest in new production and employees without marshalling the requisite capital. Capital accumulation and the resultant creation of jobs, rising incomes, and economic growth accumulates to the extent government refrains from engaging in activities that impair capital accumulation and increases the cost of doing business (taxes, regulations, price controls, unionization). Siphoning of capital accumulated via savings to fund consumption by government and recipients of its spending hamper job creation and economic growth.
For more info, kindly click on this link.
So why is a proposal to continue a failed policy not raising more questions? Why would we want to continue the same failed policies that have done nothing to prevent the shedding of 3 million jobs? When we are digging a hole deeper and deeper, shouldn’t we stop digging and reevaluate? And aren’t we obligated to actually help businesses, you know, those who actually create jobs?
Although the nearly $1 Trillion price tag for the “stimulus” bill hasn’t stemmed unemployment or created jobs, someone who has certainly kept his job is the guy who makes the signs. You know, the signs that pop up on freeways that spend taxpayer money to tell us…they’re spending taxpayer money?
So we can safely say at the very least, the stimulus has “created or saved” one job…the sign maker’s job!
Not to mention the Recovery.gov website that says the federal government spent $6.4 billion to create 30,000 jobs (or $225,000 per job) in Congressional districts that don’t exist…
Congressional Democrats are now concerned about the 2010 election and as a result will push a “jobs” bill before the end of the year, perhaps to try and convince the public they really are rolling up their sleeves and doing something, anything really, to create jobs.
They hope to get a “jobs” bill out before the House is slated for adjournment on December 18, although this date could change depending on what happens with the job killing “Healthcare reform” bill that’s already passed the House.
Concerning the “jobs” bill, Congressional Democrats have put ideas on the table that merely push the same policies found in the already passed “stimulus” bill. They have communicated a desire to extend unemployment benefits and provide additional funding for highway and other “critical” infrastructure projects.
Sure, government can hire a potentially infinite number of “employees” to dig a hole and then fill the hole, but that doesn’t mean such action is good for the economy, or that it bodes well for long-term growth. It simply means there are now new workers on the public’s dime that may or may not be contributing to long-term growth while saddling taxpayers with massive debt obligations.
According to Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press, all of the ideas Congressional Democrats have proposed don’t directly create new jobs.
Rather, stimulus packages merely fund one-off bouts of consumption spending. By contrast, job creation and economic growth require capital accumulation via savings; firms cannot invest in new production and employees without marshalling the requisite capital. Capital accumulation and the resultant creation of jobs, rising incomes, and economic growth accumulates to the extent government refrains from engaging in activities that impair capital accumulation and increases the cost of doing business (taxes, regulations, price controls, unionization). Siphoning of capital accumulated via savings to fund consumption by government and recipients of its spending hamper job creation and economic growth.
For more info, kindly click on this link.
So why is a proposal to continue a failed policy not raising more questions? Why would we want to continue the same failed policies that have done nothing to prevent the shedding of 3 million jobs? When we are digging a hole deeper and deeper, shouldn’t we stop digging and reevaluate? And aren’t we obligated to actually help businesses, you know, those who actually create jobs?
Although the nearly $1 Trillion price tag for the “stimulus” bill hasn’t stemmed unemployment or created jobs, someone who has certainly kept his job is the guy who makes the signs. You know, the signs that pop up on freeways that spend taxpayer money to tell us…they’re spending taxpayer money?
So we can safely say at the very least, the stimulus has “created or saved” one job…the sign maker’s job!
Not to mention the Recovery.gov website that says the federal government spent $6.4 billion to create 30,000 jobs (or $225,000 per job) in Congressional districts that don’t exist…
The Roadmap To Prosperity - Jobs
November 17 2009 16:26
Arizona is projected to generate $6.5 Billion in revenue this year, however, state spending is hovering above $10 Billion giving us at least a $3.5 billion ongoing imbalance between revenues and spending obligations.
Some have criticized the Legislature for not raising taxes (i.e. “increasing revenue”). Raising taxes in such a down economy will not only fail to bring in the desired revenue, but it will prolong any recovery we could’ve possibly had.
So what then is the solution?
Jobs.
Arizona can neither tax nor cut our way into prosperity. We must grow our way out of what is arguably the second-worst budget in the country behind California and the second-worst level of job losses behind Michigan.
This begs the question…how do we create more jobs?
We need a tax structure that promotes job growth and investment in Arizona now and in the future. Hence, we must pass good business tax policy to make Arizona more competitive.
Unfortunately, Arizona must compete with neighboring states like Texas, which has no personal or corporate income tax (or capital gains tax).
Texas has positioned itself as the highest performing job creation state in the Union due to a favorable business climate, a low cost/low tax environment along with predictable regulations on business. Such good policy has allowed Texas to create more jobs in 2008 than the rest of the 49 states in the U.S. One can make a great case for the causality between Texas’ low tax burden and their astonishing job creation.
Lowering taxes on the most productive aspects of society always attracts investment capital and helps create sustainable, high-wage jobs as we have seen in Texas, Utah and Colorado, the exact kinds of jobs we want to attract and retain in Arizona.
If we truly want to boost Arizona’s economy, we must focus on jobs by way of good tax policy that supports economic activity. State revenue growth will follow, as public spending and employment rely on the fruits of private sector activity.
Some have criticized the Legislature for not raising taxes (i.e. “increasing revenue”). Raising taxes in such a down economy will not only fail to bring in the desired revenue, but it will prolong any recovery we could’ve possibly had.
So what then is the solution?
Jobs.
Arizona can neither tax nor cut our way into prosperity. We must grow our way out of what is arguably the second-worst budget in the country behind California and the second-worst level of job losses behind Michigan.
This begs the question…how do we create more jobs?
We need a tax structure that promotes job growth and investment in Arizona now and in the future. Hence, we must pass good business tax policy to make Arizona more competitive.
Unfortunately, Arizona must compete with neighboring states like Texas, which has no personal or corporate income tax (or capital gains tax).
Texas has positioned itself as the highest performing job creation state in the Union due to a favorable business climate, a low cost/low tax environment along with predictable regulations on business. Such good policy has allowed Texas to create more jobs in 2008 than the rest of the 49 states in the U.S. One can make a great case for the causality between Texas’ low tax burden and their astonishing job creation.
Lowering taxes on the most productive aspects of society always attracts investment capital and helps create sustainable, high-wage jobs as we have seen in Texas, Utah and Colorado, the exact kinds of jobs we want to attract and retain in Arizona.
If we truly want to boost Arizona’s economy, we must focus on jobs by way of good tax policy that supports economic activity. State revenue growth will follow, as public spending and employment rely on the fruits of private sector activity.
Raising the Corporate Income Tax...Who Really Pays?
November 03 2009 10:26
The Tax Foundation, a non-partisan research group conducted a study and found a causal relationship between states with comparatively low corporate taxes and rising employee wages.
The study specifically found that for every dollar reduction in state-local corporate income taxes resulted in a $2.50 rise in employee wages.
Unfortunately they found the converse to be true as well - for every one-dollar rise in corporate income taxes resulted in a $2.50 loss in employee wages.
Further, the study even found that states with low corporate tax rates have seen an increase in worker productivity.
Lately however, we seem to hear the rhetoric of “let’s tax the rich fat cats since they can afford to give a little more” drowning out any other voice of reason.
Unfortunately if the goal is to boost revenues, then this approach fails miserably. Instead of helping those they argue who need it the most, they end up hurting them by driving down employee wages.
And most states are paying attention…at least in 2009.
Of the 17 States in the U.S. that raised taxes in 2009, none of them raised their corporate income taxes. Interestingly, nine of the 17 tax raising states raised the individual income tax before going after the corporate income tax. Perhaps they know something the rhetoricians don’t?
The real question we must ask is not how can we burden corporations with more taxes, but how best can the corporate tax burden be divvied up amongst those who are in reality impacted by higher corporate taxes - workers, consumers and investors?
Without answering those questions we’re merely harming those we claim we’re helping - employees.
The study specifically found that for every dollar reduction in state-local corporate income taxes resulted in a $2.50 rise in employee wages.
Unfortunately they found the converse to be true as well - for every one-dollar rise in corporate income taxes resulted in a $2.50 loss in employee wages.
Further, the study even found that states with low corporate tax rates have seen an increase in worker productivity.
Lately however, we seem to hear the rhetoric of “let’s tax the rich fat cats since they can afford to give a little more” drowning out any other voice of reason.
Unfortunately if the goal is to boost revenues, then this approach fails miserably. Instead of helping those they argue who need it the most, they end up hurting them by driving down employee wages.
And most states are paying attention…at least in 2009.
Of the 17 States in the U.S. that raised taxes in 2009, none of them raised their corporate income taxes. Interestingly, nine of the 17 tax raising states raised the individual income tax before going after the corporate income tax. Perhaps they know something the rhetoricians don’t?
The real question we must ask is not how can we burden corporations with more taxes, but how best can the corporate tax burden be divvied up amongst those who are in reality impacted by higher corporate taxes - workers, consumers and investors?
Without answering those questions we’re merely harming those we claim we’re helping - employees.
Rep. Seel Discusses IT Issues on Horizon
October 28 2009 15:51
Representative Carl Seel (R-District 6) appeared on Horizon to discuss the House’s new ad hoc committee on Information Technology. Rep. Seel discussed ways the committee can help with cost savings for Arizona, streamlining of government along with more government transparency.
Kindly click on this link or the KAET graphic below to see this brief but informative interview.
Kindly click on this link or the KAET graphic below to see this brief but informative interview.
Republican Caucus Wins 6 of 10 Top Ten Tech Awards
October 22 2009 15:25
The Arizona House of Representatives Republican Caucus has received six of the ten “Tech Ten” legislator awards for their support of the technology industry in Arizona with the “Representative of the Year” award going to Representative Bill Konopnicki (R-District 5).
A focus on Arizona’s tech industry is especially critical given a recent report suggests the demand for tech exports from Arizona has slipped from $8.7 to $8.1 billion from 2007 to 2008.
Rep. Konopnicki received the highest award from the Arizona Technology Council for “his endless passion and dedication to education and economic development,” according to the Tech Council’s press release. Rep. Konopnicki is a board member of the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University along with chairing the House Natural Resources and Rural Development Committee.
Other legislators of the Republican Caucus receiving the Top Ten Tech award are Representatives Frank Antenori (R-District 30), Tom Boone (R-District 4), Laurin Hendrix (R-District 22), Lucy Mason (R-District 1), Michelle Reagan (R-District 8) and David Stevens (R-District 25).
The Arizona Technology Council seeks to distinguish Arizona as a leader in the technology community and offer resources that are exclusive to its members.
The awards ceremony will take place on Thursday, November 19 from 4p.m. to 10:30p.m. with the theme “Forging the Future,” and is presented by the Arizona Technology Council, the Arizona Department of Commerce and the Governor’s Celebration of Innovation.
A focus on Arizona’s tech industry is especially critical given a recent report suggests the demand for tech exports from Arizona has slipped from $8.7 to $8.1 billion from 2007 to 2008.
Rep. Konopnicki received the highest award from the Arizona Technology Council for “his endless passion and dedication to education and economic development,” according to the Tech Council’s press release. Rep. Konopnicki is a board member of the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University along with chairing the House Natural Resources and Rural Development Committee.
Other legislators of the Republican Caucus receiving the Top Ten Tech award are Representatives Frank Antenori (R-District 30), Tom Boone (R-District 4), Laurin Hendrix (R-District 22), Lucy Mason (R-District 1), Michelle Reagan (R-District 8) and David Stevens (R-District 25).
The Arizona Technology Council seeks to distinguish Arizona as a leader in the technology community and offer resources that are exclusive to its members.
The awards ceremony will take place on Thursday, November 19 from 4p.m. to 10:30p.m. with the theme “Forging the Future,” and is presented by the Arizona Technology Council, the Arizona Department of Commerce and the Governor’s Celebration of Innovation.
Neither Governor Nor Democrats Helping With Arizona's Fiscal Crisis
September 08 2009 20:50
By Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Legislative District 9)
The Governor’s recent reversal of necessary spending cuts defies logic and I simply don’t understand it. I’ve known Governor Brewer for a long time and I’ve always liked her. That is why it is so difficult for me to understand this recent action that simply makes no economic sense. Meanwhile, Democratic legislators are putting politics over helping the state.
Our state is over $3 billion short and is spending more than it has coming in every single day. Simply put, we are paying for things we can’t afford. So the fiscally responsible Republican legislators made the difficult, but necessary, decision to make modest spending cuts and passed a balanced budget, without a tax increase, three times. Unfortunately, the Governor has vetoed it or threatened to veto it all three times. If she didn’t, the budget could have been balanced on June 4th.
The Governor’s most recent vetoes have increased spending by $714 million and increased property taxes by $250 million a year. Unless changed, a vast majority of this $714 million increase in spending and the entire $250 million increase in property taxes will continue into future years. This action adds to the already huge gap between spending and revenues instead of decreasing it, meanwhile increasing the tax burden on the public at a time when individuals and businesses are struggling to stay afloat. This is obviously the wrong direction we should be moving in.
What’s next? I don’t know. The Democratic legislators don’t want to help. They would rather see the Republicans crash and burn instead of helping the state balance its budget.
Why would they take on the responsibility of having to make cuts when they can just let the Republicans take all the blame? Not one of them voted for the three balanced budget packages. The Republicans can try once again to re-negotiate with the Governor, but she has the final and ultimate vote.
Rep. Debbie Lesko represents Legislative District 9, which includes Sun City, Youngtown, and parts of Glendale and Peoria. For more information, visit: www.DebbieLesko.org. Debbie can be reached at 602-926-5413 or DLesko@azleg.gov.
The Governor’s recent reversal of necessary spending cuts defies logic and I simply don’t understand it. I’ve known Governor Brewer for a long time and I’ve always liked her. That is why it is so difficult for me to understand this recent action that simply makes no economic sense. Meanwhile, Democratic legislators are putting politics over helping the state.
Our state is over $3 billion short and is spending more than it has coming in every single day. Simply put, we are paying for things we can’t afford. So the fiscally responsible Republican legislators made the difficult, but necessary, decision to make modest spending cuts and passed a balanced budget, without a tax increase, three times. Unfortunately, the Governor has vetoed it or threatened to veto it all three times. If she didn’t, the budget could have been balanced on June 4th.
The Governor’s most recent vetoes have increased spending by $714 million and increased property taxes by $250 million a year. Unless changed, a vast majority of this $714 million increase in spending and the entire $250 million increase in property taxes will continue into future years. This action adds to the already huge gap between spending and revenues instead of decreasing it, meanwhile increasing the tax burden on the public at a time when individuals and businesses are struggling to stay afloat. This is obviously the wrong direction we should be moving in.
What’s next? I don’t know. The Democratic legislators don’t want to help. They would rather see the Republicans crash and burn instead of helping the state balance its budget.
Why would they take on the responsibility of having to make cuts when they can just let the Republicans take all the blame? Not one of them voted for the three balanced budget packages. The Republicans can try once again to re-negotiate with the Governor, but she has the final and ultimate vote.
Rep. Debbie Lesko represents Legislative District 9, which includes Sun City, Youngtown, and parts of Glendale and Peoria. For more information, visit: www.DebbieLesko.org. Debbie can be reached at 602-926-5413 or DLesko@azleg.gov.
Cutting Government Easier in Theory
May 07 2009 17:59
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.
Republican Leaders Working to Balance Budget
April 09 2009 13:49
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
April 09 2009 11:10
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