You are here: Home / 2010 / February / Archives for 18th

Nuclear Iran- Part II

February 18, 2010 By 24 Comments

“I am sure Ahmedinejad is thankful.”
Indeed he is. The Progressive Liberal Left is helping wage his war of breaking down of will to stand up against him, garbling debate and employing boilerplate stereotyping tactics to encourage people to ignore the warning signs and berate anyone who raises the alarm – at a time when a number of actions – not necessarily war – are still available to help counter this aggressive and brutal regime. All this running interference for free! Ahmedinejad is not just thankful, he’s delighted.

Ignore, ignore means the Iranian regime can carry on without disruption, and steadily increases the probability of total war, the worst case for everyone. We may be quite unperturbed and complacent here in Arizona, but have we checked the European press lately? They are very very very worried. The UN has three sets of sanctions on the books now which Iran is blatantly ignoring, and with the rising anxiety from the Iranian Regime’s announcement regarding achieving their benchmark objective to enrich uranium to levels required for weapons applications – not even a shock – there is heavy pressuring for more sanctions.  (  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8522910.stm   ). Europe will be in the target zone and they do not have a missile shield. Because of the expense and development required, they’ve been long banking on the USA to provide that – and Obama by his rebuffing of Poland, is sending out a clear message to our allies they cannot count on that, as long as the Democratic Party holds on to power.

Because of its size, even ONE nuclear warhead detonating anywhere in Israel would be far more devastating than two or three in a nation the size of Iran. They’re worried. What good does it do Israel to have “300 warheads” it can rain down on Iran when the one can’t be stopped? Iran will not launch one, they will launch multiple. Only one has to get through. Iran knows it, Israel knows it. It’s an intolerable situation. When Iran announced this week that Israel wanted war by this summer, Israel coolly replied, “No we don’t.” But the inclination of the press is to admonish Israel, not Iran for provocative nuclear talk.(   http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100216/twl-israel-mulling-a-spring-or-summer-wa-3cd7efd.html )

Why focus on just Israel? Iran and Iraq are traditional enemies; Iranian Revolutionary Guards were infiltrating, training and heavily funding the insurgency in Iraq against US troops. Iran could easily choose to drop a nuke on Baghdad as payback for Saddam’s invasion of Iran and the resultant 9 year war during which over a million people were killed, and by that also eliminate an inconvenient democracy on their border. On Iran’s other border, a nuke to destroy Kabul and by that, the Afghan government there would make it easy for Iran to invade and conquer that nation in order to spread Iran’s form of radical Revolutionary Islam.

It doesn’t HAVE to go to war, but the way the Obama Administration is not handling this, aggravated by Obama reaching his hand out to the Anti-American Ahmedinejad, hugging the America-hating Hugo Chavez, in the room with American-murdering Ghaddafi, and nothing extended to the pro-freedom Iranian people has sent a terrible message across the globe. Allies and enemies alike are downgrading their traditional assumptions about America’s reliability for the worse, a weakness that our enemies will exploit, and greatly increasing other nations resorting to war to stop Iran before it can attack them.

America is not helpless. Citizens have every right to expect and insist that our elected leadership represent our national interests of security, which includes our allies. That’s their JOB. These representatives are supposed to be stewards of our military and our foreign policy, maintaining capacities; working at all levels of diplomacy and using all available established mechanisms to make every  reasonable effort to keep the conditions that produce war from not developing.

But the United States Government today, controlled monopolistically by the Democratic Party, is presiding over not national security, but a massive political fete, featuring a pinata of American wealth, loading it up with taxpayer money, and tinsel goodies bought on debt – with entitlement groups swinging blindly to smash the bird while special interest groups fight over the “free money” sweets that spill to the ground.

That is NOT the role of good government. That is NOT the behavior of a responsible citizenry.

When the favors have run out, the money gone, the taxpayers broken, the hangover begins. The national wealth blown on an out of control binge fueled by greed; frivolous pursuits indulged while national security was neglected. Our irresponsible government will stagger off like the dissipated Belshazzar of Babylon who feasted and partied, squandering the wealth of the people instead of attending to his duty of guarding the city while the king was away, leading the army to defend the nation, drunkenly blinking incomprehensively at the words written before him on the wall that condemned him: Mene Mene Tekil Parsin.

“Because of your arrogant and irresponsible behavior, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”

As we consider the many candidates who are lining up for 2010 and 2012, for a chance to be the ones chosen to represent our state, and our nation, as representatives, senators and president, those who understand this grave duty and can stand firm despite political attacks and pressure to capitulate should be the ones selected to move to state and national seats. Citizens have a responsibility to each other to chose wisely, to consider well the character, the experience and the abilities of each candidate. Shallow and uninformed decisions will reward representatives who are unequal to the task of representing and governing.

The Persian leadership is poised to test America as it has never been tested before; they are but one of our enemies, so we need to select men and women who will be able to provide informed and solid leadership, and who will always vote for the best interests of the American People and their rights as derived from the American Constitution.

Filed Under: Foreign Policy, Guest Opinion, National Security, Terrorism

Brewer’s Organ Grinder Implicated in Seedy City Pork Schemes

February 18, 2010 By 4 Comments

The Goldwater Institute’s outstanding investigative reporter Mark Flatten has produced one of the most important pieces of Arizona journalism in many years called Shifting The Burden: Cities Waive Property Taxes for Favored Businesses.  In it he methodically and devastatingly deconstructs the complicated “government property lease excise tax” or GPLET scheme that insiders close to Gov. Jan Brewer and other top Arizona politicians use to shift hundreds of millions of dollars from small businesses and homeowners to their special interest friends.  The topic is a bit dense but any taxpayer who has asked why their property tax liability keeps going up should work through it so they can understand how the powerful and their lobbyists like Brewer’s man Chuck Coughlin game the system to the misfortune of average guy and gal.

Shifting The Burden: Cities Waive Property Taxes for Favored Businesses

By Mark Flatten
Goldwater Institute Special Investigation
February 18, 2010

Special deals between cities and hand-picked developers have exempted more than $2 billion in development projects from property taxes in Arizona, shifting the tax burden to surrounding property owners and creating a competitive disadvantage for other businesses, an investigation by the Goldwater Institute has found.

Those high-rise office buildings and sprawling retail centers would generate more than $30 million annually in property taxes if they were not exempted through lease agreements with the cities. As a result of those deals, the owner of a $200,000 home near Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix pays about $183 in additional property taxes every year. A similar home in downtown Phoenix is charged an extra $90 annually, according to state legislative studies.

The unpaid property taxes are supposed to be replaced by the Government Property Lease Excise Tax or GPLET. However, the Institute’s investigation found GPLET payments amount to a fraction of what would be paid in property taxes.

Virtually every high-rise office tower that has been built in downtown Phoenix in the last decade is covered under a GPLET lease. The tax exemption also has been granted to a now-shuttered dog racing track in Phoenix, a tattoo studio in Clifton and regional shopping malls in the East Valley. In coming years, additional projects worth billions of dollars will be covered under GPLET leases.

Last year efforts by state lawmakers to curb the lucrative breaks in the law were blocked by Mesa officials and the developer planning to use the exemption for a $1 billion resort on the eastern outskirts of the city. But, State Representative Rick Murphy has introduced a bill again this year to curb these agreements.

A recent Arizona Supreme Court decision also puts the property tax exemption in jeopardy. The court ruled that sales tax rebates for a shopping center in Phoenix amounted to an unconstitutional gift of taxpayer money to the developer. Promises of future job growth or other tax revenues are not enough to justify special sales tax breaks, the court ruled. Those are the same arguments that are used to justify GPLET agreements.

Read Shifting the Burden here

Sidebar: Scottsdale’s SkySong Avoids Property Taxes Without GPLET lease

Investigation Analysis by Clint Bolick

Filed Under: City Government, Economic Development, Legislation, Taxation Tagged With: ,

Ben Quayle posts spotty voting record in public elections

February 18, 2010 By 16 Comments

According to the Arizona Guardian:

Ben Quayle posts spotty voting record in public elections

TUESDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2010 00:08

By Dennis Welch
The Arizona Guardian

Ben Quayle, the latest candidate to jump into the packed Republican primary for the 3rd Congressional District, has had an inconsistent voting record since registering in the state 13 years ago, according to the election files of both major political parties.

Quayle, 33, the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, participated in two Republican primaries but has never cast a ballot in a municipal election since registering in the state in May of 1997, according to voting databases maintained by the state Democratic and Republican parties.

Quayle did vote in three general elections, including the 2008 presidential election in which he cast an early ballot, the records show. For several years, Quayle lived in California and New York, but told the Guardian on Monday he should have taken a more active role in public elections.
“Like a lot of people my age I haven’t been involved in politics,” Quayle said. “I probably should have been more active and that’s my fault.”

But when asked when he first became interested in politics, Quayle said, “I’ve always been interested in public service ever since I was a kid.”

Quayle’s voting record disappointed many well-known Republicans who questioned the level of his commitment to local issues and public service. His voting record, many political observers predict, would become a major issue he’ll have to overcome to win the primary.

“You don’t run for an office as important as Congress and expect that no one is going to question your lack of involvement as a citizen,” said Jaime Molera, former state superintendent of public instruction and Republican lobbyist.

Qualye’s father, Dan Quayle, surprised the state’s political community last week when he announced on national television that his son was running for office.

Dan Quayle served as vice president under President George Bush from 1989 to 1993. Since moving to the Valley full-time after getting out politics, the Quayle family hasn’t been very active in the local Republican Party and has kept a low profile.

Ben Quayle, who will officially launch his campaign sometime next month, said he was prompted to run for the open congressional seat because he thinks President Barack Obama is leading the country down the wrong path.

But to win the GOP nomination, he’ll have to overcome a crowded field of candidates that include former state lawmakers, current and former mayors and other well-connected politicos.

The regularity of voters are tracked by political parties and kept in a database to help political parties and individual candidates with their get-out-the-vote efforts.

Quayle voted in GOP primaries in 1998 and 2002, according to files kept by the Republican and Democratic parties. He cast ballots for the general elections in 2000, 2006 and 2008. Quayle said he lived in California and New York from 2002 to 2006 where he practiced corporate and real estate law.

He’ll vying to replace U.S Rep. John Shadegg, who is retiring after 16 years in office. His announcement last month sent shock waves through the state political world and politicians abruptly quit their offices or other campaigns to battle for the seat.

Already in the field are former state Sens. Pamela Gorman and Jim Waring, former Rep. Sam Crump, Paradise Valley Mayor Vernon Parker, former Paradise Valley Mayor Ed Winkler and Paulina Morris. Several other candidates, including Phoenix Rep. Adam Driggs, are still considering a run.

Ben Quayle said the Obama administration has served as a wake-up call for him politically, and he plans to run a campaign focused on fiscal responsibility and cutting federal spending.

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections

Goldwater Institute investigation examines tax break available to certain businesses

February 18, 2010 By 1 Comment

Goldwater Institute
News Release

PHOENIX–Some Arizona cities that recruit major shopping malls and high-rise buildings have used a special tax incentive that waives most of the development’s property taxes, often for 50 years or longer. A Goldwater Institute investigative report found development projects valued at more than $2 billion pay only a small fraction of what they otherwise would in property taxes. As a result, local governments raise property tax rates for nearby businesses and homes that don’t qualify for this special tax break.

To qualify for the property tax exemption, building developers transfer ownership of the property to the city and then lease it back to operate. State law requires that the developer pay a Government Property Lease Excise Tax, or GPLET, that is supposed to replace a significant portion of the waived property taxes. Mark Flatten, a Goldwater Institute investigative reporter, shows that GPLET projects throughout Arizona pay at least $31 million less in property taxes each year.

“Arizona’s high property taxes deter businesses from moving here. It’s no surprise that companies look for ways to lighten the tax burden using the GPLET system. However, any time you offer a tax break to one business, it should be available to all,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute. “GPLET programs that single out select businesses for deals essentially leave neighboring businesses and homeowners with the tab.”

Most GPLET projects are located in Tempe and Phoenix, where most downtown high-rises built since 1996 benefit from a property tax exemption. Other communities have started to approve GPLET projects as well. For example, Mesa has agreed to waive an estimated $776 million in property taxes over 50 years for a future convention center and luxury resort near Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. Mr. Flatten reports cities generally don’t worry about lower property tax revenue because property taxes are a relatively small portion of their budgets.

School districts and community colleges, on the other hand, depend more heavily on property taxes. But school districts haven’t had to worry either, because the state government had filled the gap created by GPLET projects. That will change this year because lawmakers have changed the law that protected school district budgets. Now, GPLET projects likely will prompt school districts to raise property taxes or reduce spending. “It’s a great concern. It shifts the tax onto our property owners, our homeowners, and it’s a huge shift,” Antonio Sanchez, superintendent of the Wilson Elementary School District in Phoenix, told Mr. Flatten.

Some lawmakers have tried in the past to change GPLET laws to limit the length of the new leases and to increase the amount that new projects have to pay in excise taxes so that it is more comparable to what businesses that do not have a special exemption are required to pay. These efforts have been thwarted by lobbyists for cities and developers who expect to benefit in the future, Mr. Flatten reports. State Representative Rick Murphy has introduced a bill this year that will try to curb the practice.

The Goldwater Institute recommends that governments pursue economic development efforts that would benefit a wide range of businesses, instead of giving a handful preferential treatment. The Arizona Supreme Court recently reinforced the Arizona Constitution’s “Gift Clause,” a prohibition that GPLET leases might violate. Examples of more appropriate business incentives would include reducing property tax rates for businesses to match the rates paid by homeowners and the expansion of enterprise zones in which reduced tax rates are offered to all businesses.

“These deals show that Arizona’s tax burden is too high to attract business. That is easy to correct without giving special privileges to the few. Lower property taxes to competitive regional rates for all of our businesses and help Arizona grow its way out of the recession,” said Ms. Olsen.

Read “Shifting the Burden: Cities Waive Property Taxes for Favored Businesses” online here.

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

Filed Under: City Government, Constitutional Law, Economic Development, Economics, Press Release, Taxation

JD Hayworth 2010 Releases First TV/Web Ad

February 18, 2010 By 21 Comments
YouTube Preview Image

Conservative Challenger Launches First TV/Web Ad Of Republican Primary Battle

PHOENIX, ARIZONA. FEBRUARY 17, 2010. Anyone attending events launching J.D. Hayworth’s conservative challenge to 24-year incumbent John McCain can tell the difference. Hayworth’s crowds are passionate, enthusiastic and full of Tea Party patriots. McCain’s crowds are subdued.

And that conservative enthusiasm is celebrated in the Hayworth campaign’s first advertisement – “Freedom’s Fire.”

McCain is vulnerable to the more conservative Hayworth on taxes, pro-life and pro-family issues as well as illegal immigration. Hayworth also has a better lifetime rating from Citizens Against Government Waste than the 28-year member of Congress.

McCain voted for the $850 billion bailout of the big banks which included $150 billion in pork, proposed a $300 billion bailout for mortgage lenders and, according to the Heritage Foundation, sponsored an amnesty bill that would have cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the long-term.

For more information or to donate to Hayworth’s campaign, please go to www.JDforSenate.com.

Filed Under: Advertising, Campaigns & Elections, Media

Proposals to fund new Cubs stadium risk constitutional violations

February 18, 2010 By Leave a Comment

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
Efforts to keep the Chicago Cubs in Mesa present the first opportunity to see if Arizona elected officials were paying attention to the Arizona Supreme Court decision striking down government subsidies to individual businesses. A city can construct and own a baseball stadium. (We’ll leave aside for now the question of whether that’s good public policy.) However, the funds being considered by the Legislature are problematic: a new tax on all tickets to Cactus League spring training games for the benefit of the Cubs and an increase to the already hefty car rental tax. Adopting these taxes to benefit a single sports franchise may constitute an illegal special law under the Arizona Constitution. The proposed bill would confer to a sports authority such unbounded power that it may be an improper delegation of legislative authority, which also presents constitutional problems.

The potential deal between Mesa, which will own the facility, and the Cubs also raises serious issues. Under the proposed deal, the Cubs reap all of the financial benefits and have to do little more than show up. Under the CityNorth decision, the beneficiary of a government incentive must produce roughly comparable direct, tangible benefits. The best way to achieve this is fair market rent, which the Cubs are apparently unwilling to pay. A deal probably could be constructed that complies with the constitution, but it will require the Cubs to make far greater commitments than they have appeared willing to do.

Any baseball fan would want to have the Cubs here. And certainly the Cactus League is a valuable asset. But at some point, incentives become illegal subsidies, and taxpayers are asked to do too much. We hope our elected officials will heed the wisdom of the Arizona Supreme Court in the CityNorth decision and honor their constitutional limits.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Filed Under: City Government, Constitutional Law, Economics, Spending, Sports, Taxation