Archives for December 2011

Jeff Flake: Payroll-tax gimmicks hinder serious reform

By Jeff Flake (reposted from The Arizona Republic)

House Republicans have worked hard this year to prove to Americans that we recognize the extent of our fiscal crisis. With tremendous political risk, Republicans passed a budget crafted by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan that made tough, but necessary, decisions to corral out-of-control federal spending and bring about much-needed reforms to entitlement programs.

So after leading by example by embracing the Ryan budget, why are Republicans ending this year’s congressional session by passing another “now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t” temporary payroll-tax holiday? Because politics is dictating policy.

A year ago, Americans were told that a temporary reduction in payroll taxes would jump-start economic growth, improve the economy and put people back to work. This was misguided from the beginning. To begin with, temporary tax reductions don’t improve economic conditions. And make no mistake, this temporary reduction was always sold as a 12-month tax holiday. When short-term tax cuts expire, taxes go back up and the net result is effectively a non-stimulus. Don’t just take my word for it. Economic growth has been hovering between an anemic 1 and 2 percent.

How the payroll-tax holiday is “paid for” is another example in the art of congressional budgeting. Senate Democrats favored raising taxes on high-income earners as a spending offset. But they couldn’t get 60 votes in the Senate to pass it (thank goodness). House Republicans, on the other hand, opted for subterfuge, telling Americans that budget cuts will pay for a new payroll-tax holiday. Non-binding budget cuts that is, spread out over 10 years. That’s right, Congress is proposing to pay for one year’s worth of non-stimulative tax cuts with 10 years’ worth of budget cuts. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for budget cuts. But budget cuts that kick in years from now aren’t really budget cuts. We’ve been down that road before.

Because payroll taxes fund the Social Security Trust Fund, another short-term tax holiday exacerbates the insolvency of the fund. It is pretty remarkable to see Democrats, self-proclaimed protectors of Social Security, so forcefully embrace blowing a huge hole in the Trust Fund, and Republicans, fierce critics of deficit spending (at least rhetorically), so willing to resort to gimmicks to mask larger deficits.

More than anything, the economy needs serious tax and regulatory reform, reform that would result in a permanent reduction in marginal rates for all income earners brought about by removing credits, deductions, loopholes and tax expenditures (like that envisioned by the Simpson-Bowles Commission). Ideally, capital-gains taxes would be eliminated for everyone, but at a minimum, the tax rates cannot increase.

America’s corporate-tax rate, currently the second-highest in the world, should immediately be reduced to 25 percent. Permanent reforms like these would unleash a torrent of economic activity and move the economy and unemployment rate in positive directions. Another round of a nickel-and-dime “now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t” tax holiday is misguided.

Jeff Flake is the U.S. representative for Congressional District 6, which includes parts of Mesa and Chandler and all of Gilbert, Queen Creek and Apache Junction.

Jerry Lewis Won a Republican Primary

By Tyler Montague

A Response to Senator Steve Smith

In his comments about recall elections the other day, Senator Steve Smith said, “We just witnessed how the radical left has used the recall system to defeat an opponent they could not and would not have been able to defeat in a standard election.”

The publicly-funded, freshman Senator from Pinal County may have some useful ideas for reforming the recall process.  (I feel we should get rid of paid petition circulators for recall elections!)  But Smith’s reference to the Pearce/Lewis election demonstrates a lack of understanding of what happened on the ground in Mesa.  More harmful to Republicans is that perpetuation of the “leftist takeover” narrative by Smith and others prevents some of the analysis and valuable learning that should be happening as a result of Lewis’ victory. Neither a “flawed recall process” nor “the radical left” caused Senator Pearce’s defeat.

Lewis won by a 12-point margin.  The financials, the polls, and the final vote tallies stubbornly support the case that Lewis would have won if this election had been a Republican primary.

The numbers
Registered Democrats comprise only 26% of LD18; which means they can’t impose their will on anyone.  They accounted for 28% of the vote total in the recall election, and of those, it is estimated that 36% of Democrats voted for Russell Pearce.  Republicans have many more LD18 voters, who further amplify their influence with a tendency to vote at a much greater rate.    Republicans formed 49% of the vote.  Republicans and Independents did the heavy lifting to get to the 55%-43% final margin of victory.

The Arizona Capitol Times conducted a poll the week before the election and found that 36.4% of Democrats were planning to vote for Russell Pearce.  If you start with that assumption, then assume Independents voted roughly in proportion to the final totals, Republicans ended up voting 51%-49% in favor of Lewis.  The actual votes by party are not published, so we must use polling.  The 36% Democratic vote for Pearce, and the slight Republican advantage for Lewis are both consistent with the Capitol Times poll and internal polling conducted by the Lewis campaign.  It is possible that Lewis performed better than the polls said among Democrats or Independents, which would lower his percentage among Republicans.  But one has to remember that Independents are allowed to vote in a primary of their choice, so Lewis would still win in a hypothetical “primary” vote created by removing all Democratic votes from the total.

Poll-based assumptions, fitted to the official vote tally






























































It is impossible to know for certain how Lewis would have fared in a regular primary without the media attention, efforts by independent groups on either side, and without some of the trickery that ultimately backfired on Pearce.  The recall scenario didn’t break all in Lewis’ favor.  We know the special circumstances of the recall may have persuaded large numbers of Republicans to vote for Pearce, when they might have chosen another candidate in a normal primary.  They bought into the Pearce Campaign’s relentless arguments that the recall was a left-wing attack against the Republican Party, and that it was time for people to choose teams rather than evaluate candidates on merit.  It was a tactical error of the Lewis team to not counter by pointing out that Pearce himself had supported a recall effort against Sheriff Dupnik earlier in 2011 and said that the threshold for recalls was appropriately high.  We also could have reminded people that Pearce ally, EV Tea Party Chairman Greg Western, initiated a recall against fellow Republican Rich Crandall the year before.  Pearce’s hypocrisy, along with information like the ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court, which reaffirmed Constitutional language stating that recall elections do not require allegations of wrongdoing by elected officials, may have swayed some of those Republicans to drop their anti-recall-based support of Pearce. 

So what does it mean?
Many lessons of this election are portable.  The first point:  Pay attention to your constituents.  Pearce’s statewide and national list of endorsements was impressive, but Lewis lined up the majority of the leaders in Mesa, and voters trusted the people they know personally.  If donations were an indication of support, Lewis did a good job getting people in his district to invest in his campaign, and a review of Lewis’s donor list, debunks the “outside leftist radicals” story very nicely.  Lewis got 67% of his money from Mesa, 43% came from LD18, and only 2% from outside the state.  Even though he massively outspent Lewis, Pearce only got 4% of his money from LD18.  It doesn’t matter as much how popular you are beyond your constituency—they can’t vote for you.

The second point:  Priorities.  Voters felt that more attention needed to go to the economy and jobs and education.  Over and over again in meetings with small groups, voters said they felt like their priorities were taking a backseat to ideological hobbies.

A third point:  Voters said yet again in this election that they do not like dirty campaigning or angry politics.  The candidates at the top of the campaign can do a lot to set the tone, and can control their followers to a large degree.  The well-documented language and tactics used in this election may have made the final difference in the outcome.  You cannot take someone like Jerry Lewis, a highly respected, longstanding moral leader in the community, who as a seminary teacher had taught hundreds of students from hundreds of families throughout the district, and make scurrilous claims that “he steals from homeless children,” without being punished by voters for such offensive, unfounded, and overreaching slander.  Future candidates for office should look closely at this election and think long and hard about hiring consultants who promote such tactics.

Finally, any election involving Russell Pearce is also an election about immigration, and there are several things to learn here.  First is that people who oppose illegal immigration and support SB1070 and other tough laws, are not a mutually exclusive group separate from those who want solutions that would keep families together and let people rectify themselves with the law without necessarily deporting them.  There is significant overlap.  Dr. Bruce Merrill and the Morrison Institute for Public Policy released a survey last month of Arizonans that indicated 78% of heads of households favored, “…legislation that would allow these people to be put on a path to becoming American citizens if they have no criminal record either where they came from or here in Arizona if they pay a fine for coming into the country illegally, get a taxpayer I.D. number and demonstrate they can speak English.”  Republicans favored such measures by 69%.  Pearce and allies tout 70% support for SB1070, but then make the mistake of deriding those who oppose mass roundups or the equivalent of starve-outs as “open-border anarchists opposed to the rule of law.”  This alienates people, particularly those in the religious and business communities who feel we could tackle immigration problems in a way that solves the problem, helps the economy, and honors our Judeo-Christian values, without necessarily handing citizenship to millions who didn’t come here the right way.

Pearce’s tone on immigration alienates Hispanics.  Latinos favored Lewis by more than 3:1 according to polls.  That number alone should spark discussion about the way the Republican Party approaches the immigration issue.  Anyone looking at projected growth rates from the U.S. Census will see Hispanics’ rapidly growing role in American politics.  Many Hispanics are social conservatives with a tradition of working hard and wanting to keep the fruits of their labor—in other words, many Latinos should resonate to core messages of the Republican Party.  Yet they are put off by the angry rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate.  Arguments to secure the border and to deport felons or freeloaders make sense to most of us; but leaders who point to criminals as justification to round up farm workers and dishwashers present a non-sequitur that makes more sense to Hispanics when explained by xenophobia or racism.  While some Latinos support the approach championed by Pearce, one out of four Hispanic votes will not win the elections of the future for the Republican Party.  The approach championed by Pearce is politically short-sighted.  The Republican Party needs better leadership on the issue of immigration.

Spending too much time fretting over the recall provision in the Arizona Constitution will prevent conservatives from making the adjustments the Pearce recall should catalyze.

Tyler Montague is a lifelong Mesa resident who helped recruit and campaign for Jerry Lewis.  He currently serves as a vice-chair of the LD18 Republicans.

Senator Steve Smith on Future Recall Elections

By Senator Steve Smith

The following opinion piece appeared in the Arizona Republic on December 19th:

The Republican state senator talks about his plan to make it tougher to recall Arizona legislators.

Why do you want to make it more difficult to recall a state lawmaker? 

We just witnessed how the radical left has used the recall system to defeat an opponent they could not and would not have been able to defeat in a standard election. I believe this is a gross misuse of our recall system. I believe one should be recalled because of an egregious act committed or a proven inability to be effective in one’s job.

Do you expect the successful Pearce recall to open the floodgates of more recalls? 

Based on what has been said recently, this is clearly what the radical left wing is trying to do. They went after Russell Pearce and now they stated they are going after Governor Brewer, Sheriff Arpaio, and have threatened to do the same to other Republicans.

Do you think state government was harmed by losing Russell Pearce from the Legislature? 

Absolutely. Russell Pearce is an honest and fair man, and quite frankly, one of the best legislators this state has ever had. Under his leadership last session alone, we now have a jobs bill that will put more Arizonans back to work, a legitimately balanced budget for the first time in years, pension reform and much more.

You want to require signatures from a majority of voters in the district before a recall can be triggered. Why this approach? 

I believe the majority of the people (50 percent plus 1) should decide if an elected official should be recalled or not. Currently, 25 percent of the electorate is needed to initiate a recall, which means typically any political demographic can initiate the recall. The recall process should be a nonpartisan movement in which the majority of the people unify in response to an egregious act by the elected official.

Democrat attorney Paul Eckstein says lawmakers proposing this simply want to protect themselves from recall. Is this your motivation? 

I believe that if the right wing started using the recall system as the left wing has done and continues to do, Democrats like Paul Eckstein would soon agree with my position. Again, although a recall can be initiated for any reason, it should only be used when the majority of the people want it to occur.

Do you think the Pearce recall will soften the Legislature’s approach to immigration? 

No and nor should it. Remember, the people of Arizona have spoken time and again at the ballot box about this issue. Each time there has been a proposition relating to cracking down on illegal aliens, Arizonans by very wide margins (over 70 percent in most instances) have voted in favor of doing so.

Do you think your caucus will be able to work with recall winner Jerry Lewis? 

The Republican caucus is a strong and mighty force with many moral, constitutionally sound, and patriotic leaders. Although Russell Pearce will be greatly missed, I believe the Republican caucus will continue to effectively lead Arizona.

What do you think will be the important consequences of the Pearce recall? 

The biggest consequence of course is the loss of Russell Pearce for this upcoming session. Beyond that, other consequences would be that maybe others will decide to play dirty like the Democrats did and will initiate recalls.

Rep. Vic Williams on Cell Phone Usage While Driving

Arizona State Representative Vic Williams spoke with CBS 5 in response to the NTSB’s recommendation to ban all electronic devices while driving. Representative Williams serves as the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

GOP Iowa Voters Sending a Message Using Ron Paul?

I love posing these questions on Sonoran Alliance because some readers fail to process the point of the post and get themselves in a tizzy.

Here’s the question (and I know our Ron Paul readers are going to love this):

The latest poll out of Iowa shows Ron Paul now leading the pack 23% to Romney at 20% and Gingrich at 14% (link). Are the voters of Iowa trying to send a message to the other nominees? What is that message? And if the premise is true nationally, when will they pull back from this game of political chicken and give Mitt Romney the official nod?

Or, will all this lead to a brokered convention?

Finally, does anyone doubt that the official GOP ticket will be Romney/Rubio?

A state with prosperity, lower taxes is possible

If we could start from scratch and redesign Arizona’s state-government programs in the interest of efficiency, effectiveness and fairness, they would look very different than they do now.

Ideally, state government would provide genuine public goods (in the strictest sense of the economic term “public good”) and provide a social safety net, with minimal harm to taxpayers and minimal drag on economic growth.

Government support for K-12 and college education (which now take up over half of the state budget) would be voucherized, with money going directly to families to empower them to shop among competing private and non-profit schools.

The vouchers would be means-tested so that low-income families received bigger vouchers, with a formula for extra subsidies for children diagnosed as having special needs.

If K-12 vouchers were deposited into tax-exempt education-savings accounts, families would have a strong incentive to bargain for lower tuition and to save and invest excess funds for future education, health and retirement purposes.

AHCCCS/Medicaid, which currently takes up a quarter of the state budget, needs radical reform. By correcting flaws in the federal tax code, we could encourage the vast majority of citizens to buy portable health-insurance coverage through tax-exempt health-savings accounts, with means-tested government support for the poor (including block-granted federal dollars).

For people who are too sick to be easily insurable in low-premium, high-deductible HSA plans, the government could maintain high-risk pools in coordination with private charities.

Along the same lines, unemployment insurance would be based on contributions to private, individual accounts so that individuals saved their own money when they were working and spent their own money when they lost their jobs, thus creating strong incentives to quickly find new jobs.

Many state highways and roads (which often involve public-good holdout problems) could be made self-funding through long-term private concessions to finance, build, maintain and operate new roads and new highway lane-mile capacity.

With the above reforms, Arizona’s general-fund budget would be $9 billion a year. Ideally, that would be funded with a broad-based retail sales-tax rate of less than 4 percent — no personal or corporate income taxes, and no local education property taxes (which currently take up at least half of people’s property-tax bills).

As long as we’re talking about the ideal world, let’s go further and assume that the federal government was limited to its proper functions under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

With a federal government one-fifth of its current size and funded by a 5 percent national retail-sales tax (eliminating federal income, capital gains, dividend and death taxes), Arizona taxpayers could readily afford to replace and reform many of the federal entitlement programs.

By paying for those functions with an additional statewide sales tax of 5 percent, we could limit the total combined federal, state and local sales-tax rate to about 15 percent.

With a total tax burden about 15 percent of GDP, Arizonans would have the most efficient, most pro-growth tax system in the developed world, resulting in real annual per capita economic growth around 3 percent.

At that rate, Arizonans would double their real wealth every 25 years.

The tough question is not whether this would be good for Arizona.

The tough political question is how we get there from here.

Tom Jenney is Arizona director of Americans for Prosperity, which seeks to educate citizens about economic policy.

Recall: Une Nouvelle Forme de COUP D’ETAT ou Bien un GOLPE de ESTADO?

From the French, coup, meaning a quick strike and état meaning state, and playing  on the similarity of  état and the word for head,  tête,  the concept describes a decapitating strike aimed at the top office-holders and leadership of a sitting government in order to quickly insert a rival power structure, a targeted blow at the head of state to enable a minority to upset the status quo maintained by the majority.

With the United States being a unity of fifty states, which under our Constitution function more like independent countries, with their own locally elected governments, a politically partisan recall orchestrated against the duly-elected governor, actively being organized in Arizona and Wisconsin, seems uncomfortably close to fulfilling every criteria of a coup d’état or as it is known in  Central America,  a golpe de estado.

No guns are required; this would be how lawyers and political organizers wage battle, bloodless and cold, not the heat of hand to hand combat on the front steps of the presidency and in the hallways of parliament, in these cases, in the lobbies of the Governor’s Offices and the State Legislatures. The weapon used would be a cynical application of legal processes meant to provide relief in a tyrannical or criminally abusive situation, but in 2011 seized by a disgruntled losing party of 2010 to effectively throw out the results of general elections, and by that, the votes of the majority of the people.

The open bragging during the press conference the day after the recall of Senator Pearce displayed what appeared to be grander objectives than previously argued by the recallers. The organizers and supporters had for months insisted it was a simple issue of Russell Pearce’s character alone, but literally within hours of his defeat, it was exposed that the recall vision went far beyond Russell. As articulated by the organizers of the recall, in their own words as public record, upon contemplation seems uncomfortably like a rather focused strike at the top office holders of the State of Arizona … or in international diplomatic parlance, something like a golpe de estado, to destroy the results of the November 2010 elections. The Recallers named names:

Senator Russell Pearce: President of the AZ Senate
Governor Jan Brewer
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Hmm. The laundry list appearance of it brings to mind dynamics which are common elsewhere in power struggles. The first two represent the highest levels of Arizona government, the governor’s office and the top of the legislative branch. Though not a state-wide office holder, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s closest parallel in an actual independent nation would be a somewhat impartial chief of police or perhaps gendarmerie, not open to being swayed and with some wider popular public support, so in a classic coup d’état someone like him in that sort of position would have been pre-judged by coup plotters as an impediment to making such a strike to stick, and thus marked for removal.

The parallels are disconcerting or should be, but how many Americans have ever seen such political dynamics and would think of them?  What would make any Third World citizen sit up with alarm, goes unnoticed in First World … but many of what are called “Third World” used to be well on their way to “First World” until that first coup d’état smashed the electoral process by which the shared consensus of the people is normally established as to who has lawful authority to govern. Politics no longer was about the will of the People, but about whoever had the brute force to grab and keep the top offices, throwing political calculations into chaos.

Who can make alliances, coalitions, and consensus if the officer holders can be here today, gone tomorrow, with no warning? Shocked political office-holders at all levels react to this arbitrary uncertainty with a siege mentality of self-preservation, not by representing the People, so the entire system is degraded and damaged, top to bottom.

A recall denies an elected official their majority, voter-bestowed, lawful mandate to govern. A politically-motivated recall is never satisfied, because more than one office-holder has to go, demanding voters return again and again to defend their choices, exhausting voters, a cynical abuse of voters’ rights, budgets and energy.

In Wisconsin, the majority of the voters acting on their desire for change from decades of Democrat Party-controlled stagnation decisively put Scott Walker into the governor’s office. Yet, not even twelve months into his term, infuriated Democrats have dumped a massive stack of signatures of petitioners for a recall of him, and are feverishly working on a system-clogging million signatures from people who seemingly absolutely positively cannot live another minute with Walker as governor, an expected over twice the number required for the recall trigger, an astounding figure give the population of the state, and completely counter-intuitive to the plain will of the majority only twelve months ago.

Arizonans, who pooh-pooh any real threat to popular Governor Jan Brewer, should take what’s happening right now in Wisconsin to heart, as an open call to begin collecting signatures against her was made by Recall organizers in their press conference after Pearce’s defeat. The Democrat Party recallers in Wisconsin seem to be using the same script as the recallers here used against Pearce in Arizona; that they do not have any challenger as yet to Scott Walker, but they expect someone will step forward … what, a million signatures and not a thought of who would be governor if the governor is ripped out?

Walker had to campaign to all the people of the state of Wisconsin, he had to convince them he would carry their will through the governor’s office and the majority liked what they heard from him and voted him in. The Democrats want to put in a nobody? Someone the voters don’t know, haven’t had a chance to vet, and who necessarily would be voted in by fewer than the majority which Scott Walker required to win in the general election? How about a political neophyte with no experience, no record to examine, perhaps? Someone who the voters would have no idea what he or she would do once in office? What nonsense! Who would go for that? Russell Pearce banked on that common sense and he’s abruptly out of a job.

One wonders where those million were just last November. The sheer magnitude and practical feasibility of collecting a million signatures in such little time alone should provoke questions. If there were truly that many motivated, disgruntled opposing voters, then Walker wouldn’t have been elected in the first place, but there they are … upstanding Wisconsin residents including Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler could be the means by which a duly elected governor of an American state be ripped from office.

The GAB Petition Review board in Wisconsin overseeing this have publically shrugged; they stated that Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler if signed on the petition will stay on the petition so long as they have a valid Wisconsin zip code, unless Governor Walker challenges them, one by one. With a projected over a million signatures and only so many days, the Democrats seem to be supremely confident it isn’t physically possible for Walker to verify the validity of the signatures to lodge a protest, and the checks and balances of a supposedly impartial petition review board are not in evidence, to the detriment of Governor Walker.

Governor Scott Walker should feel vindicated that his rabid political opponents include the likes of Adolph Hitler, proving once and for all that the socialist Hitler is not and has never been politically or ideologically affiliated with Republicans in any measure, but there is no time to laugh out loud and the threat to our Constitutionally-established system of elections is too grave.

If the Democrats succeed in their recall strike at Walker, to haul him out of office long before his mandated term ends, then the socialist Hitler will have done what no one else has achieved, overthrown the existing political system, risen to power TWICE by raw manipulation of the lawful systems, and from the dead, no less. In Wisconsin, Democrats have actually physically inserted Mickey Mouse into the metaphor for a complete, bad electoral joke.

Ominously for 2012, instead of focusing on the presidential election, every local state and national popularly-elected Republican official is at risk of being embroiled in a two-front political war, harassed from the rear and the front by the Democrats who are increasingly remote from and hostile to the will and spirit of the majority, and cannot provide a political vision and governing competency which attracts voters in normal elections.

Instead of taking a hard look at the validity of their premises and philosophies, Democrats seemed to have cast their lot to invest in recalls, a decidedly undemocratic and tyrannical solution to ballot-box failure, via an increasingly well-oiled and organized blitzkrieg designed to overwhelming and stripping out Republicans in state after state sitting governments, as easily as Hitler’s tanks once overran the horse soldiers of unprepared Poland, a nation whose main fault was that it was prepared for the previous, non-mechanized war, not the one that ground them under the tank treads.   Immigrants, legal and illegal have long viewed America as a haven from this sort of political disaster, how tragic that they are being asked to facilitate the introduction of the chaotic conditions they fled.

Mickey Mouse and Hitler in Wisconsin:


Horizonte: Journalists’ Year in Review

Several local journalists appeared on Arizona’s PBS affiliate KAET on the show Horizonte to discuss 2011’s political happenings. Here is the video featuring Arizona Capitol Times’ Jim Small, KTAR’s Sandra Haros and Horizon’s Mike Sauceda.

Watch for the predictions at the end.

John McCain on CNN’s John King USA

Senator John McCain recently made an appearance on CNN’s John King USA. He discussed his recent Twitter diplomacy with Vladimir Putin, withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and the Republican Presidential candidates.

Scottsdale Mayor Lane Endorses Steve Chucri for Supervisor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 15th, 2011
Contact: Tyler Hudgins

Maricopa County – Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane today endorsed Steve Chucri for County Board of Supervisors.

Mayor Lane, a conservative voice on the Scottsdale City council since 2004, took his leadership to the next level in 2008 when he successfully ran for mayor.

“Steve Chucri is the right choice to move Maricopa County forward with transparent, accountable, and conservative leadership. He will end the senseless bickering and lawsuits and instead re-focus the Board on creating a climate for winning new private sector jobs,” stated Mayor Lane.

Chucri thanked the Mayor for his support: “Mayor Lane works tirelessly for the people of Scottsdale, and his commitment to the community inspires me. I am so grateful to have his support as I campaign to bring accountability and integrity to county government.”

Chucri became President & CEO of the Arizona Restaurant Association (ARA) in 2002, and under his leadership and tireless work ethic, the ARA and restaurant industry in Arizona has enjoyed a substantial growth in sales in what will amount to a nine billion dollar industry in Arizona this year alone.

As President and CEO of the ARA, Chucri represents business owners and sees firsthand how the actions of local, state, and federal governments can positively or negatively impact restaurants and other small businesses in Arizona. Chucri’s experiences as a businessman, husband, and father have given him invaluable insight into the needs of his community and ensure that, as County Supervisor, he will always put people before politics.