by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.

Goldwater Institute

The nation’s high unemployment rate has barely fallen this year, in part because many businesses are waiting for the other shoe to drop from federal health care reform.

At this point, business people can only guess at what new employees will cost in the near future. Already, health care benefits constitute almost 8 percent of the total cost of an employee. Though these costs were rising before, they did so predictably.

Now, the Arizona Department of Administration has warned of a previously unexpected 37 percent increase in state employee health care costs due to federal reform. That follows announcements by John Deere and AT&T of unexpected expenses of $150 million and $1 billion, respectively, also due to the federal health care bill.

Michael Fleisher, president of Bogen Communications in New Jersey, recently wrote of an unexpected and extraordinary 28 percent increase in his company’s health insurance premiums. “As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company’s vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

Similarly, Steve Wynn, the hotel-casino magnate, while discussing new ventures in China, told CNBC, “No one in the (U.S.) business community from one coast to another has any idea what’s next…The uncertainty of the business climate in America is frightening, frightening to everybody, and it is delaying a recovery.”

Add the many thousands of regulations yet to be written to the current almost-3,000 pages of health reform legislation. It’s no wonder that entrepreneurs are skittish. The certainty needed to inspire widespread job growth will only return when this “reform” is stopped.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

While in Congress, JD Hayworth sent out a press release bragging about his ability to bring home the bacon!  And boy did he…to the tune of over $445,000,000. Yep, that is millions.  This must have been before “the scales were removed from his eyes” allowing him to see the true effects of wasteful Washington spending and to become a consistent conservative.

July 29, 2005

Hayworth District’s Transportation Priorities Big Winners In Latest

Authorization Bill

Congressman Steers ‘Earmarked’ Funds Back Home To AZ 

• $3.2 million project from 40th Street to Baseline in Maricopa County; for the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of an I-10 widening 
• $2.4 million for the design and construction of the Rio Salado Pedestrian Bridge in Tempe;
• $2.09 million the new ASU Scottsdale Center for New Technology and Innovation at the intersection of Scottsdale and McDowell roads; to plan design and construct a transit passenger center in Scottsdale to serve
• $5.4 million over four years to construct the East Valley Metro Bus facility in Tempe; and
• $434.4 million through 2009 for the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project

Among the pork” projects…a bridge to go over the now dry Tempe Town Lake:

 The Town Lake Pedestrian Bridge will connect existing bike and pedestrian paths on the north and south sides of Tempe Town Lake, allowing those who continue on the north bank to access the Indian Bend Wash without having to interface with motor vehicles. Those who cross from north to south will be able to link with the Mill Avenue District. This bridge will create a much safer transportation route for runners, walkers, bicyclists and those who use wheelchairs.” (City of Tempe Website, www.tempe.gov, Accessed 5/6/10)

After funds for the bridge were approved in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization Bill, “The Bridge” was derided as wasteful pork barrel spending, and even compared to the infamous “Bridge To Nowhere”.  It got plenty of attention, not so good attention.

The Arizona Republic’s Robert Robb Asked, “Why, Pray Tell, Is It A Federal Responsibility To Build … A Footbridge To Connect Trails Across The Western Bank Of Tempe Town Lake?” “There’s a tradition of pointing to the earmarks in other states as pork. But the real issue isn’t pork. It’s the federal government doing something that should be a state or local responsibility. And you don’t have to look beyond the borders of Arizona for a multitude of examples. Why, pray tell, is it a federal responsibility to build a bicycle-pedestrian bridge at McDowell Road and 35th Avenue in Phoenix, or a footbridge to connect trails across the western bank of Tempe Town Lake?” (Robert Robb, “Republicans Snap Open Taxpayer Wallets Again,” The Arizona Republic, 8/5/05)

In 2008, The East Valley Tribune Editorialized That …Tempe Should Reject Federal Funding For The Bridge, Comparing It To The Infamous “Bridge To Nowhere” In Alaska. “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is now well-known for having once supported what has been called the ‘bridge to nowhere,’ a $400 million proposal for a structure that, if Congress had funded it, would have given about 50 Alaskans on one island road access to a more populated one that is currently reached by a short ferry ride. In the face of this, Tempe city officials might be persuaded to do, regarding a bridge of their own, a similar about-face to the one the Republican vice-presidential nominee did.” (Editorial, “Tempe Should Take A Pass On Bridge Funds,” East Valley Tribune, 9/14/08

The East Valley Tribune’s Le Templar Pointed Out That While The “Bridge To Nowhere” Was Costlier Than The Tempe Bridge, “The Principle Is The Same.” “The Tribune Editorial Board noted today an interesting parallel between the Alaskan issue and a proposed pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake that will be funded mostly from federal dollars set aside in highway funding bills. The scale of the two projects certainly were different ($400 million for the Ketchikan bridge vs. $5.7 million for the Tempe bridge). But the principle is the same, isn’t it?” (Le Templar, “Will Hallman Say ‘No Thanks’ To Tempe Bridge?,” East Valley Tribune (Blog), 9/15/08)

• Templar Noted That While Republican J.D. Hayworth “Was The Bridge’s Primary Champion,” The Bridge Represented The Kind Of “Pork-Barrel Spending” That Another Republican, John McCain, Railed Against. “Still, Arizona Sen. John McCain has built his campaign for president, in part, on his absolute refusal to seek pork-barrel spending that the Tempe bridge seems to represent. (Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., was the bridge’s primary champion.)” (Le Templar, “Will Hallman Say ‘No Thanks’ To Tempe Bridge?,” East Valley Tribune (Blog), 9/15/08)

By Steven Robinson

Recently US Senate candidate Jim Deakin’s home went into foreclosure.  Anyone aware of our nation’s tremendous financial problems can understand and even sympathize with Jim’s financial plight.  No one wants to see anyone go through that painful process.  However, in this case you must take a closer look to understand, that IN SPITE of his ‘conservative rhetoric”, Jim Deakin spends money just like the US government he is so fond of criticizing.  That is to say, he borrows with the “promise to pay in the future” SO he can spend it today!!  In this case, Jim does it with government underwritten  loans. You only have to look at the public records to discover Jim and Adonia Deakin’s spendthrift habits.

Many people who obtain loans do so with the intent to pay down the mortgage and in time, own the home free and clear.  Their goal is to have a home that is debt-free, with no monthly payment.  In theory the federal government would ALSO operate this way, keeping the debt in check, allowing for some valid reasons to borrow, such as war.  However, we know that our federal government has borrowed so much money over the last 40 years to finance outrageous spending, guaranteeing re-election by ‘buying’ support of the voters and the companies to whom they dole out this money. (The Taxpayers future earnings)

So let’s get back to Mr. Deakin. As Jim has stated, he bought his current residence in 1995.  He paid, $148,659 with a VA loan for just over $141K, was for a very nice home in North Phoenix.  Unfortunately Jim endured a divorce and he refinanced the home into his name. The new loan for $164,400 closed in August 1999, borrowing  $25,000 more equity, perhaps used to buy out his ex-wife.  Nothing unusual with this loan.

In 2001, Jim married Adonia, and just one year later, in August 2002, Jim and Adonia obtained a $20,000 Home Equity loan (HELOC) in both their names. Again, there is nothing unusual about this loan; people have used their equity for a variety of purposes.  There is one interesting note: Adonia’s home on East Sequoia Drive was paid off two months later.  We don’t know whether these funds were used to pay off Adonia’s loan, just that the loan was paid off.  More on that later.

However, less than 18 months later, in January 2004, Jim again refinanced, borrowed an ADDITIONAL $32,000 more, with a $216,000 loan.  More significant about this loan is that Jim obtained financing as a “Single man, his sole and separate property”!  NOW the financing activities are getting curious; after all, isn’t Jim married!?

Then, in May, Jim obtained another equity loan (HELOC), THIS time for $54,000, and again as “his sole and separate property”.  Weren’t  Jim and Adonia married?  It’s Confusing, to be sure.  Yet the critical point is that again, Jim is borrowing on his ‘future ability to pay’; and with another $54K to spend.

In May 2005 Adonia sells the home on East Sequoia Drive, she had originally purchased in 1997, and had refinanced in 2000.  This is the loan that was paid off in 2002.  So, when the home sold, a very nice home at that, Adonia cleared over $100,000 at the sale, perhaps more.

Then, in June 2007, Jim and now Adonia, refinanced again!  This time the loan is a WHOPPING $376,000!! After paying off the existing liens, Jim borrowed an additional $106,000!  Again, it’s based on Jim’s ‘future ability to pay’.

So here is the situation, In FIVE short years, beginning in August 2002 through June 2007, Jim and Adonia borrowed an total of additional $212,000.  Furthermore they received another $100K from the sale of Adonia’s original home.  NOW, after MORE THAN DOUBLING the mortgage loan balance, Jim Deakin NOW tells us HE and Adonia are “upside down” in their mortgage!?  Well no wonder! They’ve spent over $300,000 in FIVE short years; by borrowing most of these funds, based on Jim’s ‘future ability to pay’!  This is a 130% increase in his debt over five years.  When you contrast  this with the National Debt over the same time period, the  is ONLY a 10% increase!  Yet Deakin wants to lecture the Congressman about spending? I guess Jim knows how to better manage our country’s finances.

Yet, JUST WHO does Jim Deakin blame for HIS financial difficulties?  In his first press release to Fox10 here is what Jim says: “Small businesses have been struggling because of the burdensome taxation and regulation implemented by both of my opponents.”  What? How did taxation and regulation cause Jim to borrow and spend so much?  He then says, “HUD amendments enacted by my opponents and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allows greedy bankers to create the derivatives market resulting in the crisis we have all experienced since 2008.”  SO THE ‘GREEDY BANKERS’ made him do it!?

No, Mr. Deakin looks for sympathy as he seeks to walk away from his obligations. His home is in foreclosure, NOT because of the economy; BUT due to his irresponsible borrowing!

One thing is for certain; Jim understands and shares the Democrats’  HUGE appetite for debt!  Clearly he borrows and spends money like, well like “like a drunken sailor”; or rather “like a drunken Congress” to coin a phrase!  IS ANYONE beginning to question Jim Deakin’s claims of being conservative?

This begs the question; will Jim Deakin add insult to injury and avail himself of Obama’s government programs to get “Free Money” with subsidized interest and a lower monthly payments, defer part of the principle balance, partial loan forgiveness, or some other taxpayer subsidy?  Is this what Deakin means when he calls himself an “individualist”?  Is THIS why Jim let his mortgage get so far behind in the first place?  Does the term “Huckster” come to mind? ‘Inquiring minds’ want to know.

“The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot – we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population.“ 

Professor Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas at Arlington, founder of La Raza Unida Party; 1995

Here are a couple of little known quotes on immigration from another point of view.

“In recent years a new International System has been developing, oriented toward the establishment of norms and principles of universal jurisdiction, above national sovereignty, in the areas of what is called the New Agenda…we have to confront ….. what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations.”   — Mexican President Vicente Fox Club XXI, Hotel Eurobuilding, Madrid, Spain 5/16/02

“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this.” – Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, Chicago on July 23, 1997

“The effort to unite the economies of the Americas into a single free-trade area began at the Summit of the Americas which was held in December 1994 in Miami. The heads of state and government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA) in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000.” So begins the history of what President George W. Bush called “The Century of the Americas” (Summit of the Americas, 1994).

Lets now consider some of the following goals and objectives of the FTAA as taken from their website:

Share best practices and technologies with respect to increasing citizen participation in the electoral process, including voter education, the modernization and simplification of voter registration…” [remember motor-voter and the ubiquitous early vote by mail]

Support initiatives designed to strengthen linkages among migrant communities abroad and their places of origin and promote cooperative mechanisms that simplify and speed up the transfer of migrant remittances to their country of origin.  [do you get the idea that because Mexico is bankrupt and ungovernable, remittances from the U.S. are about all that's keeping that country stable?]

Support programs of cooperation in immigration procedures for cross-border labor markets and the migration of workers, both in countries of origin and destination, as a means to enhance economic growth in full cognizance of the role that cooperation in education and training can play in mitigating any adverse consequences of the movement of human capital from smaller and less developed states into … [I think you get the idea where that one goes]

Strive to ensure that migrants have access to basic social services, consistent with each country’s internal legal framework… [now you know why AHCCCS is subsidized by the Federal government to some extent]

In Mexico’s official “National Plan of Development 2001-2006″ specific strategies for expanding the nation’s political reach far beyond the U.S. / Mexico border are outlined.  Through out the lengthy document, globalization is frequently referenced, however again, the devil’s in the details.  To achieve their national plan, the government of Mexico reliles on those of its peoples migrating into the United States who, in 2002 sent back to Mexico over $14 billion dollars of hard U.S. currency.  These remittances as of 2006/07 were Mexico’s #1 source of foreign capital, replacing tourism and oil.  This of course isn’t counting drug money pouring into that country.
In 2001 the Mexican National Congress established dual citizenship for all Mexican national living abroad, legal or otherwise.   In the words of Mexican Congressman Manuel de la Cruz, an American citizen elected to the Mexican National Congress in 2002 and residing in California, “There are 23 million Mexicans in the U.S. that need a voice in Mexico.” (Washington Times, Ken Bensinger)

In a 2000 FoxNews interview, Mexican President Vicente Fox made Mexico’s intentions crystal clear:

“I’m talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income.”

Now does it all make more sense?  Now do you have an idea why the Obama Administration is suing the State of Arizona?  Now do you know why our Southern Border is open and our Federal government has no intention of doing anything unless they achieve an Amnesty Program?

And why John McCain is needed back in the U.S. Senate?  Is it beginning to make some sense?  Its not about race and its not about human rights – its about globalism and the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Contact: J.P. Twist
Mobile: 602-689-7647
jp@GosarforCongress.com

Sarah Palin Endorses Dr. Paul Gosar for Congress

“Paul stands firmly behind Governor Jan Brewer’s
efforts to protect Arizonans”

(Prescott, Arizona)  Today, Governor Sarah Palin endorsed Dr. Paul Gosar for Congress. Dr. Paul Gosar is running in the Republican Primary Election in Arizona’s First Congressional District.

In announcing here endorsement of Facebook, Governor Sarah Palin stated:

“I’m also proud to endorse Dr. Paul Gosar for Arizona’s 1st Congressional District. Thankfully, Paul shares our belief that the federal government’s reckless spending is putting us on a dangerous path towards insolvency – and he’s determined to do something about that. In addition to being a proud family man, Paul is a dentist, and as a small business owner running his practice, Paul understands the challenges confronting job creators when DC stifles us with endless mandates, over-regulation, plans to impose new energy taxes, and just generally (and unnecessarily) overreaches into the private sector. The good doctor knows that true job creation comes from the private sector, not government; and he will work to rein in the fed’s long arm and get our economy moving again by getting government out of the way.

Paul stands firmly behind Governor Jan Brewer’s efforts to protect Arizonans, and the rest of us for that matter, by securing the border. He’s endorsed by three of Arizona’s leading sheriffs because they know America needs Dr. Paul Gosar to hold Washington accountable on this imperative national security issue.

Paul is a bold man! He deserves our support, so please join me in helping him help this great country. You can visit his website at www.gosarforcongress.com and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.”

“I am very honored to have received the endorsement and support of Governor Sarah Palin,” said Dr. Paul Gosar. “I ask that Republican voters join her in supporting my campaign and together we will take back Congress.”

Dr. Paul Gosar is a small businessman who knows how to create and protect jobs. He is a dentist and health care provider who has garnered many awards and honors, such as the Arizona Dental Association’s “Dentist of the Year,” and was inducted into the Arizona Dental Association’s Hall of Fame.  He served as the President of both the Northern Arizona Dental Society and the Arizona Dental Association. He also served as the Vice-Chair of the ADA Council on Governmental Affairs.

Dr. Gosar is a 25 year active resident of Flagstaff where he has been married to Maude for 22 years. They have three children.

###

For Immediate Release

Contact:

J.P. Twist

602-689-7647

Jp@gosarforcongress.com

Conservative Talk Show Host, Hugh Hewitt,

Goes for Gosar

Flagstaff, AZ. July 14, 2010: The Gosar for Congress campaign is proud to announce that nationally syndicated Conservative talk show host and New York Times best-selling author Hugh Hewitt has formally endorsed Dr. Paul Gosar in his bid for the United States Congress in Arizona’s First Congressional District.

Hugh Hewitt’s nationally syndicated radio show is heard in more than 120 cities across the United States every weekday afternoon which has an audience estimated at more than 2 million listeners every week. Hewitt is a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, and has been teaching Constitutional Law at Chapman University Law School since it opened in 1995. Professor Hewitt has been a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News Network, and MSNBC, and has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. He has also received three Emmys for his work as co-host of the ground-breaking Life & Times program.  Hewitt also served for nearly six years in the Reagan Administration in a variety of posts, including Assistant Counsel in the White House and Special Assistant to two Attorneys General.

Hewitt, a national leader in Conservative politics, had this to say about his endorsement, “Washington has lost touch. Lost touch with the American people, our founding principles, and the very idea of what it means to be an American.  We have a national debt that is unsustainable, fueled by the largest expansion of government in our history. From socialized medicine, bailouts, and government takeovers, America cannot and will not last if we do not wake up.  That is why I am asking the people of Arizona’s First Congressional District  to join me in supporting Dr. Paul Gosar.  Dr. Gosar is a small businessman with the right common sense, no-nonsense attitude we need to get our country back on track.  I believe he is Arizona’s best chance of defeating the current incumbent who too often has been in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and her leftist agenda of runaway spending and spiraling debt. Paul will bring to Washington the fight for common-sense, free enterprise reforms that focus on real job creation through lower taxes and limited government.”

“I have had the great pleasure of talking with Mr. Hewitt about the important issues facing our country,” said Dr. Gosar. “I am deeply moved that he has seen in me and my message a real chance to take America back from the brink and restore common sense to Washington. His endorsement means a great deal to me and my family.”

Dr. Gosar,  a 25 year resident of Flagstaff, father of three, sports and hunting enthusiast has been traveling all over Congressional District One for the past several months and has enjoyed meeting with supporters who share his belief that his background, and his experience in rural Arizona’s way of life, make him the GOP favorite to unseat Kirkpatrick.

Gosar has been endorsed by the American Dental Political Action Committee, Pinal County Supervisor Bryan Martyn, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Sheriff Paul Babeu, former Sheriff Joe Richards, and NRA past President Bob Corbin to name a few.  He is an Arizona’s former “Dentist of the Year”, who has practiced general dentistry in Flagstaff for more than 25 years.

For more information please go to www.gosarforcongress.com.

-30-

A review of Nancy Young Wright’s website is very revealing. She lists ten issues and here is the gist of what she says:

 Budget:  “. . . She will push to protect funding for education . . .Businesses want a strong educational system . . .We must plan and provide for schools, parks and other infrastructure . . “

 From FY 2000 to FY 2009 (est), total Federal, state, County and local spending on K-12 has increased 88%, or an average of 8.8% per year, about twice the rate of inflation. The data source is the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Per pupil funding has increased 49% or about 4.9% annually, or about 1.5 times the rate of inflation. It appears that, contrary to Nancy Wright Young’s position, the schools are adequately funded. The problem is the school administrators are not using the funds properly.

 Economic Development:  “Nancy believes that the key to improving Arizona’s economy lies in investing in our public schools and universities . . .”

 As stated above, the Legislature is adequately funding the schools. School administration is the problem. In 2009, only 56.9% of the school dollar reached the classroom. The Office of the Auditor general found that declining classroom dollar percentages indicated supplanting, which means that schools administrators are shifting Classroom Site Fund (CSF) monies from the classroom to non-classroom purposes: a violation of State statute. 

 Education:  “. . . Nancy will fight to restore our public schools . . .She will push for higher salaries . . . Once we have rebuilt our schools to an adequate level of funding . . .”

Instead of voting for higher taxes and more money for schools, Nancy Young Wright should be actively looking at where the problem lies: school district administrators. Shifting CSF funds to transportation and other non-classroom categories directly harms the students. The Auditor General has found a clear association between classroom dollars and student achievement. Districts with higher classroom dollar percentages appear to have higher percentages of students who met or exceeded AIMS Math, Reading and Writing Assessments. This association holds true even after controlling for the effects of poverty.

 Energy:  “. . . She supports incentives for solar energy and research for clean alternatives. She supports Green construction . . .”

 Nancy Young Wright’s counterpart, Cheryl Cage, who is running against Al Melvin for State Senate, supports solar.  Ms. Cage stated in an Op-Ed that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars [sic] invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” What Ms. Cage did not say is the solar jobs will be low paying while the nuclear jobs will be high paying. Also, for every solar 13.5 jobs created other industries will lose 30 jobs.  It’s obvious that neither lady has really thought about solar energy and its impact on our economy.

 Environment:  “. . . She will advocate for clean air and water for our state. . .” 

 Well, that’s nice. I bet everyone reading this article will advocate for clean air and water. The question is how do we meet the challenge? How will it be funded? It will have to be executed on a State and Regional basis. How to get there? Nancy Wright Young did not say.

 Health care:  “Nancy supports programs to attract and retain the health care professionals we desperately need.”

 Well, this is nice too. When the Obama health bill passed, 46 million uninsured were added to Medicaid and other government programs. At that moment, the United States suddenly had a physician shortage (“Physician Shortages: How’s That for Hope and Change,” 10/09) of over 54,000 primary care physicians. Training physician takes time and money. So does training Nurse Practitioners and Physician assistants in the numbers now required.

She also failed to discuss health care rationing taking place since ObamaCare was signed into law. Arizona’s AHCCCS is slashing benefits to enrollees over age 21.  Physicians are already refusing new Medicare patients and dropping existing patients due to low reimbursement rates. Medicare Advantage patients will lose their Medicare Advantage benefits due to reduction in Medicare funding by Nancy Wright Young’s Democratic Party. Nancy Wright Young failed to comment on the depth of the problem or propose any solutions. 

 Open Government:  “”Nancy is a strong advocate for citizen participation and will fight to preserve our right to the initiative and referendum process . . .”

 This is a daring stand. Unless I missed something, no one has advocated taking the initiative and referendum away from the people.

 Taxes:  “Nancy believes that Arizona’s entire tax structure must be examined for fairness and stability. Our current budget crises in Arizona can be traced to too much dependency on sales tax and on a lack of diversification in our economy . . . She supports impact fees for the costs of new infrastructure such as roads, sewers, parks and schools to lessen the tax bill to existing residents.”

 Arizona got into trouble with increased spending under Governor Janet Napolitano. I agree with Ms. Wright’s statement that our entire tax structure must be examined for fairness and stability.  States like Texas, Nevada and Florida prosper without an income tax. Why can’t Arizona?

 I also disagree with implementing new impact fees (increased taxes) for costs of new infrastructure. The fees will be passed on to the consumer in the price of the product or commodity. Taxes are too high now.

 Transportation:  “. . . Nancy supports statewide cooperation on a transportation plan that includes alternative transportation, impact  fees for roads, and local control . . . She strongly supports the rail system connecting Tucson and Phoenix and the provision of bio-diesel and alternative fuel stations for the general public.”

 Again, a nice sentiment but clearly not thought out. The increase in ethanol production has caused the price of corn to sky rocket. Tortillas in Mexico almost doubled in price. Bio-diesel and alternative fuels are exotic subjects for which there is no mass of customers. What is needed is serious discussion on what our communities need versus what they can afford. Nancy Young Wright offers no serious discussion.

 Veterans:  “Our veterans deserve our support and adequate resources for medical care, education and continued care . . .”

 Thank God she got this one right.

 Of the ten issues she listed on her web site, Nancy Young Wright had one answer for Budgets, Economic Development and Education: pour more money into public schools.  This is after the Auditor General has found school districts are mismanaging the money they already have. To provide additional money to school districts to mismanage is insane.

 Nancy Young Wright supports solar energy, which will destroy more jobs than it creates. Clearly, she has not seriously thought about the long term effects of alternative energy impacts on our economy.

 She took a breath-taking stand for clean air and water without providing any policy details.

She repeated the problem of physician shortages without stating how many physicians we’re going to need, how we’re going to find them, how we’re going to fund them . . . obviously she has no clue. That’s why she could only state the obvious problem.

 Nancy Young Wright’s position on open government was vacuous. Her response on taxes was higher taxes in the form of impact fees. Her comments on transportation were superficial.

 We want our representatives in Phoenix to think. Where are Nancy Young Wright’s ideas? Where is her ability to think outside the proverbial box and create new solutions?  Higher taxes and pouring more money into education as school administrators mismanage their spending is outrageous.

 Serious issues demand serious thinking by our elected representatives. Nancy Young Wright has demonstrated she is not serious. She is a blinded shallow thinker, narrowly focused on pouring money into public education without accountability, without checks and balances but with sheer abandon.

 Nancy Young Wright is not a serious thinker. The Democratic Party can do better than Nancy Young Wright.

The Arizona Tea Party Movement just released the following video:

We’ve seen Jan Brewer’s inarticulate admonitions to vote for Prop. 100, we’ve seen Goldwater underscore that there is more fat to be cut from government. Now, we see the quality of individuals who support prop 100 in this video.  According to this story, a benighted ASU student who supports Prop 100 decided free speech isn’t a right to be accorded to those he disagrees with.  The student was caught red-handed tearing down anti-Prop 100 signs by Mr. Brandon Trichel.  According to Mr. Trichel, about 80% of the anti-Prop 100 signs have been torn down by those who want to take more money from you to spend on what they deem your money is best spent on.  It is little wonder the No on Prop. 100 campaign looks disorganized when thugs are tearing down the signs.

I can’t urge voters enough to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote NO on Prop. 100.  The election was purposefully held on an odd date (Tuesday, May 18) and was intended to be the only issue on the ballot so that a low voter turnout and voter disinterest would allow highly organized constituencies to confiscate more of your money so they can waste it.  Teachers unions, school administrators, police unions, fire unions, the brainwashed parents of public school students, local government workers, construction contractors that build schools and their associated trade unions, etc. will all turn out on Tuesday if they haven’t already sent in their early ballots to force those least able to afford higher taxes to pay more for their purchases.  Arizonans should know well that the lottery was supposed to fund education, and we have repeatedly voted for bonds and overrides and we have thrown money at education time and again all to no avail.  No matter how much money we throw at education, greedy administrators and entrenched special interests will ensure Arizona’s students remain at the back of the pack.  It’s time to send state government a loud and clear message that it’s time to trim the fat.

Mr. Trichel, I strongly urge you to press charges against the student.  It will teach him that the First Amendment still means something and it will convince future tyrants who hate liberty and the free exchange of ideas to think twice before trampling on the rights of others.  Would this tool or his ilk have mercy for any anti-Prop 100 individuals who were caught tearing down Yes on Prop. 100 signs?

Calculating how much he can spend

According to his campaign brochure, “Konopnicki opposes bigger government and party politics at taxpayer expenses” … Bill has “listened to your concerns … represented YOU and your issues…”  And finally, Bill Supports “… solving the budget problem.” [that he helped create]

The following oldie but goodie from the vault clearly illustrates where this term limited House member’s heart is – and just when Arizona’s economy was beginning to show signs of what was to come.

No wonder your county officials love him, they’re underpaid.

Az House-Senate panel clears way for county officials’ pay
Arizona Capitol Times, May 18, 2007 | by Luige del Puerto

A group of Arizona lawmakers stripped off an amendment to a proposal that would have required elected county officials to vote to accept a pay hike.

The current version of H2102, sponsored by Rep. William Konopnicki, R-5, seeks to raise the annual salary of seven county officials by approximately 13 percent. Affected officials include the county
attorney, assessor, recorder, sheriff, superintendent of schools, supervisors and treasurer.

In the original bill, the county attorney, for example, is guaranteed an increase to $123,678 from $109,450, and the sheriff, an increase to $100,824 from $89,225, beginning January 2009.
On May 15, six lawmakers – three members from each chamber – met in a conference committee and
adopted the House version of H2102. That version, which contains the sponsor’s original intent, now

goes back to the Senate and the House for final votes.
Konopnicki was opposed to the Senate amendment, offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-3. His intent was to
remove the amendment in the conference.

Gould, who represented the Senate side together with Senators Jake Flake, R-5, and Rebecca Rios, D-23, anticipated the move.  Immediately after the House side voted to adopt the House version, Gould offered a verbal amendment to the Senate version of the bill.  The gist of his verbal motion was to require the county board of supervisors to take a majority vote to accept all or part of the proposed pay raise.

 A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Friday, May 7, 2010

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
State finances will be in worse shape in 2014 if the proposed 18 percent increase in the state sales tax passes on May 18, according to long-term projections by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. With Proposition 100′s passage, the deficit in 2014 would be almost $1 billion. Without Prop. 100′s tax increase, the projected 2014 deficit would be $200 million.

These new estimates highlight the fact that Prop. 100 fails to address the state’s long-term structural deficit brought on by too much spending. Past spending and new programs were not adequately funded when they were signed into law. But the damage this caused to the state’s financial stability wasn’t clear for a few years because tax revenues spiked during the real estate bubble. JLBC’s deficit projections assume the state maintains current eligibility requirements for taxpayer-funded health care, which is likely given the new mandates passed under the federal health care bill.

Prop. 100 is, at best, a partial, short-term fix to a long-term problem. Projected deficits in 2014 markedly worsen with the proposition’s passage for one simple reason: The tax increase is supposed to be temporary. This will allow the government to keep spending more than it would otherwise bring in through regular tax collections. In contrast, if Prop.100 is rejected, the state will have to adjust its spending priorities and get spending back in line with the normal tax revenues coming in the door.

Increasing taxes “temporarily” now just assures that we will have this debate again in three years. The only way to permanently solve an over-spending problem is to stop over-spending. That means we must take on the challenge of weeding out ineffective programs and waste and stop asking families to sacrifice so the government doesn’t have to.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

The Goldwater Institute will host a national expert on the U.S. debt crisis in Scottsdale on May 26. Former U.S. comptroller general David Walker will speak about the current situation and he will provide insight on the financial calamity just around the corner if Congress and the president don’t act to get the debt under control. David M. Walker understands better than anyone else the looming threats to this nation’s future from mounting federal debt and entitlement programs. For a decade, Mr. Walker was the nation’s top auditor, alerting Congress to waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars. As United States comptroller general under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Mr. Walker repeatedly warned that out-of-control spending will burden future generations and will create opportunities for foreign powers to manipulate our economy. His early predictions came true so quickly that he was profiled in the documentary “I.O.U.S.A.”

Mr. Walker’s latest book, Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility, has been praised for its candid, nonpartisan assessment of what’s wrong with federal spending and what must be done about it.

On May 26, please join the Goldwater Institute as the nation’s top accountant, David M. Walker, offers an insider’s shocking perspective on the debt crisis facing America.

May 26, 2010
11:30 a.m. Registration
12:00 p.m. Lunch

Scottsdale Plaza Resort
7200 North Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Click here for map.

For more information please visit http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org. To RSVP contact Erica Wrublik at (602) 651-1146 or ewrublik@goldwaterinstitute.org.

GoldwaterInstitute News Release

PHOENIX – Arizona state government has become a victim of the boom-and-bust economic cycle. Policymakers ramp up state spending when tax revenues are rising, then they must rush to cut back programs when the economy contracts and tax revenues fall. Voters expected to stop such yo-yo spending when they amended the Arizona Constitution 30 years ago by capping the annual amount of money the state can spend.

A new study from the Goldwater Institute reports that reform of the spending limit could prevent financial problems like those Arizona is facing today from happening in the future. “Put Arizona on a Real Budget: New Spending Limit Can Restore State’s Fiscal Health” outlines why the state should use population growth and inflation to set the spending limit, instead of the current measure of personal income.

“Arizona needs an effective spending limit that prevents the budget rollercoaster and allows core government services to keep pace with our growing state,” said Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., author of the study and director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Colorado adopted this type of spending limit in 1994. That state has had the greatest reduction in poverty since then and has weathered the current recession better than most states. Colorado voters did suspend the spending limit in 2005 for five years, largely because the limit adopted there prompted state spending growth to fall below population growth and inflation during recessions.

A new Arizona spending limit could prevent that situation by directly tying the limit to the historical sum of population growth and inflation, by allowing voters to circumvent the limit for specific purposes, and by including provisions for a fully funded budget cash reserve and for an emergency fund, the study says.

Arizona’s current spending limit based on the total personal income of everyone in the state has been ineffective, allowing spending to rise and fall rapidly with the economy without ever reaching the annual cap. As a result, Arizona is now in the midst of one of the worst fiscal crises in the country. The state budget expanded by 17 percent in 2006 and just two years later faced a $1.5 billion deficit.

“If a limit based on population growth and inflation had been in place since 2001, the state could have had a $500 million budget surplus instead of a billion dollar deficit when the recession hit in 2007, which would have meant fewer budget reductions now,” Dr. Schlomach said.

Read “Put Arizona on a Real Budget: New Spending Limit Can Restore State’s Fiscal Health” here.

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

Often times, good intentions have dire consequences. On Monday, the Senate is expected to vote on legislation that will have an impact on our nation that could far out way the impact of the healthcare reform package. Originally seen as financial reform, this bill (Sponsored by Senator Chris Dodd) lays out the foundation for a complete reform of the nation’s financial regulatory system. The goal is clear and admirable – to minimize the chances of another financial meltdown. The consequences within the numerous provisions of the 1,400 page bill will in fact have catastrophic affects on consumers and the overall economy.

The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2009 creates a new layer of federal bureaucracy known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On the surface it sounds like a great idea, however, as one digs deeper, they will see that the truth is that this will create a public option in financial reform, much like health care reform. It would result in a government managed financial system to oversee credit and banking. This legislation would limit choices and, in many cases, restrict access to credit for those that need it the most – current and future small businesses owners.

Under the proposed legislation, access to the credit that 26.7 million businesses need would be limited because of the bill’s one-size-fits-all approach to reform. The intended purpose is to protect consumers from unfair practices, but the true effect will be that it will reduce the amount of choices and credit available. The one-size-fits-all philosophy completely negates the fact that many of these small business owners rely on consumer credit to meet payroll, improve and/or expand their businesses, and innovate. Ultimately, it will lead to an increase in business closings, a reduction in job growth and a lack of the entrepreneurial opportunity our country provides.

The last thing we need is another government takeover of an industry. The Democrats will say that we need this type of protection to prevent another financial meltdown. No one argues that, or that changes need to be made, but as in most cases the devil is in the details and the dire consequences of this legislation far out way the good intentions.