You are here: Home / 2010 / March / Archives for 6th

Arizona Candidates Coalescing Around McCain or Hayworth

March 6, 2010 By 22 Comments

For several weeks I’ve been seeing some interesting political behavior take place.

As the Primary races start to mature, candidates are often being asked by voters if they’re a McCain person or a Hayworth person. Apparently, some voters are beginning to choose GOP favorites based on who they support at the top of the ticket. This tells me there is a clear differentiation between McCain and Hayworth on the issues and personality.

We saw this take place most recently when congressional candidate, Sam Crump, publicly endorsed JD Hayworth while others were lining up behind McCain. (CD-8 Jesse Kelly endorsed Hayworth on February 15th). The talk among PC’s and party activists has also been that CD-3′s Jim Waring is a “McCain guy.” Congressman Jeff Flake has long been know as a McCain ally so it’s easy to speculate that Flake’s campaign consultant who is also working on Jonathan Paton’s race, might ally Paton up with McCain.

Then there’s the Governor’s race where current Governor, Jan Brewer, recently endorsed John McCain at a campaign appearance in Tucson. And with Dean Martin’s campaign people appearing at many of Hayworth events, it’s becoming clear that Martin supporters are also coalescing around Hayworth.

This leaves legislative candidates left wondering if they should run campaigns allied with either McCain or Hayworth or simply remain politically unencumbered.

This poses the question whether the political wakes left by both McCain and Hayworth campaigns attractive and politically expedient enough to ride to victory in the upcoming primaries?

Or, is there something else going on such as top-down recruiting of candidates that is inherently leading to this coalescing of candidates?

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

Shawnna Bolick, LD11 House candidate, responds to Seeing Red AZ post

March 6, 2010 By 13 Comments

ShawnnaBolickbanner

The blog Seeing Red AZ ran a blog post earlier about Shawnna Bolick, candidate in LD11, which was inaccurate. It was in regards to her position on illegal immigration.  Shawnna attempted to post a comment correcting it, but the comment was not approved.  In an attempt to provide the full perspective on this issue, we are posting a response from Shawnna.  Shawnna is married to Clint Bolick, the libertarian leaning litigator for the Goldwater Institute.  As a libertarian, Clint does not always agree with Sheriff Arpaio on issues, such as certain illegal immigration issues. But for those of us who know this couple, we know that they don’t agree on everything, and Shawnna is more socially conservative than Clint.

We asked Shawnna her actual position on illegal immigration and border security. Here is what she had to say. She didn’t sound like an open borders proponent to us:

The federal government has let down all of the Border states. I believe in pro legal immigration. However, the rules of law for immigration and naturalization need to be followed and visa laws need to be enforced. I am in favor of securing the border. There is too much crime and drugs entering Arizona as a result of the lax in oversight and enforcement.

One of the worst things that could have happened in 2009 was to allow former Governor Janet Napolitano to become the Director of Homeland Security. As a result of her lack of oversight, the State of Arizona needs to do the following:

Ban sanctuary city policies to protect Arizona from the illegal incursions of our sovereign state;

deploy National Guard troops with authority to use all necessary military options to protect Arizonans from the illegal incursions of our sovereign state when a threat is imminent;

declare war on the drug cartels and human smuggling regimes in Mexico;

support effective law enforcement as a top priority of state government;

and get rid of amnesty.

It is too expensive allowing illegal immigrants to continue to live in this wonderful country of ours. We should not bear the burden of having illegal immigrants in our welfare system or cash poor education system. I have several friends who aren’t originally from the U.S.. However, they went through the necessary steps to become a legal citizen. And I applauded and celebrated the day they were an official U.S. citizen.

Also, we need to work to improve e-Verify. In the State of Arizona our small businesses and corporations rely on this federal government mandated system, yet employees who hire illegals unbenkownst to them are being penalized and fined because the system is so flawed.

If I was single and didn’t have children, one job I would want would be to be a Border patrol agent because I’m tough and I’m a rule follower.

1) Shawnna Bolick stands by the idea to ban sanctuary city policies to protect Arizona from the illegal incursions of our sovereign state;

2) Shawnna Bolick stands by the idea to deploy National Guard troops with authority to use all necessary military options to protect Arizonans from the illegal incursions of our sovereign state when a threat is imminent;

3) Shawnna Bolick stands by the idea to declare war on the drug cartels and human smuggling regimes in Mexico;

4) Shawnna Bolick stands by the idea to support effective law enforcement as a top priority of state government; and get rid of amnesty.

At Shawnna’s campaign kickoff, she said she might be a one-termer since she will be more committed to adhering to conservative principles than worrying about reelection. How many legislative candidates are willing to promise that?

Filed Under: Border, Campaigns & Elections, Illegal Employment, Illegal Immigration

The Taxpayers Don’t Get to Say No

March 6, 2010 By 1 Comment

By Justin Olson

In Maricopa County, more than half of the districts with override elections on next week’s ballot are asking voters to approve an override that the voters already rejected. In all but one of those districts, the voters rejected the overrides only four months ago. In some districts, such as Dysart Elementary and Union Elementary, the defeats were resounding with “no” votes outnumbering “yes” votes by more than 2 to 1.

The message these districts are sending is clear: The taxpayers don’t get to say no. The districts are now spending taxpayer dollars to put the same questions before the voters when the voters have already spoken with a strong voice rejecting the overrides.

Last year’s legislation authorizing an expansion of school district overrides also provided one-time authorization for a March election so that districts could implement overrides under the new limits. Districts could not implement the new limits in November because the new limits became effective after the November elections. This legislation specified that districts could cancel their November elections in order to wait for the March election when the new limits would apply. Next week’s election was not intended to provide districts a second chance to ask voters to approve overrides that they rejected in November.

The override expansion that the Legislature passed last year increased the amount a school district can ask voters to approve in a general budget override known as the maintenance and operations (M&O) override. The new law increased the M&O override limit from 10% of a district’s budget to 15% in most cases and as high as 17% for certain elementary districts. ATRA opposed this override expansion for the following two reasons.

First, as some districts routinely pass multiple overrides and other districts operate with none, increasing school district funding through voter-approved overrides increases inequities among school districts.

The Arizona Constitution requires the state to establish a “general and uniform” school system. The courts have consistently ruled that this obligates the state to ensure a certain level of equality in school district expenditures and tax rates.

Expanding overrides increases inequities among school districts and puts the state at risk of costly lawsuits.

ATRA warned the Legislature of this constitutional concern when the Legislature considered passing this measure. No less than eleven days after the governor signed this legislation into law, two separate cases were filed in Superior Court suing the state to rectify existing inequities in public school expenditures.

Second, ATRA opposed this override expansion because it will lead to substantial property tax increases. This increase in override capacity could result in property tax increases of up to $193 million statewide.

While this 5% expansion of the M&O override replaces the 5% specialized K-3 override, the increases will result primarily because the general M&O override is utilized much more frequently. In 2009, there were 68 districts that levied the maximum M&O override but levied no K-3 override.

If the voters of these districts continue to support the M&O override at the maximum allowable level, the property taxpayers of these districts will see a $143 million increase in their bills. This increase comes on top of the $250 million record property tax increase that occurred last year with the reinstatement of the state equalization rate.

Some argue that tax increases should not be a concern if the voters are choosing to tax themselves. In many cases, the voters are not choosing to tax themselves but are actually authorizing the district to tax someone else as the bulk of the property taxes are paid by business owners. Due to Arizona’s assessment ratios, business owners pay more than double the amount of property taxes that a residential property owner pays on a similarly valued property. Arizona consistently ranks among the ten states with the highest business property taxes. These high taxes deter businesses that would otherwise locate in Arizona and provide our economy with sorely needed jobs.

Proponents of this override expansion sold the legislation as a necessary measure to allow districts to backfill cuts in state aid. While the override expansion allows a 5% increase in school district budgets, the implemented reductions were only 2.7% of the same budget limit.

With the use of federal funds, school districts have actually increased their spending during this fiscal crisis. A review of the fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010 budgets of the districts in Maricopa County that have override questions on next week’s ballot shows revised 2010 budgets that on average are 6% higher than the amount the districts adopted in July 2008 before the fiscal crisis began.

Justin Olson is a senior research analyst for the Arizona Tax Research Association

Filed Under: Education, Taxation