I respectfully disagree with AZ Insider’s post below. While anti-tax organizations like Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity have backed off on their criticism of the tax increase referral, because of all the tax cuts, tax credits, etc. that have been added to it lessening the blow, it is still the most principled position to oppose ANY tax increase referral. Years down the road, when people have forgotten this budget bill, all that most of them will hear about is whether a particular representative voted for or against Brewer’s tax increase referral. Legislators like Gould and Gorman represent the conservative, principled base of the party, and perhaps they would like a future in politics. They can run on a record of consistently opposing taxes WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
So while it is understandable why other conservative legislators have finally caved, it is still much more impressive as a principled conservative legislator to hold out against the tax referral. The Goldwater Institute still has not come out and said it’s ok to vote for the tax increase referral. Their last article on the proposed budget deal and tax referral was highly critical of the referral. I doubt legislators who vote for the tax increase referral will be getting as high of scores in the Goldwater Institute’s next legislative rankings compared to the legislators who held out against voting for it. Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Tax Reform finally agreed that the tax increase referral could be neutral, ONLY if every tax cut that has been added to sweeten the deal actually gets added. (see article here and AFP chart here)
Although conservatives are optimistic that a tax referral will be voted down at the ballot, they underestimate the power of special interests. Prop. 400, the Phoenix blight rail initiative, passed easily at the ballot in 2004 because it was masqueraded as a transportation initiative that would improve our roads. Chuck Coughlin’s High Ground is the primary entity pushing Brewer’s tax increase referral, hoping to benefit his construction and infrastructure clients like the Associated General Contractors. The tax referral will be masked as “Vote Yes to Improve Arizona’s Roads” or something similar. Proponents will probably even find some crazy way to claim it won’t actually raise taxes, by claiming whatever infrastructure projects they fund will generate their own revenues or some other hare-brained scheme. With the millions Coughlin’s wealthy clients can throw in to fund glossy flyers touting the initiative, it won’t be too hard to fool the voters. Furthermore, if the tax increase is bundled in an initiative with the tax cuts, there is no way to enact the tax cuts without voting for the tax increase!
While it is understandable why some conservative legislators have caved in on the tax increase referral in hopes that the tax reduction package will be included and the voters will vote against the tax increase (and no doubt due to tremendous pressure by leadership, Brewer, and Coughlin who is reportedly at the Capitol constantly harassing them) ultimately the most principled stance would be to hold out against the tax increase referral.
PS: I am disappointed that Sen. Gould did not confirm the fact that it would require a Prop 108 two thirds majority to repeal the Equalization and QTR tax cuts since they take place upon the signature of the governor.
It’s hard to summarize 3 hours of conversation into a blog posting but that is not his issue.
He is fine being held accountable by his constituents and doesn’t need some third party’s piece of paper to take a stance on an issue. The fact that the interpretation is left to an outside group is what is wrong. Many of his constituents (me included) think that letting the voters decide is the best way. He will be against it but ultimately it is the voters choice of whether to tax themselves or not.
You are getting off track from my post. I never said anything about not supporting the package or the cuts. My original point is that legislators shouldn’t have to flip flop on the word of a special interest group. That’s the problem with making “pledges”. It’s still ultimately in Grover’s court. No legislator should ever promise anything to a third party. Just because it’s a Republican cause does not make it right.
This all from a Washinton D.C. lobbyist.
“We will cheerfully remind everybody who voted for a tax increase,” Norquist told The Arizona Republic in mid-June.
Now, thanks to accompanying tax cuts, he sees it differently.
“It was pledge compliance,” Norquist said of the Arizona votes, and acknowledging that lawmakers were contacting his office for guidance.
Lawmakers should make up their own mind. If I needed Grover Norquist to decide votes, I’d elect him and send him the weekly paycheck.
If this were a Democrat issue and Norquist was a pro-abortion liberal, what would we be saying about those D’s calling for guidance?
Your legislator obviously saw a benefit to himself to sign the Pledge, since it was truly his own choice to do so. NO ONE TWISTED HIS ARM. WHY IS HE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT NOW? SOUNDS EITHER HYPOCRITICAL OR SCHIZOPHRENIC.
Again — this is getting tiresome — the pledge is to the taxpayers in his district and the taxpayers of Arizona, NOT Grover Norquist. Read it – it is clear.
ATR was started at the request of Ronald Reagan. Sinister, huh? The form simply gives the opportunity for legislators to make a simple one sentence statement that is identical with those of legislators across the state and the nation. Eliminates confusion or misleading of the public.
The D’s meet personally with AEA and other high paid liberal lobbyists for guidance on a daily basis on nearly every piece of legislation that is being considered. We don’t gripe about it, we expect it. If conservtives did not speak with and seek information from conservative experts, it would be counter-productive to reaching their goal.
There is a big difference between the liberal organizations who lobby and the conservative organizations who lobby. Most, if not all, of the liberal organizations personally benefit from the bills they lobby for or against while, none or nearly none, of the conservative organizations personally benefit from the bills they lobby for or against.