Statement by John Munger on fixing Arizona’s Budget Deficit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                           
 
STATEMENT BY REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE JOHN MUNGER ON ELIMINATING ARIZONA’S BUDGET DEFICIT
 
(PHOENIX, AZ) As our Legislature convenes yet another special session to fully address Arizona’s budgetary crisis, I call on our lawmakers to abandon the Governor’s ill-advised plan for a tax increase and urge them to instead enact sensible fiscal and spending reforms. Thoughtful examples of such reforms are outlined in a recent report prepared by Americans for Prosperity and the Reason Foundation in collaboration with the Goldwater Institute, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and others.
 
Many of the proposals cited in this report to reduce spending or increase revenues without raising taxes could go a long way towards solving our state deficit problem entirely.   In contrast, the Governor’s proposed tax increase will cause the loss of 13,000 to 16,000 private sector jobs annually. That’s a disaster we simply cannot afford. 
 
I have long argued for many of the steps in the report, including eliminating non-essential state agencies, further reducing government payrolls, reducing AHCCCS coverage and benefits – which are richer than most private insurance plans – and privatizing governmental programs. I also support maximizing parental control of our K-12 education system and reducing our non-violent prison population. These steps represent billions of dollars in potential savings and non-tax revenue enhancements which can help return our state to solvency virtually overnight.
 
We also need to restart Arizona’s economic engine by reducing and eliminating burdensome business taxes, reforming our regulatory process and injecting billions of dollars of private, out-of-state capital to build the infrastructure Arizona needs to prosper and grow. These ideas have already gained wide acceptance - I know because I have travelled throughout the state promoting them for years.
 
Our State has run out of time and voters have run out patience for phony solutions and perpetual tax increases. These next few weeks will be critical for Arizona’s future, and I today call on our citizens to hold our government accountable for the decisions that come out of the upcoming special legislative session.

For more infomation, please visit http://www.johnmunger.com/

Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin: No Guarantee AZ Can Pay Bills in January

Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin is sounding the alarm again. Next month, there is a strong likelihood that the State of Arizona will no longer be able to issue tax refunds or even pay it’s employees. The State is broke and with Arizona government spending more than it brings in, the state will likely begin to issue IOU’s. Here are several video clips in which Dean Martin reminds us of the economic realities. For conservatives like myself reading between the lines, this means the Legislature must make more spending cuts and bring the budget back into alignment with revenue. Yes, there will be pain but if lawmakers don’t demonstrate fiscal fortitude and responsibility now, it’s going to be much more painful later. And let’s not forget that even if the sales tax gets referred to the ballot AND the voters pass it, it will NOT solve the problem. In fact it will most definitely worsen the recession and prolong any recovery.

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

PR: Parker Calls on Brewer to Cancel Fundraiser

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vernon Parker Calls on Jan Brewer to Cancel Fundraiser by Planned Parenthood Board Member

DECEMBER 16, 2009. Today, Paradise Valley Mayor Vernon Parker released the following statement.

“I am extremely concerned and troubled that Jan Brewer would hold a fundraiser in the home of someone who brags[1] about being a board member for Planned Parenthood of Arizona’s Action Fund. Planned Parenthood supports partial-birth abortion, and this is the arm of Planned Parenthood specifically designed to elect pro-abortion candidates to political office.

I have many friends and supporters who are pro-choice. They know that I am unequivocal in my belief that life begins at conception and is sacred. If this were simply the case of a pro-choice supporter hosting a fundraiser, I would not take issue with it. However, in this instance, Jan Brewer is having a fundraiser hosted by someone actively involved in the leadership of the state’s best known pro-abortion organization. That is totally unacceptable for someone who claims to be pro-life and I call on Jan Brewer to cancel this fundraiser immediately.”

[1] http://www.witheymorris.com/2008/09/30/jason-barclay-morris/

For more information go to www.Parker2010.com.

PR: Robert S. Graham Releases New Campaign Ad

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 16, 2009

Robert S. Graham Releases New Campaign Ad

Scottsdale, Ariz. (December 15th, 2009) – Over the years, Robert Graham has proven himself to be a business leader who knows how to bring jobs to the state of Arizona. With his new video campaign, he’s going to have an opportunity to tell voters all about it. On his website, www.GrahamforArizona.com, people will be able to see a new video from Mr. Graham detailing his commitment to the success of Arizona’s economy.

“I want people to be able to look me in the eyes and know I’m looking out for their best interests,” Graham said of the latest campaign video. “Arizonans deserve leaders who will fight to bring jobs to this state – leaders who will create a growing, sustainable economy for future generations.”

YouTube Preview Image

With a series of new videos forthcoming, Graham is looking to add a personal touch to his campaign for Governor. However, he also wants voters to know that his commitments go beyond a political calling.

“Arizona has suffered from a vacuum of leadership. I intend to change that. I am here to change the economic landscape of Arizona for the better through public office, just as I’ve done in the private sector by creating jobs through entrepreneurialism,” said Graham, continuing, “Through all of this, I intend to inspire Arizonans to rise up with me, take back control of their government, and put Arizona out front as the opportunity state.”

During the past two decades, Graham has been focused on building and running his successful investment banking consulting, and private wealth management firm, RG Capital. As a business entrepreneur, Graham has worked with and educated thousands of individuals and organizations ranging from Fortune 500 companies to private clients. Graham is an expert at taxation, innovation, entrepreneurialism, globalization, capital markets and tax efficiencies.

Graham’s fundamentally strong and simple platform is built on three key issues: the economy, education and secure borders. For more information on Robert S. Graham, please visit www.grahamforarizona.com.

Planned Parenthood Cronies Hosts Brewer Holiday Event

Event InvitationI was reading the comments on an earlier posts and just so happened to stumble upon a shocking discovery.

Tomorrow night, Governor Jan Brewer will be the guest of Jason and Paulina Morris at their home for a holiday event to raise money for the Governor’s campaign.

When I first saw the invitation, the name of Paulina Morris stuck out as someone who had been a threat to cultural conservatives in the past. Then I remembered that she had served on the Maricopa County Special Heath District Board.

Doing a quick search online for her name and Planned Parenthood, I recalled the following information. (I posted these in the comments of the earlier post but I think it’s important to give them front page exposure at this time.)

Paulina is an employee of the Department of Administration. Anyone can read her online bio here.

Her husband, Jason, is a member of the “Planned Parenthood of Arizona, Action Fund Board Member”. For those who do not know, this arm of Planned Parenthood specifically raises money to fund PRO-ABORTION candidates.

This appeared in the Arizona Republic on November 14, 2007

Janet’s man revving up . . . Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff and long-time right hand man Dennis Burke appears to be staging the launch of his solo career.

Speculation about Burke’s possible bid for attorney general in 2010 has been rampant for months, fueled even more by his month-long absence from the governor’s office.

It was the first vacation in many years, apparently. But it’s clear that Burke also had to take some serious thinking time about his next step as Napolitano approaches the final three years of her term.

Well, Burke was back in Arizona last week, reaching out to potential constituents from NASCAR dads to pro-choice moms.

Last week, Burke was the grand marshal at the Arizona.Travel 200 race at Phoenix International Raceway and was one of three speakers at Planned Parenthood’s Celebracion de Noche Latina on Friday (along with Paulina Vazquez Morris of the board of Maricopa County Integrated Health System and Carlos Galindo-Elvira of Valle del Sol).

Frankly, I’m fairly disappointed that the current Governor would want to do a fundraising event during the holidays with people who believe that its morally, legally and scientifically appropriate to kill unborn babies. I can only hope that they may have converted to the pro-life position and we need not worry about this event.

Brewer Flip-Flopping?

Brewer made a big deal about not playing word games and calling the State Exec Tower’s Christmas Tree a Christmas Tree rather than a “Holiday Tree” (read article). But now Brewer has gone and scheduled a “Holiday Party.” (View Event Invitation) Guess she’s back to politically correct word games and her decision to call things what they are was really fleeting. Granted, one could say that the point is niggling or even that there’s a consistency in that the tree is specifically Christian, but her party could be a celebration of all the year end events, but perhaps there is an inconsistency in light of Brewer’s other inconsistencies.

Brewer HAD a conservative history in the legislature … but now she’s betraying those Republican principles by advocating for an 18% sales tax hike.

Brewer gave a conservative inaugural address attacking the growth of government. But since she stepped on to the 9th floor, she has been anything but true to her word. The fact is that she has protected the growth of government through line item vetoes that have actually protected government spending at the same time she has advocated for a tax hike to sustain government growth.

We heard from Chuck Coughlin that the governor would not run if she didn’t get her tax hike as quoted in the August 28th edition of The Arizona Republic

Friend and political adviser Chuck Coughlin said Brewer “wants to run,” but his counsel on whether she should do so may depend on whether she gets the tax hike she seeks. A majority of Republican legislators in the House and Senate have voted to refer the proposal to a special-election ballot, but not a single Democrat has signed on.

“My belief is that (Brewer’s campaign decision) hinges on whether or not she has the tools to govern,” Coughlin said, referencing the estimated $2.5 billion that would be generated over three years by the tax increase. “If Democrats are unwilling to help her, than maybe she’ll give this job back to them.”

But then she’s already thrown her hat in the ring.

Brewer got rid of Kevin Tyne as part of her political “makeover” … but we’ve gotten the same-ole, same-ole since his departure.

Niggling point on the tree? Perhaps, but the Governor’s inconsistency is undeniable.

Horne: Illegals Attending Ajo Schools

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, December 15, 2009

HORNE INVESTIGATION REVEALS MEXICAN RESIDENTS ILLEGALLY ATTENDING SCHOOLS IN AJO

TUCSON (Tuesday, December 15, 2009_ — State schools chief Tom Horne today released the results of an Arizona Department of Education investigation showing that a substantial number of Mexican residents are being bused to public schools in Ajo in violation of Arizona law.

“I am releasing video evidence that shows very clearly that Mexican residents are being bused from the international border crossing at Lukeville, Arizona to attend school at the Ajo Unified School District. Arizona law is clear: public school students, regardless of their citizenship, must reside within the state,” Horne stated.

“Our investigation is the result of numerous complaints we have received from constituents who observed these activities or who knew of Mexican residents attending Ajo schools. Earlier this year, the Arizona Department of Education formally requested the Pima County School Superintendent to provide verification of U.S. residency for all students who attend schools in the Ajo district. This request was repeatedly rebuffed so I therefore had little recourse but to initiate my own investigation,” Horne added.

Video evidence reveals that shortly after the Lukeville border crossing is open at 6 AM on school days, Mexican residents enter the U.S. either on foot or by car and students board school buses parked approximately 200 yards north of the border. The buses are marked “Pima County Schools” and, according to Arizona Department of Transportation records, are registered to the Pima County School District.

“I have asked the Arizona Attorney General’s office to investigate this matter further. Arizona taxpayers cannot be expected to pay for the education of students who don’t live in Arizona and I am committed to putting a stop to this illegal activity,” Horne concluded.

Copies of the correspondence between the Arizona Department of Education and Pima County Superintendent, as well as a chronological description of the video, are attached. The video is also posted at www.ade.az.gov.

Goldwater Institute amicus brief takes aim at local gun bans

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms from oppressive federal gun bans under the Second Amendment. Now, the Court is considering whether the Constitution also protects that right against local gun bans under the Fourteenth Amendment. As before, the Goldwater Institute has weighed-in by filing an amicus brief in support of the right to armed self-defense. But this time, our argument is aimed at persuading the academic left and “strict constructionist” right to adopt a position on gun rights based on genuine constitutionalism.

An academic cadre on the left has long argued that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all civil rights, including the right to armed self-defense, through its prohibition on states “abridge[ing] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  This presents an unusual opportunity for finding common ground, but many on the right believe the left’s endgame is not so much aimed at securing gun rights, as transforming the Fourteenth Amendment into a mandate for forcing states to facilitate federal social welfare policies. Because of this perception, gun rights are threatened by “strict constructionists” who refuse to strike down local gun bans under the Fourteenth Amendment to avoid opening a “Pandora’s Box” of federal judicial activism.

In an effort to heal this divide and find common ground, our brief acknowledges that the Fourteenth Amendment changed the balance of power between the states and the federal government by guaranteeing civil rights against oppressive state and local laws. But we show that the Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause actually guarantees freedom–not free stuff from the federal government–and that this understanding actually promotes judicial restraint. We also show that protecting gun rights from local gun bans is fully consistent with the Tenth Amendment because federalism is not an end-in-itself; it is meant to protect rightful liberty–including the right to armed self-defense.

In short, the Goldwater Institute has appealed to genuine constitutionalists to protect the right to armed self-defense from state tyranny. We will soon know how many on the Supreme Court are open to the message.

Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

Dave Rioux Claims He’s a Victim of a Political Hit

Dave RiouxStraight from the Arizona Republic:

A Buckeye councilman running for re-election said the timing was “politically motivated” of a story that he had sent sexually charged text messages to a town employee.Town Councilman Dave Rioux held a news conference Monday outside Mount Pleasant Church, nearly a week after The Republic’s West Valley Editorial Board broke the story on azcentral.com.

Rioux, 46, filed his candidacy petition on Dec. 8, the day the content of the text messages became public. The District 6 representative faces one challenger in the March 9 primary. His opponent, Eric Orsborn, has said he began working on his candidacy packet before the allegations against Rioux surfaced.

Public records obtained by The Republic show a town employee reported that Rioux had sent her text messages in October about joining him in his hot tub and engaging in sexual activity. Rioux told the woman her job would be safe from the next round of layoffs, according to a complaint she filed with the town. Rioux told town officials that he was trying to help the employee and did not intend to cause her stress, records show.

We don’t care (or even know) what political party Mr. Rioux belongs to, he still needs to resign and the Buckeye Town Council needs to get their house in order.


Planes, Trains and Automobiles to a Free Delivery

About seven years ago, we sat in on a parents’ meeting at the Lycee Francais Albert Camus in Conakry, Guinea, a country in West Africa. It was more out of curiosity than need, to observe how the French run these things, and the French parents were very nice and inclusive, so who could say no? There was just one item on the agenda that day, the discussion of a scholarship for a student, a Guinean girl. The scholarship had been stalled at the French Embassy for approval; the Embassy questioned whether the family qualified.

The father was there to plead his case. He had a right to French tuition assistance for his daughter because he held a dual French-Guinea citizenship. The head of the Parents Association, a French woman, noted that he’d received a loan from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to start a theatre business in a city a few hours from the capital. The man said he hadn’t been able to pay back the loan as the business had failed – too many videos and DVDs available. We listened as they went on to note his current income and so forth. The father argued very persuasively that he qualified.

They then noted that they found it hard to believe he didn’t have means because he’d written down his youngest son had born recently in the USA and was listed on the application forms as a US citizen. It was quite common to meet families in those places with kids born in various countries, a different passport for each kid, so that wasn’t surprising. But the French ladies persisted with their coup de grace, if he didn’t have the means, how did he afford paying airfare and US medical bills for his wife’s delivery in the USA, in an expensive US hospital?

The man sat up and exclaimed, “It didn’t cost us ANYTHING in America for the delivery. It’s FREE!” He spread his hands and absolutely beamed with genuine, delighted awe, “It was wonderful! Beautiful hospital, nurses, doctors, clean, and it was all free! American hospitals are superb and they are all so nice to you!”

To say the flabbergasted looks on the two French women were priceless is an understatement. Rendered speechless, their deer in the headlights eyes met ours … the American in the room … and it took nearly superhuman effort to not burst out laughing at them, lean across the table, high-five and shake the man’s hand, so awesome was this demolishing of the totality of the French conceit of their stereotyped opinions of American health care. It was a good thing though we restrained ourselves, because we would have clasped his hand with delight the one second, and then punched him the next moment.

We have six children, and they were all born in the USA. They weren’t “free.” We pay insurance and co-pay and the hospitals billed us, and quite creatively. We learned early on that 50-cent hospital pacifier was about $10, the “complimentary bag” of mostly manufacturers’ samples was about $100 and so forth. But the bottom line was, the hospital billed us and by extension our insurance company, not just for our children’s births, but for this Guinean man’s son’s birth, too. He scraped the money for an almost two-thousand dollar round-trip air ticket; his wife waddled into a US hospital emergency room and gave birth on our dime. At least we hope she waddled in on her own steam, and didn’t call 911 so the EMTs bought her in … at additional unreimbursed taxpayer expense.

Their son also got a crisp state of the art blue US passport as a US citizen. Mom and baby US citizen flew back to Guinea where he has been raised as a Guinean Susu-Francophone bi-lingual African who doesn’t speak English. But if any emergency which requires the United States Embassy to have to evacuate all US citizens out of Guinea, this boy is on the evacuation list, and would of course, while he’s young, require a family member accompany him. All paid for by the US taxpayer. There are more than hundreds of thousands of US citizens growing up in other countries who were born in the USA, but have no language or cultural ties or affinity for it, they are their families’ emergency exit tickets. International flights have women sitting awkwardly in tight airline seats, late in their third trimesters, claiming they aren’t, headed for the USA every day to give birth.

Frankly, who can blame them? Guinea’s per capita GNP is abysmal – under $500 per year – parking it squarely in the World Bank’s Low Income nations grouping, the world’s poorest nations. Compare that to Mexico’s Middle Income status at about $6,000 per year, and Mexico is what many Americans think of when they think “underdeveloped.” Guinea’s infant mortality runs in the 140 per 1000 live births range while America’s infant mortality runs closer to 5 per 1000 live births – which include the incredibly delicate premature babies. So, if we were Guinean, we’d beg, borrow and steal the air ticket money together and fly to the USA, for the world’s best health care for free, too.

It’s legal, but it isn’t free to provide. Hospitals buy supplies, buy medicines, pay nurses, technicians, janitors, pay electricity, water, heating, cooling, invest in state of the art scanners, x-rays, labs … the costs are numerous. Our bills went up with each child. But the hospitals were scrambling to cover mounting expenses they’d incurred by treating zero-pay walk-ins. No one wants to turn away anyone in need, but when more money goes out than in, hospitals go bankrupt and close, and everyone suffers, so ignoring this is not viable.

This is exactly the sort of problem that Americans expect to be fixed with any “health-care reform,” but there is nothing that addresses this untenable situation, in fact it stands to get worse, a strained and ultimately abusive give-away for foreigners, at the expense of nationals.

Congress is quite capable of crafting a logical and sensible guest-worker program for foreigners who want to work in the USA, which includes a simple requirement for any guest worker to buy and provide proof of a basic healthcare insurance coverage while in the USA. This would provide a huge relief for hospitals with large Mexican and Central American walk-in patient demands, and private insurers would have plenty of new clients to compete for instead of paying out for. Under this, any children born of foreigners in the USA would not be automatically citizens, but have a certificate of birth that requires them to have a set number of years of residency requirement by age 18 before being eligible for permanent US citizenship. Likewise, foreign nationals who make the effort to fly to the USA should be required to have insurance coverage that will pay for any medical costs incurred in the USA during their proposed sojourn. If a Third World woman is on an airplane, chances are she’s got some reasonable means to pay a short-term insurance policy, at a minimum. The poorest people of these nations never get on the plane in the first place, so this current arrangement enables a subsidy to the Middle and Upper Class of the home nations who have simply availed themselves of a golden opportunity on the backs of Americans who buy their own private coverage and take care of their own bills responsibly.

Was Sen. Gould Willing To Support Gov. Brewer’s Sales Tax Increase?

Gould Pointing 2According to media reports, Senator Ron Gould says that he would have supported the ballot referral of a three-year increase in the sales tax in exchange for a three-year phase out of the state income tax.  We have to admit, we honestly had no idea.  So much has been made of the Senator’s absolute refusal to support any increase in taxes and so much coverage in the media and on the blogs was focused on the single-minded purity of his votes against it, that we never even considered the possibility that he would vote to refer Brewer’s tax hike to the ballot.

If what the Senator is saying is true then much of his absolute language regarding the referral must be taken with a rather large grain of salt.  If his offer was genuine, then he was in fact willing to vote to refer the sales tax increase to the ballot, so all of his vocal and rather scathing critiques of his fellow legislators ring somewhat hollow.  On the other hand, if he was merely tweaking the Senate President by asking for something so out of reach that he knew in advance he could not get it, then his protestations at this point that he was somehow reasonable and amenable to a deal are likely disingenuous at best.

Naturally, any insistence on eliminating the state income tax over three years would have make the entire deal unworkable because it would have dramatically increased the state’s deficit, leaving the Legislature farther from the solution instead of closer to it.  But one assumes that Gould’s rational for supporting such a package would have been that a) the tax referral could always be voted down, and b) the size of the tax cuts would have been greater than the sales tax increase, and they would have lasted long after the sales tax increase had ended.  Ironically, the same arguments were made for the conservative package that Gould voted against.  It had hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts for individuals and businesses, as well as property tax cuts, all to boost the economy.  And it cut more in taxes than the sales tax increase would have raised, assuming it would even pass.

What is clear is that Senator Gould has nothing good to say about any Republicans who would have exchanged larger, lasting tax cuts, for a referral of a shorter, smaller tax increase.  He has even been quoted as saying “If Republicans do a tax increase, our party’s dead. The voters will throw us out if we do a tax increase.”  The fact that he proposed to make the very same kind of deal is more than just curious, even to seasoned Capitol observers that have grown accustomed to the public posturing of politicians.

Bill Konopnicki vs. Sylvia Allen for LD-5 Senate

I just received an invitation to a fundraiser event for Bill Konopnicki who is exploring a run for the Senate seat in Legislative District 5. The event will be held on January 4, 2010 at the University Club in Phoenix and it’s pretty clear he will be running as a traditional candidate since he’s accepting PAC money. (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

But what is also clear and wrong in the minds of many conservatives is why would he challenge a great conservative legislator like Sylvia Allen?

In his announcement, Konopnicki notes that the money raised will be in support of his Senate Exploratory Committee. Oddly, Konopnicki has not yet registered a senate exploratory committee with the Secretary of State’s office. Rather, he has a generic exploratory committee listed with no office designation. (Could this be one of those back to the future moments?) So how can he announce a fundraising event (and commitment) for a state senate seat if he hasn’t even registered with the SOS?

Konopnicki’s record in the Legislature has not exactly been stellar nor conservative especially on fiscal and budget issues. The Arizona Chapter of Americans for Prosperity issued Konopnicki a 2-year average score of “57″ which doesn’t quite define him as a fiscal conservative. Sylvia Allen however, received a score 98 (albeit, she did not start voting until after she replaced the late Senator Jake Flake in June, 2008.)

Taking a look at Konopnicki’s position on fiscal issues via his website, it states,

“Bill’s efforts led to the largest tax cut in Arizona history. At the same time, state employees received the largest pay raise in years, more was spent on K-12 Education, and Higher Education was fully funded. The state paid off most of what it owed and put $650 million in the “Rainy Day Fund”. Bill brings leadership on budgeting, the economy and fiscal discipline. Arizona needs his leadership skills on the budget issue.”

For many conservatives, something doesn’t quite reconcile when comparing Konopnicki’s rhetoric with his record.

Left to right: Bill Jeffers (D), Bill Konopnicki (R), Shirley Dawson (D) & Jack Brown

Left to right: Bill Jeffers (D), Bill Konopnicki (R), Shirley Dawson (D) & Jack Brown (D)

So why should the rural voters of LD-5 switch horses when they already have a great State Senator in Sylvia Allen? Konopnicki is term-limited so the fact that he’s out of a job may have something to do with it.

There were rumors that Konopnicki was looking at a run in CD-1 but with Rusty Bowers in that crowded primary race, he may have gotten cold feet.

Both Konopnicki and Allen are Mormons and there may be a faith-based factor at play.  There may be yet another factor at play here, gender dominance.  It is no secret that Konopnicki has historically opposed any woman who has elected to run for the legislature from his district beginning with Debra Brimhall-Pearson in 2002 and now including Senator Allen since 2006.   Make no mistake, I’m not suggesting he doesn’t work well with other elected women such as Janet Napolitano or Kyrsten Sinema, but conservative women from his home district may be another issue of his.

Whatever the reason, it’s not good political form to challenge a very popular state senator who has a very conservative voting record.

Poll: Will Arizona Voters Approve a Sales Tax Increase?

The good folks over at The Arizona Guardian can thank me later for driving some traffic to their website. I just received a tweet that The Guardian has posted a poll asking its readers to vote on whether they think Arizonans will vote for a One cent sales tax hike should it go to the ballot.

For months, many conservatives have been railing against a Republican agenda of raising taxes. It simply goes against our principles but even more realistically, it would do nothing to close our budget deficit. In fact, we strongly assert that it would actually prolong our recession, shun economic growth and dissuade businesses from starting or coming to Arizona.

Janet Napolitano set us up with the current crisis (sorry liberals, you can’t blame George W. Bush for the Arizona Budget Deficit and state spending!) while she ruled the roost here in Arizona. Unfortunately, Republicans have to clean up the mess and even more unfortunate, our current Governor has been on a tractor beam agenda to up the sales tax.

At this point take a moment to visit The Arizona Guardian website and vote in their poll. We will be watching the results despite their lack of scientific methodology.

Stop a Billion Dollar Hike!

Arizonans for Prosperity

ACTION ALERT

Dear Arizona Taxpayer:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is planning to call the Arizona Legislature into special session again this month. Among the items on the agenda is referring a billion-dollar tax increase to state voters.

But the reality is that the Governor and Legislature do NOT need to raise your taxes to eliminate the state’s Fiscal Year 2010 and 2011 deficits.

Click HERE to send an email to your legislators.

AFP Arizona has worked with the Reason Foundation, members of the Arizona Legislature, and allied policy organizations to identify $760 million in baseline budget reductions and $2.6 billion in one-time revenues for FY 2010. We have identified $3.5 billion in baseline budget reductions and $1.6 billion in one-time revenues for FY 2011.

To see the budget options document, go to this website:

URL: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/files/azbudgetoptions.pdf

To see a chart showing our deficit reduction options, use this link:

URL: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/files/options120909.pdf

Many of the proposed deficit reductions can be made by reducing or eliminating state agencies and programs, reducing state government personnel, privatizing state assets, and making fundamental reforms to Arizona’s overly bureaucratic and admin-heavy school district system.

The bottom line is that Arizona’s state government does not need to raise your sales, income, or property taxes to get through this deficit crisis. The crisis was mainly caused by too much government spending, and the first and foremost solution to the crisis is to reduce government spending.

Please take action TODAY. Ask your state legislators to work harder to balance the state budget without raising your taxes. And please forward this email to your friends and neighbors.

Click HERE to send an email to your legislators.

For Liberty,

–Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
( Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org

Thoughts on an Earlier Post

I watched the comment fly all day on the Mecum post (below) and have to admit that I agree with a lot of what our readers have said on both sides. But allow me to clarify even more.

The word “lynch mob” came up several times and I would have to agree with those who brought it up that we need to be careful not to become one.

We know nothing about the relationship betweet Mr. Mecum and the woman mentioned in the complaint. It could have been an acquaintance or even romantic situation but that is none of our business. If Brett was infatuated to the point of pursuing her or in today’s politically correct language “stalking” her, she obviously didn’t harbor the same feelings and felt compelled to file a complaint with the authorities.

I am surprised that he felt that Voter Vault was the most appropriate way to find out how to get in contact with her. Why not use Facebook, the phonebook or the Maricopa County Assessor’s website which contains the names and addresses of individual homeowners? Unless she was a renter, he could have stayed within the boundaries of the law by accessing another source of data. However Commenter #29 has a point if that is what the Voter Vault agreement actually states. As a precinct committeeman, I’ve had to sign a non-disclosure usage agreement to access voter data. And it’s hard to argue with the fact that the law states that it is a class 6 felony. Of anyone who should know the terms and conditions of using  Voter Vault and it’s proper usage, you would expect it to be a party official. Right?

Let’s face it, incidents like this whether fabricated, conspired or true, are a serious public relations problem for the Arizona Republican Party. I would presume that the State Executve Committee would investigate and make a decision whether there are personnel issues it needs to address and whether it needs to take actions to avoid further public relations or even liability issues. Any inquiry by the EC should be thorough and deliberative and avoid embracing a lynch mob mentality.

I don’t know if Brett has “enemies,” as he claims, who want to destroy his career. We know very little about the woman Brett was pursuing. Could she have been a Democrat trying to set him up? Thus far, she hasn’t stepped forward to verify her story. That leaves it up to MCSO to make a determination.

To the broader question. This is where I would really love our reader’s feedback. Should incidents like this ever be posted on Sonoran Alliance? I decided to allow the post to stand because it was not merely a disagreement over policy matters. In the past we have covered stories about Republicans who have been caught doing illegal or unethical activities. Commenter #9 alluded to Mark Sanford, Larry Craig and Mark Foley – all Republicans who did something that got them into trouble and hurt the party (and probably cost elections from a collateral damage standpoint).

Would our readers prefer NOT to see posts that reveal Republicans who break the law or act unethical? Is it better if we sweep it under the carpet, look the other way or just remain silent? Does our silence equate to condoning these acts and ultimately causing more damage? Democrats are always quick to remind us about the log in our own eyes whenever we point out the splinter in theirs. Has anyone in our party ever thought about getting our own house in order or, do we always want to respond with, “well, they do it too?”

Back to the question. Are posts like the Mecum post from the “genre” of the circular firing squad or do they really have a value in the long-run? Do they hurt us more than help us and do they restore credibility to our principles and agenda? I always believed that we were the party of reason, consistency and moral absolutes. If we can’t strive for those ideals then what’s the point of trying to make our lives and country a better place?

Now it’s your turn…

Setting the Team in Legislative District 4

Tom BooneThe Conservative team is set in Legislative District 4 as news comes today that term-limited House member, Tom Boone, has decided not to seek the Senate seat being vacated by current Senator Jack Harper. Instead, Harper will seek Boone’s House seat while former State Senator, Scott Bundgaard, will re-enter political life with an apparent clear path toward the LD-4 Senate seat. In districts like LD-4 where voter registration overwhelmingly favors one party over the other, whoever wins the Primary Election is almost certainly guaranteed the win in the General Election.

Boone’s decision not to seek the House seat may have something to do with recent attention given to Boone’s position and relationship as CEO of Valley Schools Management Group and Board President of Desert Valley Unified School District. According to another blog, Boone’s position with each entity may have placed him in a questionable role in the use of taxpayer dollars through intergovernmental agreements, procurement policy and no-bid contracts. This may have influenced his decision not to run.

Regardless, Boone’s exit from the legislative scene helps the party avoid a potentially damaging primary at the same time it allows resources to be used in other tightly-contested races including LD-10, 11 and 20.

The same won’t be the case in Legislative District 12 where Senator John Nelson is expected to be challenged by Litchfield Park resident, Clark Silver in the Republican primary.

Gould Stripped of Committee Chairmanship

Okay, so there isn’t much to talk about at the Capitol these days, so forgive us if we’re all abuzz at the news that Senate President Bob Burns has taken away Senator Ron Gould’s committee chairmanship.  According to a “tweet” from Gould, “President Burns just took away my comittee chairmanship over my NO vote on the TAX HIKE. Sad day for rank & file republicans.”

The move was not entirely unexpected, as Gould is routinely a reliable vote against the Republican budgets and was, along with Senator Pamela Gorman, the holdouts that prevented the budget bill from passing.  The bill, which contained spending cuts and tax cuts as well, also permitted a public vote on a proposed three-year 1-cent increase in the sales tax.  That was a deal breaker for Gould and Gorman who refused to support the bill, in spite of the laundry list of conservative groups and individuals lined up in support of it.  In fairness, longtime liberal lioness Senator Carolyn Allen also refused to support the bill, but that was because it had too many spending cuts and tax cuts in it and she felt it was far too conservative to support.  Gorman ended up resigning her position as Whip before she could be replaced and now Gould finds himself without a committee.

People we have spoken to do not expect the move to accomplish very much.  ”Gould just shows up, votes no, picks up his paycheck and goes home.  That isn’t going to change now” said one Capitol politico.  Another pointed out that President Burns had no reason to believe that Gould was ever going to get on the same page as the Republican majority, so while he might not have anything to gain, he also had nothing to lose by making this move.

It will be interesting to see how this move impacts Gould in his own district.  While his votes often earn him applause at GOP gatherings, he has been an ineffective Senator in terms of getting his own bills passed, and he now finds his own power further diminished with the loss of the Chairmanship.

The last time this happened was when Representatives O’Halleran and Hershberger were stripped of their chairmanships for blocking a Republican budget.  Each survived one more term before being beaten in a primary.  Gould has one term remaining in the Senate, is running for office, and has no declared opposition at this time.