Jennifer Wright Signs 10-Point Contract With Phoenicians


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 22, 2011
CONTACT: Ami Francisco

PHOENIX, AZ (August 22) – Phoenix mayoral candidate Jennifer Wright unveiled today her ten-point contract with Phoenicians putting taxpayers first in city governance and eliminating the influence of special interests in City Hall.

“Jennifer is truly a citizen candidate with no questionable ties to lobbyists, developers, unions, or other special interests groups that rob tax dollars for pet projects,” stated Ami Francisco, Wright’s campaign manager. “For once, we have a candidate that is not interested in personal gain, but in restoring prosperity for Phoenicians.”

Under to the Wright Contract, Wright has committed to eliminate the food tax while safeguarding essential services, end the practicing of subsidizing big business at the expense of small, remove burdensome barriers to business growth and development, and end sanctuary city policies.

“As Mayor, I will make decisions based on what is right for Phoenix and right for the taxpayers,” declared Wright. “For far too long, city leaders have put personal self-interests first costing taxpayers in the form of a regressive food tax, exorbitant water rates, and diminished services.”

Six candidates are vying to be Phoenix’s next mayor. Of those, three have been on the City Council over the past decade and created the problems we are facing, while another candidate spent the past decade demanding taxpayer dollars for his clients.

Wright is the only candidate that not only has no questionable ties, but also has the skills to examine onerous regulations and complex budgets to get businesses back to work and eliminate wasteful spending.

“Unlike my opponents who created the problems Phoenix is facing, I commit to work for Phoenicians first, not special or self-serving interests,” proclaimed Wright.

Wright’s Ten-Point Contract is detailed below:

The Wright Contract with Phoenicians:

As mayor, I commit to the citizens of Phoenix do the following:

  1. Repeal the food tax, and to reject any and all tax increases proposals;
  2. Safeguard essential city services, never using them as pawns in order to garner support for tax increases;
  3. End corporate welfare by standing against proposals that give unfair advantage to one business over another using taxpayer money;
  4. Eliminate city roadblocks to small business growth and development and retool the Development Services Department to help shepherd businesses through the city process, not stand as a barrier;
  5. Put taxpayers and citizens first, not special or entrenched interests, including rejecting demands from unions and lobbyists that go against what is best for Phoenicians;
  6. Eliminate sanctuary city policies that put not only citizens at risk, but also law enforcement;
  7. Use facts and data to make decisions, not emotion and rhetoric, and include diverse opinions to develop innovative solutions to the city’s complex problems;
  8. Implement internet-based open-book accounting methods that allow all Phoenicians to see how taxpayer money is obtained and spent;
  9. Move Phoenix elections to coincide with state and national elections to both reduce costs and increase citizen involvement and move Council meetings to the evenings while also televising and streaming them on the internet;
  10. Assure that all city contracts, including union contracts, are in the best interests of the taxpayers.

# # #


Comments

  1. PolicyPundit says:

    Councilman Bryan Jeffries has given up the elected official’s pension and all the city hall allowances and perks. Will Mayoral Candidate Wright lead the way in the Mayor’s race and do the same and pledge no pension & perks?

    • @PolicyPundit I committed early in the campaign to reject participation in the city’s defined benefit pension plan and to actively pursue a transition to a defined contribution plan. I also have committed to get city benefits for all employees in line with the private sector, including limits on rolling over sick/vacation time, actual performance based pay raises, competitive insurance premiums and benefits, and pay commensurate with private industry standards.

      • Where’s the “Like” button!?!?

        While we’re going down this path, I still have not received an answer to my question whether Bryan Jeffries is already drawing a salary or pension from another existing taxpayer-funded entity.

        It would make sense for Jeffries to reject a Phoenix taxpayer-funded salary especially if it is already illegal to do so.

        Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

        Great job Jennifer!

  2. Phillip the Great says:

    Well it’s too bad she’s opposed to what she calls “a regressive food tax” because that pretty much makes her a liberal. Conservatives and good Republicans are interested in fairness, but liberals complain and usually use terms like “regressive.” Almost no one who is truly poor buys their food at grocery stores, so any tax on food does not affect them directly. Plenty of homeless people buy fast food…which is taxed at the much higher retail rate by the city, county and state.

    In many ways the tax on food is the most just of all taxes. Rich people spend a lot on a meal, and the rest of us much less. In fact, the first thing people do when they get more money is SPEND IT ON BETTER FOOD. The food tax is actually progressive. It’s the perfect luxury tax.

    • Uh @Philip, the last time I checked the demand for food was inelastic.

      Perhaps your proposal for a tax on food would be better directed at the types of food. For example, leave water completely untaxed but tax alcohol and sugar-filled drinks. Don’t tax vegetables but tax snack foods. It’s your proposal so you figure out what type of food is a luxury and which is not.

      Both Jennifer and I were trained in economics so we understand that the power to tax is the power to destroy and disincentivize. Want less of something? Tax it. Want more of something? Subsidize it.

      Finally, there is a strong argument to be made about NOT taxing elements that are essential to survival – say, like food – because it is a means of depriving someone from a basic element to survive. Some would call that evil.

      I do agree with the concept that any tax on an individual or entity should be localized as much as possible in order to increase the accountability between the entity utilizing the tax and the entity being taxed.

  3. Phillip the Great says:

    Yeah I know about Alexander Hamilton. And our country has been discussing luxury taxes since the Boston Tea Party so we won’t settle that here.

    My complaint is about those who criticize “regressive” taxes. I can grow my own food and avoid the tax, but I can never avoid property taxes, for example. And I think you would all agree that our right to own property is far more important that avoiding taxes, even those on food.

    The widow who owns her house free and clear still gets socked every six months with a significant property tax bill. Sure she qualifies for welfare, but that property tax bill is grinding away what little money she has. That needs to balance your desire to keep taxes local

  4. Paula Pennypacker says:

    “End corporate welfare by standing against proposals that give unfair advantage to one business over another using taxpayer money;”

    Hurray Jennifer!!!!

    Does that mean that you will insist that amazon.com pays state and city sales tax on their Arizona customers like the rest of us small businesses who operate only a warehouse and not a storefront in Arizona? And will you insist that they pay taxpayers the hundreds of millions of dollars they owe in back sales tax since beginning operations in 2007 in Arizona?

    Or will you side with Republican legislators on the House Rules Committee who killed a bill that would have forced amazon to pay sales tax on their AZ customers because they do not have a “physical presence” (even though they operate three soon to be 4 warehouses) in the state – thus giving them an “unfair advantage to one business over another using taxpayer money?”

  5. Phillip the Great says:

    No, PPP, she apparently wants to keep the status quo and will “stand against proposals” which tells me the current unfair advantages will stay, it’s the proposed new ones she’s against.

  6. Paula Pennypacker says:

    Just as I thought.

    Looks like Phillip the Great is right on this one!

  7. Elmer Bringleson says:

    Paula – you are so right. If obit something at Nordstrom at Fashion Square I pay sales tax on the sale, if I send a gift to my brother in North Dakota there is no tax since Nordstrom does not have a store, yet if I send something to my sister in DES Moines, Iowa I do pay sales tax because Nordstrom has a distribution center in the state. Same thing as with AZ’s Amazon warehouse, we should be getting the tax. These candidates need to grow a pair and make thebig guys pay their share of taxes. I wonder dhar Amazon paid our legislators under the table for the cozy deal. We all know the current bunch are for sale to the highest bidder. Makes me want to move back to North Dakota. Elmer B.

Speak Your Mind

*