You are here: Home / Archives for Government Reform

Government Contract Rigged for MIHS?

April 9, 2013 by 1 Comment

CASH

Magellan Health Services filed a “formal protest and a lawsuit” against Maricopa Integrated Health Services or MIHS. Magellan had managed a contract that included serving Maricopa County’s poor since 2007. Magellan’s complaint alleges numerous irregularities:

In its protest, Magellan alleges that Mercy Maricopa has “serious conflicts of interest” because Mercy Maricopa intends to both manage the system and provide services, which is prohibited by the contract and by state law. Magellan also claims that Mercy Maricopa should have been ineligible to bid on the contract but that state procurement officials improperly amended the request for proposals “to permit the winning bidder to qualify as an eligible bidder.”

Magellan Arizona CEO Richard Clarke told The Arizona Republic that there were “serious irregularities in the bidding process,” such as the state twice amending the proposal request “at the last moment” to allow bidders to subcontract services, which benefited the Mercy Maricopa proposal.

Magellan also claims that the bids were improperly scored and that “there was an overall bias in favor of the winning bidder.”

For example, Clarke said, both organizations proposed eliminating the separate provider network for children’s treatment and using the administrative savings for direct services. Mercy Maricopa earned points for that portion of its proposal, but Magellan did not, he said. “There are a number of errors like that where it’s really clear to us that the two entities were judged very differently,” he said.

Magellan’s complaint targets not only MIHS but Betsey Bayless, MIHS’ CEO. Bayless has previously been under scrutiny for receiving a $125,000 taxpayer funded pay raise earlier this year, bringing her annual salary to $500,000 - in taxpayer money.  Bayless was viewed by many as a spoiler in the 2002 governor’s race between Matt Salmon and Governor Napolitano. Napolitano won by less than 10,000 votes and in return, Bayless was appointed as director of the Department of Administration. Bayless’ appointment would serve as a launching pad to her lucrative position at MIHS, a position which many view is beyond her qualifications.

The Arizona Republic also states an interesting fact about the state contract:

The contract, worth $2 billion to $3 billion, depending on whether the state expands Medicaid, is the states first for integrated health care, which blends physical- and mental-health treatment.

The difference between $2 billion and $3 billion is staggering. The Arizona Republic understates the amount and ignores the underlying possible nefarious motive for the changing of state law, bidding processes, and why MIHS would want the contract.  To put this into context, the difference between $2 billion and $3 billion is the difference between, say, Jerry Jones and Steven Spielberg.

Another key factor easily glossed over by the Arizona Republic is that MIHS receives nearly $60 million dollars in property taxes each year.  So, you essentially have a taxpayer-subsidized government entity bidding against private providers for the largest behavioral health contract the state has ever offered.  Does that seem fair?

The legal challenge by Magellan will hopefully shed light on the seemingly back door deal and reveal what really took place in the bidding process. When $3 billion in taxpayer dollars is at stake, the people deserve complete transparency on state contracts.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, County Government, Government Reform, State Government, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Ten Reasons to Decline Medicaid Expansion in Arizona

April 2, 2013 by 1 Comment

By Christina Corieri, Heath Care Policy Analyst, Goldwater Institute

1. Expanding Medicaid will cost Arizona hundreds of millions of dollars.

For the first three years, the federal government has promised to cover 100% of the medical costs for the newly eligible Medicaid enrollees, and yet the cost to Arizona’s General Fund for the first year alone would be $154 million. The costs to the state are a result of the fact that the federal reimbursement rate of 100% applies only to the direct medical expenses of the newly eligible enrollees, not the additional administrative costs. Additionally, the 100% reimbursement rate does not apply to those new enrollees who were previously eligible but either did not know it or otherwise failed to enroll.

The true costs to Arizona have been hidden by projections that reflect only the first three years of the expansion, not the later years when the state’s share increases. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the total cost to Arizona for 2014-2019 could be as high as $739 million depending on how many newly eligible people enroll.

2. A supermajority vote is required to authorize new taxes.

In 1992, Arizona voters passed Proposition 108, which requires approval of 2/3 of both chambers of the Legislature to impose a new tax or fee or to increase an existing tax or fee. There is a narrow exception for “fees and assessments that are authorized by statute, but are not prescribed by formula, amount, or limit, and are set by a state officer or agency.”

The proposed Medicaid expansion disregards the spirit and letter of the law. Because the Governor’s office has explicitly prescribed the assessment amount in the proposed budget, the tax increase doesn’t fall within the exception in the law.

If legislators authorize a provider tax by a simple majority vote, they will circumvent the will of the voters and will be vulnerable to a lawsuit that, if successful, will leave the legislature with an expensive Medicaid expansion that lacks a funding mechanism.

3. The federal government is unlikely to maintain promised funding rates.

President Obama has already proposed cutting the promised reimbursement rate to states in his last two budgets.

The Governor’s office has acknowledged that Washington will likely cut its promised funding level. A publication released from the Governor’s office in January entitled Difficult Choice: Expanding Adult Medicaid Coverage states “it is probable that, at some point, the federal government will choose to reduce reimbursements to the states as a consequence of its own fiscal challenges.” In fact, the circuit breaker, which is intended to protect Arizona from additional costs, is not activated until the federal government cuts the reimbursement rate for the newly eligible enrollees to less than 80% – effectively allowing the federal government to double Arizona’s share of the costs before the state would react.

4. The provider tax, which is the proposed funding mechanism for the expansion, could be limited or eliminated.

A provider tax is a scheme by which states tax healthcare providers in order to draw down additional federal matching dollars. The tax paid by healthcare providers is returned to them via increased Medicaid spending in the state or increased Medicaid reimbursement rates to providers.

There are growing calls from both sides of the aisle in Washington to limit or eliminate the ability to assess a provider tax. Attacks have come from President Obama, Majority Whip Durbin (D-IL), Senator Corker (R-TN), House Republicans, and the Simpson Bowles Commission. If the provider tax is limited or eliminated, Arizona will be left holding the bill.

Eliminating or limiting the provider tax will not trigger the circuit breaker despite the fact that it would leave the expansion in place with no funding source besides the general fund.

5. The circuit breaker may not be enforced by a future governor and future legislature.

The circuit breaker is designed to automatically abolish the Medicaid expansion if the federal reimbursement rate for the newly eligible enrollees ever falls below 80%.

If circuit breaker is triggered, the sitting governor and legislature would face a media storm as thousands of people who had become dependent on free government health care were removed from the Medicaid rolls. Arizona has already experienced such a media storm when the state did not drop coverage, but merely froze enrollment for childless adults up to 100% of the federal poverty level in 2011.

6. The Woodwork Effect is likely to be much larger than anticipated.

The federal health care law’s higher reimbursement rate does not apply to the costs associated with those individuals who are newly enrolled but who were previously eligible – this is referred to as the “woodwork effect.”

When Arizona passed Prop 204, it was estimated that roughly 129,000 people would fall into this category. But by 2003 it was approximately 250,000 – almost double the original estimate, costing the state hundreds of millions in unexpected money.

7. Uncompensated care is unlikely to decrease.

The Governor’s office has stated that uncompensated care results in a hidden tax of $2,000 per family per year that is reflected in the family’s insurance premium. Proponents of the expansion claim that it will solve the problem of uncompensated care and eliminate this hidden tax.

The same claims were made by proponents of Prop 204, but neither claim proved true. Uncompensated care increased by an average of 9% a year during the first seven years of the Prop 204 expansion according to a study by the Lewin Group. And the average family premium increased from $8,972 in 2003 to $14,854 in 2011 – a 66% increase. There is no reason to believe the results will be different this time.

8. Cost projections are likely incorrect, as Arizona’s last Medicaid expansion illustrates.

The Prop 204 expansion was four times more expensive than the projected cost each year. For example, in 2008, the cost of covering the Prop 204 population was projected to be $389 million, but the cost was actually $1.623 billion.

9. There is no rush because a state can choose to expand Medicaid at any time.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have made it clear that states may opt into the Medicaid expansion at any time. It would be wise for Arizona to wait and see how the expansion plays out in other states before committing Arizona to an expansion that will be incredibly expensive and difficult to roll back.

10.There is no such thing as free federal money.

This “free federal money” is borrowed money which taxpayers must pay back.

By agreeing to the Medicaid expansion, Arizona legislators would be committing current and future Arizona taxpayers to billions of dollars in new federal debt, and each Arizona legislator who votes for the expansion will be complicit in Washington’s spending problem.

Click here to download “Ten Reasons to Decline Medicaid Expansion in Arizona.”

Filed Under: Economics, Entitlements, Federal Government, Government Reform, Health Care, Legislation, State Government Tagged With: , ,

Congressman Matt Salmon: Medicaid Needs Reform, Not Expansion

March 26, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Matt Salmon

First bill repeals Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, gives states more flexibility 

WASHINGTON—Today, Congressman Matt Salmon (AZ-05) introduced his first piece of legislation in the 113th Congress. Salmon released the following statement regarding H.R. 1404, The Medicaid Expansion Repeal and State Flexibility Act:

“Today, I’m honoring my pledge to fight with everything I have to eliminate Obamacare before it causes more damage to our economy. 

“My first step in this fight addresses Medicaid expansion at the federal level. 

“One of the big-ticket items included in Obamacare was a provision that essentially bribed states to expand their Medicaid eligibility requirements to 138% of the poverty level, and to have the Federal government pay for 100% of the expansion.  As with most other aspects of Obamacare, unwanted strings are attached. 

Obamacare only covers the full cost of this expansion for the initial years, but leaves the onerous federal mandates to stay.”  

“Medicaid needs reform, not expansion.” 

“Instead of more federal mandates, I support giving States the maximum flexibility to provide services to their most vulnerable populations.  My bill strikes the Medicaid expansion from Obamacare, and provides this flexibility without the strings attached. 

“I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to repeal this and more of Obamacare’s harmful federal policies.”

Additional Information:

  • Since the creation of Medicaid in 1965, the focus of this program has been on providing health care to vulnerable low-income individuals.
  • Under current law, the Medicaid expansion is expected to cost Federal and State governments over $500 billion dollars from 2014-2019.
  • Currently, Medicaid provides health care to over 60 million Americans and consumes a growing portion of State and Federal budgets.
  • By adopting the Medicaid expansion to cover up to 138% of the federal poverty level provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), states will be expanding Medicaid to a different population of able-bodied adults, the vast majority of whom are single and without dependents.
  • Adding more people to the already distressed system only further exacerbates Medicaid’s underlying problems.

Click here to read the text of H.R. 1404

Click here to view a video message from Rep. Salmon on H.R. 1404.

YouTube Preview Image

###

Filed Under: Conservatives, Economics, Elected Officials, Federal Budget, Federal Government, Government Reform, Health Care, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

Shining Some Sunlight on the Politics of Power in Arizona

March 19, 2013 by 1 Comment

Recently, I couldn’t help but notice a shared post on Facebook by Arizona Corporation Commissioner; Gary Pierce. Commissioner Pierce publicly gave kudos to one of Sonoran Alliance’s contributing writers, Richard Brinkley, over a column in which Brinkley took Barber to task over Barber’s criticism of the ACC.

Sonoran Alliance oftentimes provides commentary shedding light on the various intersections within the Republican Party.  We react and we forecast.  And we connect dots to inform.

In this post I’d like to expound on Brinkley’s column but also offer some clarity on what free market Republicans should do to remain politically and intellectually honest.

Republican Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce is a good man.  But lately behind the scenes, he appears to be doing the bidding not of ratepayers, but of APS.

Last Thursday’s “atta boy” on Facebook to an online criticism of Congressman Barber’s own critique that the Corporation Commission has moved and is continuing to move to kill the solar industry in Arizona, needs some ideological clarification and even correction.

While I am not in the habit of indirectly applauding messages by Democrats like Ron Barber, Republicans, especially Gary Pierce need to think long and hard about entering corporate cronyism arrangements with monopolistic utility providers like Arizona Public Service.

APS essentially wants to erect barriers to entry and even kill competing solar providers because a flourishing solar industry threatens their position in the market resulting in less control and business for them.

So how can Republicans like Commissioner Pierce argue that the public education monopoly deserves competition via charter schools and school choice but monopolistic utilities like APS should face no competition?

The hypocrisy is Republican policymakers wax eloquently about the evils of subsidizing solar energy but shrink from criticism when confronted about massively subsidizing corporate monopolies like APS. It’s time for Republicans to be intellectually consistent and reject corporate welfare policies altogether.

This brings me to my free market point of clarity. All indications are that over the next year, APS will be working behind the scenes with the Corporation Commission to kill net metering.

What is net metering?

In brief, net metering is the policy of 43 states to allow residential solar customers to sell excess power back to the grid.  It is a sound policy requiring APS to buy this power just as we consumers are limited when we buy power from the government-sanctioned utility companies.

Eliminating net metering would kill the flourishing residential solar market here in Arizona thereby eliminating consumer choice for Arizona energy consumers.  Does Commissioner Gary Pierce really want to take credit for this – eliminating consumer choices – especially in Arizona where sunshine is as much a commodity as oil is in the Middle East?

Over the next year hopefully Commissioner Pierce will realize this is not just bad public policy, it rejects free market core principles that are inherent to the Republican Party.  Competition is good for schools, health care and energy.  Solar energy is an important part of that.  Those businesses are getting off incentives while utilities are not.

We can hope that our GOP returns to taxpayer-friendly, competition-based public policy as we re-engage the citizenry with consistent messaging that will resonate more powerfully in the future. Let’s face it, hugging the 800 pound utility gorilla is bad public policy and bad politics.

Shane Wikfors is the creator and editor of Sonoran Alliance and a longtime Arizona conservative Republican activist. He has been a consultant for and is an advocate of non-subsidized, consumer-based, taxpayer-friendly energy diversity and sustainability.

Filed Under: Energy, Government, Government Reform, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

The Shadow of Big Government

March 4, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By Thomas Purcell

Shadow GovernmentIt’s been said that ennui and employment are simply incompatible. Obviously the person that said that has never lived in a country run by statists.

Yesterday I spoke with an old friend; we worked together for a few years back in the early 90’s during a roaring economy here in Arizona. He was still in the same business today, but was explaining that he was going to leave the business to sell something else, as his business was awful.

He explained some issues revolving around his financial situation, living condition etc. but basically all his problems revolved around a lack of money.

“People just aren’t buying stuff. It’s not 1995 you know” he explained.

As the conversation ended I realized that this was not the first time I heard it. Everywhere people were saying that exact expression, ‘it’s not the 1990’s you know’ or ‘it’s not what it was’. Funny thing though, the President swore his policies were the same as Clinton’s just a few short months ago at the Democratic convention.

Even people who are working are taking on roommates, working two jobs, or doing something more to make ends meet. They stay in unhappy or violent relationships because they have no other place to go; they stay in jobs with bosses they hate because they are uncertain about their prospects for another job, they take less money than they think they are worth to avoid layoffs.

Thomas Purcell

Thomas Purcell

Then they go home at night and sit in front of the TV or computer rather than going out because they are worn out from work and have no money for extras and take their medication to get through another day.

A quiet ennui has settled over the land as we continue to accept less, work more, and feed more of our money to a hungry government. We worry about government inspectors who look over our shoulder, we worry about that report that needs to be filled out for the state, and we read the emails from the boss on the new regulations and change our procedures once again.

This is the legacy of big government. It’s not the promise of a utopic society; it’s the nightmare of government telling us what to do and how to behave. It’s like living with your parents again and working for minimum wage hoping that you can save enough to move out.

We passed laws yesterday to enhance programs to protect women from violence, but fail to address the real issue causing societal unrest—the pressure of working too hard, for too little, with too much oversight—which leads to violence in the first place, not just at home, but at work and school. Like too many rats in cage with too little cheese, eventually the rats being to prey on each other. Men blame women for a feeling of emasculation and so they kill their wives in a fit of rage. School kids blame classmates for being bullied and the schoolmasters for allowing to happen and so they go ballistic and massacre them. Workers ‘go postal’ at the guy in the cubicle next to them as they pop their gum one too many times, or they fail to get that promotion that the boss decides they can’t afford.

How often do we see it happen where men prefer killing everyone rather than go through the financial chaos of divorce? Or criminals commit suicide rather than face the prospect of prison and humiliation?

Instead we decide more programs are necessary and exacerbate the problem. Each new program now costs 5 times what they say, since we have to borrow to pay for it, increase the taxes to compensate, and return the principle at compounding interest. The debt piles up and the pressure piles on. All those little programs are straws that beginning to break the camel’s back—we are bankrupt and are foolishly thinking of cutting the defense of our nation and the safety net for our elderly when we are sick and old.

A pall has fallen over the land; the shadow of big government.

Read more of Thomas Purcell at his blog: www.Thomas-Purcell.com

Filed Under: 2nd Amendment, Conservatives, Culture, Economics, Entitlements, Federal Government, Freedom of Speech, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Political Correctness, Political Parties, Political Science, Spending, Taxation Tagged With:

Ask Senator Bob Worsley to help rein in government employee unions!

February 21, 2013 by 2 Comments

To all LD-25 Republicans!

Government employee unions in Arizona are out of control. 

Government employee unions withhold dues automatically from employee wages, siphon political funds out of paychecks without safeguards for employees who disagree with the unions’ political agendas, and give workers paid time off (on the taxpayer’s dime!) to engage in pro-union lobbying.  Then, the unions meet and confer with elected officials (many of whom they helped elect) in closed-door meetings!  Finally, the unions use all that money and paid time off to lobby for more taxpayer dollars and to block pro-market and pro-consumer reforms such as school choice!

And then there is union political spending, which is heavily partisan.  According to data available at the Secretary of State’s website, government employee unions gave money to the Democrat and Republican parties in a ratio of 48 to 1.  Even in House legislative races, where the unions were reportedly going to go “easy” on Republicans, the ratio of support for Democrats versus Republicans was four to one.  On the Senate side, the partisan spending ratio was 13 to 1. This involuntary, partisan spending by union bosses does not reflect rank-and-file workers’ political views.

ASK BOB WORSLEY TO VOTE FOR UNION REFORM BILLS

State Senator Bob Worsley (R-Mesa/LD25) failed to defend taxpayers and voted against a key union reform bill, Paycheck Protection (SB 1182) on Thursday, February 21.  Please contact him and encourage him to allow vote for Paycheck Protection and ALL of the union reform bills next time around.  Rather than following a failed policy of trying to appease the unions, conservatives need to take away the unions’ political slush funds.  Please contact Sen. Worsley (bworsley@azleg.gov and/or 602-926-) with the following short message: “I am writing/calling to respectfully request that you vote for ALL of the labor reform bills (especially SB 1349 — Paycheck Protection — but also HB 2438, HB 2330, HB 2343 and HB 2026) when they come to floor and/or committee votes.

Paycheck Protection (SB 1349 and HB 2438)  —  Of the labor reforms moving in the Legislature this year, passing Paycheck Protection is the most important objective for 2013.  Aside from the principled objective of protecting workers’ freedom of association, the political impact of Paycheck Protection cannot be overstated.  After Washington passed Paycheck Protection, teacher union PAC funds in that State shrank by 75 percent.  After Utah passed the reform, teacher union political funds shrank by 90 percent.  Paycheck Protection (SB 1349 and HB 2438) would prohibit government employers from taking money from employee’s paychecks for political activities without express annual authorization.

Transparency in government union negotiations (HB 2330)  –  HB 2330 would protect taxpayers by requiring that union collective bargaining (“meet-and-confer”) be subject to the same open meeting laws as other government meetings, including the requirement that meetings be recorded by audiovisual means.

Reform abuses of government union release time (HB 2343)  –  HB 2343 would protect taxpayers by prohibiting governments from giving government workers paid time off (on the taxpayer dime!) for engaging in pro-union lobbying. 

(For more info, contact:  Tom Jenney, AFP-Arizona, www.aztaxpayers.org, tjenney@afphq.org)

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Government Reform, Jobs/Labor, Legislation, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

STOP Medicaid Expansion in Arizona!

February 18, 2013 by 3 Comments

Americans for Prosperity - Arizona

IMPORTANT ACTION ALERT!

To all Arizona Taxpayers and Health Care Consumers,

First, please register now for AFP-Arizona’s debate on the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion, which will take place from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm on Thursday, February 21 at the Goldwater Institute. To register, send an email here (For more info about the debate, scroll down.)

Gov. Jan Brewer and powerful lobbyists are pushing Arizona to impose statewide taxes, including a hospital bed tax, to fund an expansion of Medicaid (AHCCCS) under ObamaCare. It is vitally important for Arizona to stop the proposed Medicaid expansion, because the human and fiscal costs of that expansion would be enormous. TAKE ACTION NOW.

The most important issue in the Medicaid expansion is the human cost. If Arizona were to expand Medicaid, it would railroad at least 250,000 Arizonans into a low-quality, government-managed health insurance system. Medicaid patients not only have worse medical outcomes than patients with private insurance, but often have worse medical outcomes than low-income persons without insurance — even when they have the same medical conditions. Please go to http://tinyurl.com/gottliebwsj to learn more about this important issue.

But the proponents of the expansion are also trying to do an end-run around Prop 108, the most important taxpayer protection ever passed by Arizona voters. Thanks to Prop 108, the Arizona Constitution requires a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to raise taxes. But Medicaid expansion proponents want to allow unelected bureaucrats at AHCCCS to raise state taxes (mainly hospital bed taxes) by $369 million over the next three years — without a two-thirds vote of the Legislature! If Legislators use a simple majority to delegate to bureaucrats the authority to impose gigantic taxes on hospital patients, they will kill Prop 108 and destroy its protections for Arizona taxpayers. If that happens, we will blame those Legislators — not the lawyers and judges who help them carve out a gigantic loophole in Prop 108.

Gov. Brewer told Arizonans to “do the math” on the Medicaid expansion. With all due respect, she should do the same. According to Brewer’s projections, the Arizona Medicaid expansion would cause the (already bankrupt) federal government to spend $3.6 billion over the next three years alone. The people who will pay those taxes include most of the people of Arizona and — thanks to the federal debt — our children and grandchildren.

The current JLBC projection of $325 million per year in tax increases in 2016 (as bad as that is!) hides the actual future cost of the proposed taxes. By 2019, Arizona will have to pick up at least 10 percent of the cost of the expansion, which will be hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually. And the Obama Administration has already proposed several times to shift additional costs of the expansion to the States.

TAKE ACTION!

Please use this link to send a quick and easy email to your Legislators, asking them to resist the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion. At the very least, even if they are tempted to engage in short-term thinking and take a bunch of “free” money from Washington, legislators should comply with the voter-imposed constitutional requirement to raise taxes with a two-thirds majority.   

REGISTER FOR THE DEBATE!

Please register now for AFP-Arizona’s debate on the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion, which will take place from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm on Thursday, February 21 at the Goldwater Institute.

At the event, Michael Cannon of  the Cato Institute, Goldwater Institute health care policy analyst Christina Corieri, and Phoenix surgeon Jeff  Singer will take on any three pro-expansion advocates who want to debate these issues publicly. We have extended the invitation to debate to the Brewer Administration, to Brewer advisers Chuck Coughlin and Peter Burns, AHCCCS director Tom Betlach, Democratic Legislators, and members of the hospital and insurance lobbies. All concerned citizens who wish to attend the debate should RSVP here.

LEARN MORE!

For more about the problems with the proposed Medicaid expansion, read AFP-Arizona’s line-by-line refutation of Gov. Brewer’s pro-expansion arguments in her January 14 speech.

For Liberty,

Tom Jenney
Arizona Director, Americans for Prosperity

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Entitlements, Government Reform, Health Care, Legislation, Special Event, Spending, State Budget, State Government Tagged With: , , ,

Representative Bob Robson – Release HB2026 & HB2330!

February 18, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Conservative activists Marcus Huey just released the following email:

US House Representatives Franks, Schweikert, Salmon and Gosar have sent a letter to Arizona House Speaker Tobin, urging him to debate and vote on the union reform bills currently proposed in the legislature.

As of today, Tobin is still holding these bills. The logic (excuse?) Tobin seems to be using is to wait and see if the AZ Senate passes any union reform bills. If the Senate does not pass union reform bills, then why should the House be bothered?

UnionsThis is not true leadership. A real leader would be working for the distressed taxpayer and rallying his membership to get behind union reform. Passing off excuses and hiding behind the Senate is cowardly and WILL have consequences. If you are a government union supporter then man up and publicly admit it, stop using the system to hide. What happens at the legislature no longer stays in the legislature. Those days are gone.

Please help get Representative Ugenti’s HB2026, Paycheck Protection, and Representative Montenegro’s HB 2330, Union Transparency, moved out of Robson’s Rules Committee so that these important bills can be debated and voted on on the House floor. This is how true Democracy is supposed to work.

Please Email Rep. Robson at: brobson@azleg.gov | 602-926-5549

Also, let’s call Tobin’s bluff and get Senator Griffin’s Paycheck Protection bill SB 1182 approved in the Senate. This bill will be voted on at the beginning of this week. The vote is EXTREMELY close.

Please email and urge the following Senators to vote YES on SB 1182:

Senator Biggs: abiggs@azleg.gov | 602-926-4371

Senator McComish: jmccomish@azleg.gov | 602-926-5898

Senator Crandall: rcrandall@azleg.gov | 602-956-3020

Senator Worsley: bworsley@azleg.gov | 602-926-5760

Time is short – we need to get this done in the next few days or these bills will die!

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Legislation, State Government, Unions Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Representative Warren Petersen Needs Your Help on Three Bills

February 14, 2013 by 1 Comment
I want to make you aware of 3 bills that I am concerned about.   Your involvement can make a big difference.  There is a great website called lifelibertyfreedom.com that will allow you to email all of the legislators of the House and let them know how you feel.
HB2060 – Censure Bill (link)
This bill will allow school board members to censure each other.  This could be a tool used to ruin the reputation of a conservative or a liberal school board member.  School board members should feel free to speak their mind and their concerns whether or not they are in the minority of the board.  Please email the legislature and tell them to vote NO on HB2060.  It will be voted on in the house tomorrow 2/14/13 at 1:30 pm.
HB2343 – Public Employees, compensation for union activity (link)
This bill prohibits taxpayer dollars to be used for union activity.  If you believe union dues and not taxpayer dollars should fund union activities then please email the legislature and tell them to vote YES on HB2343.  It will be heard in committee on 2/19/13.
HB2456 - Revenue allocation districts (link)
This bill passed out of committee and will soon go to the House floor for a vote.  This would allow town councils to draw boundaries around businesses and form a board that will tax the businesses.  The revenue from the businesses will be used by the board for “economic development”.  This bill is a dream come true for big business and the well connected to create taxing districts and then control the funds.  If you don’t believe in business taxing districts then please email the legislature and tell them to vote NO on HB2456.
Small businesses and individuals have little to no voice at the Capitol.  They can’t afford to hire a lobbyist to protect their interest.  We need your help.  Please pick the issues above that you feel are important and use lifelibertyfreedom.com to email every Republican legislator in the house to tell them how you feel.  It will be Republicans that decide if these bills pass or not.  Please do not attack any of the legislators sponsoring the bills but focus on the bill itself.
You can reach State Representative Warren Petersen online.
Filed Under: Education, Elected Officials, Government, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Legislation, State Economy, State Government Tagged With: , ,

Arizona Patriots – Urgent Call to Action – Contact Representative Bob Robson!

February 12, 2013 by 3 Comments

We have two important pro taxpayer bills being held in the House Rules Committee:

HB2026 (Rep. Ugenti) Paycheck Protection & HB2330 (Rep. Montenegro) Transparency in Government Union Negotiations

The Chair of the Rules Committee is Rep. Bob Robson. In last year’s legislative session Robson killed two pro taxpayer bills, by never giving them a hearing.

HB2330 & HB2026 meet Arizona Constitutional requirements and should be sent to the House floor for a vote, not held to die in Committee.

In the last session we scored a stunning victory. Versions of Consolidated Elections had been put forward and defeated in the AZ legislature for over 10 years.

Last session Rep. Ugenti sponsored HB2826, Consolidated Elections, and fought tooth and nail for this bill throughout the entire session. The activist community joined Rep. Ugenti in this battle and responded with hundreds, perhaps over 1,000, phone calls and emails to resistant legislators. In the end we prevailed.

It will take this same effort to get further union reform bills passed as we, unfortunately, still have Republican government union supporting legislative members.

We need HB2330 & HB2026 to continue the effort to level the playing field for the overburdened taxpayer.

It appears that Rep.Robson has chosen to be on the side of the government unions. 

It is up to us to stand up for the hardworking Arizona taxpayer.

PLEASE email and/ or call Rep. Robson, everyday if possible, and tell him that the taxpayers want HB2330 & HB2026 sent out of his Rules Committee immediately.

We need to get this done as quickly as possible.

Rep. Bob Robson: brobson@azleg.gov 602-926-5549 

If Robson is opposed to these bills, he can cast his vote on the House floor along with all of the other State Representatives.

This is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

Thank you again!

Marcus Huey
Arizona Taxpayer

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Legislation, State Government, Unions Tagged With: , ,

Open letter from Nick Dranias, Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment, Goldwater Institute 2/2/13 I

February 3, 2013 by 4 Comments

I have an eight year old and a six year old. With the latest news of an economy possibly sliding back into recession and projections of the federal debt going to 200% of GDP, I am increasingly fearful of what lies in store for them in ten or twelve years. We have to throttle back the in-creasingly exponential use of debt before we run out of time. 49 states have recognized that the power to borrow must be limited to some extent. It is simply stunning that the federal government stands nearly alone in maintaining unlimited  power to “borrow” resources from voiceless future generations. More than that, the federal government’s lack of constitutional constraint on borrowing presents a looming disaster.

Our national approach to debt reminds me of those movies from Science or Discovery Channel of those beautiful seemingly indestructible suspension bridges that start gyrating because of a     minor tremor or breeze and then because of some failed calculation or screwed up angle in construction, the gyrations build into massive waves, and eventually bring the whole bridge    down. The   Founders did a great job in most respects in designing our Constitution–mixing elements of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy to draw on the strengths of each and counterbalance the flaws of each so that our system could handle a heavy load of misguided majorities or minorities–but they forgot about protecting future generations from current generations’ potential for greed when it comes to easy credit. And they forgot about the unique power debt has to create unsustainable bubbles, not just in the economy, but also in government, because of the natural human incentive to live for the “now” at the expense of the future.

We don’t have much time to correct this tragic system design flaw.

There was a time when principled Americans could unite on common ground to solve common problems. Take for example the Arizona Constitution. Over one hundred years ago it imposed a debt limit, banned subsidies, prohibited the private use of public credit, and barred special privileges and immunities. These reforms represented a historic consensus of the Left, the Right and the Middle of its day. It represented lessons learned after a quarter century of Robber Barons abusing the system to subsidize their risky ventures with taxpayer dollars and credit.

It was good public policy whose time had come. Anyone could see it. Good people united to fix a problem. This story was repeated throughout the American West.

The Compact for America, which has already been introduced in state legislatures across the Nation, presents us with the same opportunity to fix a problem that is many orders of magnitude greater than that faced by Arizona’s founders. With our national debt now in excess of 100% of Gross Domestic Product, and projected to hit 200% soon, itis time to stop pointing fingers at      who is responsible. We owe it to the next generation not to win a debate or an election, but to     stop mortgaging their future. The Compact for America provides a way to fix the debt without requiring anyone to compromise their principles on matters of substantive public policy.

You only have to agree that it is wrong to burden nonvoting future generations with our policy choices.

You only have to agree that, if we have to raise more revenue to pay down the debt we’ve run up,  and then we should do so with a flatter, fairer, less invasive, and more  voluntary tax code.

The Compact for America is designed to find common ground to fix a problem that is almost out     of hand. It is a unique non-partisan effort to organize the states quickly and efficiently around  advancing a powerful Balanced Budget Amendment idea. This Amendment would require Washington to secure approval from a majority of state legislatures for any increase in the      federal debt. It would regulate the use of debt to prevent its abuse by decentralizing Washington’s power  to incur debt. By inviting state legislatures into the role of a national board of directors, the Compact for America would finally give thestates a seat at the table in Washington. At the same time, it would ensure national debt policymakers are more accessible to the people and that any increase in the federal debt reflects a broad national consensus.

Equally important, the Compact for America uses anagreement among the states to generate a  ”turn key” approach to originating this powerful Balanced BudgetAmendment. The Compact organizes its member states toapply to Congress for a convention to propose the BBAunder       Article V of the U.S. Constitution; it designates and instructs member state delegates to advance solely the BBA; it specifies the convention location, agenda, committee structure, and rules; it  limits the convention to a single 24 hour session devoted to an up or down vote on the BBA; it prohibits any other agenda and bars every member state from ratifying anything that might be proposed by the convention other than the BBA; and it pre-ratifies the BBA if it is approved by the convention and referred for ratification by Congress. The Compact for America also ensures the convention will be organized only if 38 states join the compact and only if Congress calls the convention in accordance with the Compact. This ensures that nothing happens until both ratification can be achieved without further legislative action and the convention logistics set out  in the Compact obtain the status of both state and federal law and are guaranteed under the Contracts Clause of the  United States Constitution under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

In short, with the Compact for America, we finally have a practical, efficient, targeted and undeniably safe vehicle for originating a BBA.

If you have ten minutes to learn more, please watch the overview video at www.compactforamerica.org.

If you have the time or the financial wherewithal to helpsupport this effort, please let me know.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Constitutional Law, Federal Government, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Reform, State Government, States Rights, Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Phoenix City Councilman Speaks out on Phoenix Food Tax Repeal

January 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Sal DiCiccioPolice and fire cuts were a hoax.

Budget and research numbers released this week show $107 million doled out for pay raises and bonuses.

Not one police officer was hired.

Pay raises could have hired 272 more police officer protecting your family. Average total compensation jumps to over $105,000 per person for over 14,500 employees. Yes you read that correctly. The average cost per employee is over $105,000 for more than 14,000 employees. Mayor Stanton must follow through on his promise to abolish food tax by April, 2013.

No more scare tactics. No more delays. No more phony and tired stories about how police and fire will be cut. I’m not going to let this go.

Promises must be kept.

Read more by Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts – “Is Greg Stanton waffling on food tax repeal?”

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, City Government, Elected Officials, Government Reform, Guest Opinion Tagged With: , , , ,

Arizona AFP Panel Discussion: The Educational Future of American Children

January 8, 2013 by Leave a Comment

AZ_AFPF

Arizona parents, taxpayers and other concerned citizens are invited to an important event about the future of education policy in America. As part of National School Choice Week, the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity Foundation is hosting an expert policy panel on Monday, January 28, from 6:30 to 8:30 pm at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort, 7200 N. Scottsdale Road (just north of Indian Bend). (RSVP information below.)

We have some important ground to cover in this policy discussion, including these topics:

• Of the recent school choice programs that have passed—Education Savings Accounts in Arizona, vouchers in Indiana, parent triggers in California, etc., which are the most important for children?

• Can school choice programs take credit for recent successes in US education?

• What are the biggest challenges to school choice today?

• How can we ensure that school choice successes are not derailed by government intervention?

• How can we ensure that children in traditional district schools are not “left behind” by school choice reforms?

• What special efforts must be made to meetthe needs of students who live in poverty?

• What are the effects of high-stakes government tests on students and teachers?

Our expert panelists will answer these questions and identify the best paths forward to improve our children’s education:

Jason Bedrick, Visiting Scholar, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute

Jonathan Butcher, Education Director, Goldwater Institute

Anthony Cody, Education Blogger, Teachers Lead and Education Week

Matthew Ladner, Senior Advisor, Foundation for Excellence in Education

To attend this event, RSVP to Bill Fathauer at 480-332-0477 or bfathauer@afphq.org. Please tell Bill if you are bringing any guests, and please give him your name, email address and best phone contact. We look forward to seeing you on January 28!

For Liberty, Tom

Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity Foundation

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Debates, Education, Government Reform, Legislation Tagged With: ,

We can stop ObamaCare in Arizona!

November 15, 2012 by 1 Comment

AFP Arizona

Dear Arizona Taxpayer:

On behalf of the Goldwater Institute, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the Arizona chapter ofAmericans for Prosperity, and lots of other great organizations, I am asking you to TAKE ACTION to encourage your Legislators to remain strong in resisting the attempts by Governor Jan Brewer and insurance lobbyists to impose an ObamaCare insurance exchange on Arizona families and businesses.

We have REALLY GOOD NEWS for taxpayers and health care freedom fighters: ObamaCare’s government takeover of American health care is vulnerable in the States. Click here to read a short summary of how States can stand against both the ObamaCare exchanges and the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion. Rather than rolling out the welcome mat for ObamaCare, Arizona needs to work for greater health care freedom. For more, read the Goldwater Institute’s briefing paper on alternatives to ObamaCare.

Under the ObamaCare legislation, States are under no obligation to set up exchanges.  Here are three quick reasons for Arizonans to join us in resisting the imposition of a state-funded exchange:

1) By stopping the exchange, we will stop government from using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private insurance companies.

2) By stopping the exchange, we will keep the exchange from reporting to the IRS individuals who have or do not have health insurance — as required by the ObamaCare legislation.

3) By stopping the exchange, we can prevent Arizona businesses from having to pay a $2,000 fine per worker per year and exempt tens of thousands of Arizonans from the individual mandate’s tax of $2,085 per year for a family of four.

We can win this one!  Nine States have already rejected exchanges: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Please TAKE ACTION to encourage your Legislators to remain strong in resisting the imposition of an ObamaCare insurance exchange on the state of Arizona.

For Liberty, Tom

Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Elected Officials, Federal Government, Government Reform, Health Care, Press Release, State Budget, State Government, States Rights Tagged With: ,

Hugh Hewitt: Memo to the States’ Governors and AGs on The Decision On Obamacare’s Exchanges: Go Churchill Or Go Home

November 14, 2012 by Leave a Comment

By Hugh Hewitt
So brilliant needed to be reposted from Townhall.com.

With the president mobilizing for a barnstorming tour in support of massive tax hikes and to, in effect, overturn last week’s vote to keep the House in GOP hands and the gavel in John Boehner’s –details here on the president’s plan– the GOP is getting organized in the House and laying down markers.

The media is focused on speculation about the “big deal” and the various scandals, but a huge story is brewing that few are watching.

The deadline for the most important political and legal decisions of the near term is being made in every state: Whether or not to establish a state health insurance exchange pursuant to Obamacare. The original deadline for each governor to decide was this Friday, but HHS has graciously given the states another month to decide which poison to pick: Subservience via establishment of a puppet exchange or takeover of the state’s insurance business via a big foot federal health exchange. The rules the feds have dictated the states must follow in making their choice are here.

Yesterday, Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama announced that Alabama would not be establishing the exchange or expanding Medicaid. The latter is not surprising, as the expansion will quickly eat away at state budgets.

But Bentley’s position on the exchange –he joins at least Alaska, Florida and Texas in just saying no– is very welcome and hopefully a model for other Republican governors who must by law indicate their decisions on the exchange set-up by mid-December. Other states ought also to study the example set by Oklahoma, and sue to overturn the Hobbesian choice on exchanges being forced on them.

Only one state lawsuit against the forced choice on health exchanges has been filed –by the Sooners’ AG, and the amended complaint is here– and the national opposition to Obamacare should be looking for other governors to say no and other attorneys general to file similar challenges to the health exchange jam down.

The amended complaint of the State of Oklahoma argues in crucial part:

 

II. The New Claims 

8. In addition to that claim, Plaintiff raises new claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to final federal regulations (the “Final Rule”) that were issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 36B, as added by Section 1401 of the Act, while proceedings in this action were stayed. The Final Rule was issued in contravention of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702; has no basis in any law of the United States; and directly conflicts with the unambiguous language of the very provision of the Internal Revenue Code it purports to interpret.

9. More specifically, Sections 1311 and 1321(c) of the Act allows States to choose to establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange” to operate in the State to facilitate execution of the Act’s key provisions. If a State elects not to establish an Exchange under Section 1311, Section 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create an Exchange to operate in that state.

10. Under the Act, this choice has important consequences for the State’s people and the State’s economy, because health insurance premium tax credits for low-income employed individuals and employer obligations under the Act both depend on which alternative the State chooses. If the State elects to establish its own Exchange, the Federal Government will make “advance payments” of premium tax credits to insurance companies on behalf of some of the State’s residents to subsidize health insurance enrollment through the State-created Exchange, but the payment of the subsidy for even one employee triggers costly obligations on the part of the employer that would not be triggered in a non-electing State, placing the electing State at a competitive disadvantage for jobs and job growth.

11. The Act leaves this policy judgment to each State and provides a mechanism for each State to choose the alternative it thinks is better for its people. The Final Rule upsets this balance by providing, contrary to the Act, that qualifying taxpayers are eligible for premium tax credits and “advance payments” if they enroll for health insurance through the Exchange where they live, regardless of whether it is a State-established Exchange or an HHS-established Exchange. Thus, if the Final Rule is permitted to stand, federal subsidies will be paid under circumstances not authorized by the Congress; employers will be subjected to liabilities and obligations under circumstances not authorized by Congress; and States will be deprived of the opportunity created by the Act to choose for itself whether creating a competitive environment to promote economic and job growth is better for its people than access to federal subsidies.

12. Oklahoma has not established or elected to establish an Exchange, and does not expect to do so. As a result, under the plain terms of the Act, employers in Oklahoma should not be subject to the Employer Mandate because of a determination that an Oklahoma resident employed by the employer in Oklahoma is entitled to advance payment of a premium tax credit because of enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma. However, the Final Rule purports to make such an individual eligible for a premium tax credit based on enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma, with the result that an Oklahoma employer employing such an individual will be exposed to liability under the Employer Mandate under circumstances not provided for under the Act. Thus, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the Final Rule invalid.

 

This is a narrow argument aimed at a specific rule, but there are other arguments to make, including the damage done to federalism when, upon saying no, the enormous supertanker of Obamacare sails into a state’s legal harbor via the federal exchange and smashes all the docks and other ships, displacing not merely the opportunity to run an exchange but destroying countless other state-administered relationships and regulatory balances.

States have to defend themselves against the giant takeover of states’ powers and duties by Obamacare. The decision to “just say no” so has to be taken by mid-December. Encourage your governor to say no and to sue alongside of Oklahoma, perhaps engaging one of the country’s leading experts on structural federalism like Georgetown’s Randy Barnett or my own colleague at Chapman John Eastman to make the arguments to preserve the state’s legislative integrity and their independence from D.C. Not only is this the right way to proceed for a state intent on protecting its citizens from an ever-expanding federal government, it may also present the Supreme Court with a second bite at the Obamacare apple via a different set of issues not dependent on the “is the penalty a tax” debate.

Some states are tired of the fight and their law departments not eager to spend another year battling the DOJ.

But that isn’t their choice. That choice belongs to their governor and their attorney general. Those who don’t choose to fight now cannot expect conservatives to fight for them in the future. Go Churchill or go home.

The status of states’ decision-making on the exchanges is reviewed on a state-by-state basis here.

The left is attempting to declare the Obamacare fight over. It isn’t. It is a 15 round fight. Conservatives won rounds when they elected Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and then Scott Brown after the debate was begun. The left won a round when the law passed was passed, and it won a round when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but conservatives won in that opinion as well, on Medicaid and on the reach of the Commerce Clause.

The left scored a knock-down with the president’s re-election, but the fight isn’t over if the conservatives opposed to the law get up off the canvas and fight on. Oklahoma has, and some states have joined them, though not yet in the courts. They should, and soon. Obamacare was nightmare before the election, and it is a nightmare still. The president’s re-election was manifestly not about Obamacare, and the decision is not final and won’t be until every good argument is made and every opportunity given the Supreme Court to review the law in full.

Even if the legal fight should fail, it is important for federalism that many states pass on becoming puppets of the feds via the state exchanges. The fiasco-in-waiting of the federal exchange should be on the president’s head, with blame not easily shifted to bungling governors. The president broke it, so he should buy and operate it.

But only after every argument has been made, and the Supreme Court offered the opportunity to rule on the law as a whole.

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Political Science, Regulations, State Budget, State Economy, State Government, Town Hall Tagged With: , , ,

The First BBA That Will Check and Balance Washington without Brinkmanship

November 14, 2012 by 1 Comment

By Nick Dranias, Goldwater Institute

According to the Financial Times, at least one U.S. Senator has declared the nation should jump off the fiscal cliff rather than compromise on a budget that brings the national debt under control.

No wonder why Thomas Jefferson said over two hundred years ago, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for their reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.”

With unbridled fiscal brinkmanship in Washington, no doubt the federal government deserves to have its credit cards cut up. But we shouldn’t forget that there is a legitimate role for a reasonable level of debt in responsible hands. That’s why the Balanced Budget Amendment advanced by the Compact for America Initiative would do the next best thing: It would require a majority of state legislatures to approve any increase in federal borrowing above an initial debt limit. In other words, 26 state legislatures would be required to cosign on the federal government’s credit card. In addition, to ensure the initial debt limit is respected, the President would be empowered and required to designate spending cuts when 98% of the debt limit is reached. Congress would then be required to override those designations within 30 days with alternative cuts.

Unlike the current national debt brinksmanship, the Compact for America Initiative is designed to force Washington to agree upon a budget that can command a wide national consensus long before the midnight hour arrives. The Compact for America would keep the nation’s credit rating from being held hostage to a game of chicken between the President and Congress. With the states serving as Congress’ fiscal control board, and the buck stopping at the President’s desk, the Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment Initiative would powerfully check and balance Washington.

This initiative is just the sort of powerful, yet pragmatic reform that could only be originated outside of Washington, D.C. It’s time for the states and the people, led by their Governors, to seize the day.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Financial Times: Don’t Fear the Fiscal Cliff

Compact for America: Home page

U.S. Debt Clock: Home page

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Debt, Government Reform, States Rights

New Ad: Jeff Flake Wants to Work for Arizonans

November 1, 2012 by 3 Comments

Jeff Flake

“All candidates say they’ll reform Washington. I did.” 

PHOENIX – In a new ad released today, Jeff Flake talks about his record of proven reform and fiscal responsibility and asks Arizonans for their support in Tuesday’s election for United States Senate. The ad begins airing today statewide on broadcast and cable television.

Click the image below or this link to view the ad:

YouTube Preview Image

Transcript

JEFF FLAKE: “All candidates say they’ll reform Washington. I did. They say they’ll stop wasteful spending. I have. So you know when I say I’ll fight the liberal, big government agenda in Washington, I will. Some want the title of Senator. I want to be your senator, to work for you. There’s a lot riding on this election. I’m Jeff Flake and I approve this message. And I’d sure appreciate your vote.”

For more information on Jeff Flake and why he’s running for the U.S. Senate, please visit his website at www.JeffFlake.com.

###

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Elected Officials, Federal Government, Government Reform, Political Ad, Press Release Tagged With: , ,
«Older Posts