Thu 5 Nov 2009
STATEMENT BY GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE JOHN MUNGER ON JAN BREWER’S DECISION TO SEEK RE-ELECTION
Posted by Reality Check under Campaigns & Elections , Press Release , State Budget , State Economy , State Government , Taxation[24] Comments
John Munger for Governor 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2009
STATEMENT BY GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE JOHN MUNGER
ON JAN BREWER’S DECISION TO SEEK RE-ELECTION
“Jan Brewer did not ask to become our Governor. She was not elected by the voters. She did the best she could during the short and troubled term she inherited from her predecessor.”
“Her commitment to raise taxes is fundamentally out of step with the Republican Party and the exact opposite of what Arizona needs right now. My program of lower taxes, regulatory reform and private stimulus will create jobs and broad-based prosperity. My campaign offers voters a clear choice and a viable alternative to the failed
policies and economic stagnation that have marked Jan Brewer’s time in office.”
“I also find it sad that Jan Brewer has decided to seek taxpayer funds to pay for her campaign at a time when our state is virtually bankrupt. This not only underscores her utter lack of popular support but her lack of awareness about the seriousness of our fiscal situation.”
###
November 5th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Rock on!!!! Nice of Brewer to support her campaign (and pay her mortgage) with taxpayer dollars while cutting spending on, say, education for our children.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
She is running on Taxpayer’s dollars!? Just what we need another Career politician running on taxpayer dollars…How Liberal of her..
November 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I agree with Mr. Munger – She does not have my vote
November 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I think I read one news report (wish I could cite or remember the source) that said that her filing papers said she was NOT running clean. Good for her if she raises her own money. if she doesn’t, it’s a sign that she feels like someone else can out-raise her and she’s going to ride their coat-tails on fundraising.
I agree that raising taxes in a recession is horrendous policy, she doesn’t have my vote either. But let’s face it, Munger polls worse than Brewer. He’s got a snowball’s chance.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Lucky for Munger, Parker and Dean-o none of them actually have to come out with the specifics of how they would fix the budget. My belief is none of them have a clue.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Todd, I encourage you to visit my website at johnmunger.com. You will have a hard time finding a candidate with views and positions which are more specifically stated. If you still have questions, contact me. I will be glad to discuss and clarify. You are entitled to know what I think and what I am proposing.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
John I plan on contacting you. I would like to see specific cuts you propose to balance the budget deficit next year.
You also know full well that clean elections funds come from specific fees and it’s a low shot to take. Most of the legislators that share your same views got there solely because of clean elections funds.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Jason-All the rest of the special funds got “swept.” Why not the Clean Elections moneys? Take a guess. In any case, it is hardly a low shot to opine that a career politician of 27 years should have a sufficient base of support to be able raise campaign funds traditionally. That is just the truth. It is especially true when the state is in such critical economic times. Dean Martin called it “Welfare For Politicians.” I agree with him on that.
My best email address is john@johnmunger.com. I will welcome the questions you plan to address and will attempt to respond thoroughly. Thanks and best. John
November 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Jason, no one gets elected solely because of the source of their campaign money. It’s the amount that matters, not the source. And the public money amounts are pretty small.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Thank you for the pointer John.
I see you plan on eliminating some state taxes (the corporate income tax and Personal Property Tax on Business Equipment) and the one revenue enhancement I came across was the plan to have private companies build and maintain toll roads as you claim this will create $1 billion a year in additional sales taxes.
As the elimination of the state taxes you mention on your site would mean a loss of around $800 million per year to the state (even if one argues it will increase revenue in the long run, which seems to be your argument) this means that there will still need to be significant cuts made to state government under the next governor, particularly when the federal stimulus dries up. It would be helpful to know what areas of government you will eliminate to make up the difference with no tax increase.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Glad you have time to “Imagine Arizona” or whatever that bullcrap was to try to pretend you weren’t running and now you have the time to run around and try to raise money.
As for me, I’d prefer that the Governor be out running the government instead of trying to hobnob with convicted (oh i mean, pardoned) hucksters. Good luck with your campaign, because very few people I have talked to have even heard of you.
A lawyer from Tucson? That goes over real well up here.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Snickers you know little about how many of the far right and far led candidates have run on clean elections money. With matching funds the amounts are not small. Most of these fringers would never get elected if it weren’t for clean elections money.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Craig- so basically only life long politicians in Maricopa County are electable? I am sure all our friends outside of Maricopa County are big fans of your statement.NOT
That is very snobbish of you to right-off anyone not in your Maricopa County world. One day you will wake up and realize Maricopa County does not run the entire state and are NOT the only people that vote…hello!
November 6th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Todd- Thanks for your interest and analysis. My proposed business tax cuts will stimulate hiring by local business almost immediately as well as relocation to Arizona by new business investors. More new jobs. Then, streamlining our regulatory processes to get projects thru those processes in 30 days will (almost immediatley) put to work workers WHO HAVE JOBS AVAILABLE WHICH ARE ALREADY FUNDED BUT ARE STOPPED AT THE REGULATORY LEVELS. These jobs exist but the workers are currnely waiting, while on public assistance. -So my plan will result in almost IMMEDIATE reduction of state welfare burdens, and resulting cost reuctions in addition to actual revenue increases.
Then, we add private investment stimulus for toll roads, fast rail between Tucson and Phoenix, water desalination plants, and other needed infrastructural projects, and we will have (again, almost immediately) an infusion into Tucson’s economy of somewhere between 50-100 Billion Dollars worth of Arizona jobs and Products purchased. New jobs, reuced welfare spending, plus new revenues. The power of free enterprise is such that these things will stimulate expansion of our economy (and a drastic increase in state revenues and concurrent reduction in costs) very, very quicly. Texas and other states haved turned around their economies using just this formula. Texas now has a surplus of 8 Billion and produced 71 per cent of all jobs produced in the US last year! This formula is what Republicans and voters in both Virginia and New Jersey have just endorsed, too. Ronald Reagan, Art Laffer, and others would agree that this will work. Expand the pie rather than just presume a stagnant pie.
In addition to the spending cuts that will derive from expanding jobs, more cuts can be done. One out of every three adults in Arizona is on AHCCHS. We have more people on AHCCHS then we have school children. That is wrong. In addition, the health care benefits they receive are far RICHER than typical benefits obtained by people who pay for their own healthcare. That is wrong, too. We must have a serious discussion about cutting back that program appropriately, saving major dollars. And there are other places to cut as well. But, while cuts in such areas must occur, you cannot solve the budget deficit solely by cutting. The legislature controls only 1/3 of the state budget and there is not enough cutting that can be done responsibly. We MUST grow the economy to achieve BOTH resulting cost cuts AND increased revenues. And RAISING taxes, as Jan wants to do, will cost about 13 thousand jobs per year, and actually RAISE costs. Wrong answer.
I hope that is reasonably responsive. If you have more questions, please contact me at john@johnmunger.com.
Thanks for your interest and willingness to discuss.
Best.
John
November 6th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Sorry Munger, anyone who compares us to Texas loses my vote. You are either uniformed or dreaming. Deregulate all you want, Arizona isn’t putting up oil riggs anytime soon. Texas funds almost all of it’s universities with oil royalties. How much of our budget goes to higher education? That right, a third or so.
Show me a plan that addresses our problems in 2010 and 2011. Until then you are not a serious candidate.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Jason,
Just a point of clarification – I believe a little less than 1/10 of the state budget goes to higher education. I believe 1/3 of the higher education budget is from the state.
I do agree with you that I want to see 2010 2011 plans to address the budget problem. Based on the current projection of shortfalls we could eliminate AHCCCS and all universities and we are still short so it seems the level of the problem is far greater than what I have seen anyone propose as of yet.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Todd my numbers were off. A billion or about 11% to higher Ed. $4b to K-12. I have to research it but I think part of Texas K-12 funding comes from oil royalties also.
Either way, it is a big portion that makes it impossible to compare Arizona to Texas.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
You’re totally missing the point Jason. Mr. Munger gave you a clear and thoughtful analysis which you have completely disregarded solely because he mentioned the State of Texas. His plans and proposals have been implemented in many other states as well and have been successful. Ronald Reagan himself advocated the same approach. To simply write-off the analysis because Texas was mentioned is just ridiculous. Mr. Munger quite clearly believes in economic growth and you don’t. He’s also the only candidate who has presented any kind of viable plan whatsoever.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Mr. Cons you missed my point that Mungers plan is great but will not fix a $2 billion hole in 2011.
He referenced Texas as an example and I was pointing out that TX is in a different boat then AZ.
He also referenced the 13k private sector jobs that would be lost with a tax but gave no reference to job losses because of cuts.
I am all for reform and future planning but I want someone who is honest about our current situation.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Jason, may I ask what other state you would like to model ours after? What is your grand plan? I back John Munger because he is the first candidate to come forth with real issues, solutions and leadership. Not phony baloney.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“Ronald Reagan himself advocated the same approach.”
I thought Reagan raised taxes?
November 6th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Todd,
He did! Often! During high rates of unemployment… but don’t expect to see that in Wanumba’s Big Book of Revisionism.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
GOP gal there is no state like Arizona and we don’t seem to get that. Mungers solutions do nothing to fix the issues we have now. I appreciate the vision but if we don’t solve these issues we won’t be capable to make those changes later.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:35 am
[...] Sonoran Alliance » STATEMENT BY GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE JOHN … [...]