Finally Arizona is drawing the line against more federal incursions into Arizona’s sovereignty.  Cap-n-Trade is a disaster to any developed society and to think that Senator McCain remains staunch in his belief that its the right thing to do is completely beyond belief.

The McCain/Palin position from 08

Cap and Trade Nullification

“Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (R) of District 5 needs your help! She and Senators Gould and Grey are the primary sponsors for Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1050. Together, they have made Arizona the fourth state to introduce Cap and Trade nullification legislation, and this bill has “teeth”!

Known as the “Freedom to Breathe Act”, the legislation, if passed, would make it illegal for “..any governmental official to enforce within the borders of the state of Arizona federal laws or federal regulations purporting to restrict intrastate emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide or other greenhouse substances is herewith declared a violation of civil rights and unlawful under Arizona state law.””

Senator Allen addresses the AzFRW on Cap-n-Trade

At last an idea who’s time has come … sure beats missing committee hearings like her left-of-center opponent seems to.  Here is the full story:

http://arizona.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/cap-and-trade-nullification-arizonas-freedom-to-breathe-act/

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Governor Jan Brewer recently sent a letter to U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Arizona’s congressional delegation asking for a change in federal law to allow private companies to operate rest stops on interstate highways. Federal law prevents “automotive service stations or other commercial establishments for serving motor vehicle users to be constructed or located on the rights-of-way of the Interstate System.” Right now, 13 of the state’s 18 roadside rest stops are closed as part of the state’s efforts to save money. They could be re-opened sooner if Governor Brewer’s recommendation were adopted.

In exchange for maintaining clean public restrooms, parking areas, and places for drivers to leave their refuse, companies could operate drink and snack concessions at roadside rest stops. This would be a source of revenue because private companies would have to bid for the privilege of operating within the confines of the rest stops. While federal law should be written to give states maximum flexibility, a state could restrict vendors to selling only food and beverages to minimize taxpayer-subsidized competition with other established businesses.

The federal government already allows for states to contract with private companies to provide vending machines and “motorist call boxes” at interstate rest stops. A change in federal law to allow private food-and-drink concessions would be a win for everybody. Well-written contracts would mean better-maintained facilities and more services for weary travelers.

One thing is for certain. Open roadside rest stops are better than closed roadside rest stops. If letting the private sector operate rest stops means they will stay open, then let the private sector prevail.

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

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
I recently attended a meeting with Maurice McTigue, director of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a former member of the New Zealand Parliament, and a man with wide experience in government reform. Attendance at the meeting, arranged by State Senator Sylvia Allen, should have been required for everyone in our state government.

Prior to comprehensive reforms 20 years ago, New Zealand was an economic mess, suffering from debt, continual deficits, and a stagnating economy. Out of desperation, New Zealand’s political leaders reduced government spending and enacted fundamental, wide-ranging reform. Since then, New Zealand’s national government has seen a single deficit; it was this year and due to the worldwide recession.

One instructive example given by Mr. McTigue concerned agriculture subsidies, which, among other things, were artificially inflating land prices. Everybody knew land prices would collapse when those subsidies ended. Some estimated 31 percent of farmers and at least seven major banks would go bankrupt. Yet, with no bailout or any other government involvement, only one-half of 1 percent of farmers went bankrupt. And not a single bank went under.

An outbreak of “spontaneous economic order,” as Mr. McTigue described it, resulted. Banks re-valued loans to avoid defaults. Farmers renegotiated payment schedules. People figured out how to navigate the changing economy without government intervention.

This example may seem most applicable to federal financial policies in response to the U.S. real estate meltdown; but, the lesson is broader. We commonly hear stories that if Arizona cuts spending on parks or education or health care, our economy will collapse. Yet New Zealand’s experience illustrates that fundamental reform, rethinking, and shrinking of government should be welcomed, not feared.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute 
 
On January 11, Chile was officially invited to join the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Chile will be the OECD’s 31st member and its first from South America. The OECD is largely made up of the world’s richest and most stable economies and Chile’s invitation to join the club wasn’t always a given.

In the early 1970s, Chile’s economy was a basket case not unlike Haiti’s before last week’s earthquake. Abject poverty, rampant inflation, and high unemployment were the norm. There is no denying that Augusto Pinochet was a detestable tyrant, but he did one thing right after he took control of the country: he turned economic policy over to 10 Chilean economists who had been trained at the University of Chicago in the theories of John Locke and Nobel Prize winning economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman.

The government began selling government-owned businesses, deregulating enterprises, and removing wage and price controls. In 1981, Chile’s social security system was privatized under the direction of Jose Pinera, who was given the Goldwater Award for Liberty in 2003 and is the brother of Chile’s just-elected President Sebastian Pinera. These economic policies set the stage for Chile to become South America’s most vibrant and successful economy.

Chile’s economic experience could be instructive to Arizona policymakers. Government-owned enterprises like stadiums and Phoenix’s Sheraton Hotel have become too common. The state still owns huge swaths of land that ought to be sold and put to use creating jobs. The state should also loosen regulations on wages. Arizona has the potential to create the most vibrant economy of any state in the union. We just need to be freed to exercise it.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute

Stroll into a car lot these days and you’re sure to get a warm reception, maybe free popcorn and soft drinks, and definitely plenty of attention. Car dealers are among the businesses hardest-hit by the recession.

So Chandler used-car dealer Tracy Tingue decided he needed to spice things up to attract attention and business. He bought and displayed eye-catching, but clothed, mannequins outside his lot holding “BIG SALE” signs. And it worked–customer visits and sales increased. 

But in the nanny-state that America has become, no clever idea goes unpunished and soon Tingue was cited by Chandler sign enforcers because they decided the mannequins were illegal temporary signs. The Arizona Republic reports Tingue could face criminal misdemeanor charges, a $2,500 fine, and six months in jail.

While the mannequins were rather scantily clad, apparently human sign-walkers wearing the same outfits would be permissible. Tingue previously hired real people, but it cost him $2,800 for a couple of weeks while their plastic counterparts cost only $700.

The upshot is that the same industry upon which millions of dollars in stimulus funding and “cash for clunkers” has been showered still can be laid low by overzealous local bureaucrats. If this is what constitutes criminal economic behavior in Chandler, parents should be forewarned about letting their children operate lemonade stands.

Many Arizona municipalities are reducing budgets and laying off workers, claiming they’re cutting government to its bare essentials. But it seems that Chandler may still have one bureaucrat too many.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Phoenix–Like countless enterprising American immigrants before her, Cindy Vong came up with an inspired business idea.

Ms. Vong, a licensed nail technician who owns LaVie Nail Salon in Gilbert, last year opened a second business called Spa Fish Therapy. The therapy, which is popular in many Asian countries and in other states, uses small Garra Rufa fish imported from China. The fish nibble on the customers’ feet, removing dead skin and providing a relaxing experience in a safe, sanitary environment. Clients paid $30 to plunge their feet into a clean tank filled with fish.

Everything was going swimmingly until an inspection by the Arizona Board of Cosmetology. The Board, which is comprised primarily of members of the profession, decided that the fish were performing pedicures and thus subject to the Board’s regulatory control. Because fish cannot be sterilized, the Board ordered Spa Fish to close, which cost Ms. Vong a substantial financial investment and lost business, leading her to lay off three employees.

The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional litigation today filed a lawsuit against the cosmetology board, charging that the order exceeds the Board’s jurisdiction and violates Ms. Vong’s freedom of enterprise under the state and federal constitutions.

“The Board knows nothing about spa fish therapy, so its reaction is to shut it down,” declared lead attorney Clint Bolick. “The Board’s action is more about protecting cosmetologists from competition than it is about protecting consumers against anything except wet feet and smooth skin.”

“For the couple of months I was allowed to perform the treatment it was very popular” Cindy Vong recounts. “People came from all over, other states, Scottsdale, Tucson. All small businesses should have the freedom to step outside the box and be creative.”

“Some people will view this as a fishy lawsuit,” Mr. Bolick added. “But it affects the economic liberty of every American. Too many small businesses have been destroyed by overzealous regulation. If we have anything to do with it, Cindy Vong’s Spa Fish will not be one of them.”

For more information on Vong v. Sansom and other Goldwater Institute lawsuits visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Arizona’s consumption of electrical power has been growing at about three times the rate of the United States’ as a whole. Unless we open the market to let more suppliers in, Arizonans will be at risk of electricity shortages, spiraling prices and miss out on the benefits of innovation in renewable energy spurred by competition for their business. That’s why the Goldwater Institute recommends restructuring Arizona’s electricity markets for competition.

Restructuring would rewrite the regulations governing Arizona’s electricity market and allow for competition among generators, distributors and retailers of electricity. It would allow entrepreneurs to open new businesses to produce, distribute, and sell electricity. The competitive electricity market in Texas increased generation capacity by 35 percent from 1998 to 2006. In Britain, a similar expansion in capacity ultimately lowered rates 30 percent in 10 years.

Restructuring will also give customers who want to buy and use green energy the freedom to do so. Right now in Arizona, there are homebuilders who want to create green subdivisions which generate and supply their own renewable electricity. Restructuring would make this possible.

Today three experts on electricity restructuring will be at the state Capital to talk about how Arizona could begin a restructuring process and how restructuring could encourage the use of more renewable energy. The discussion is open to the public and we encourage you to join us:
 
Date:   Thursday, November 12, 2009
Time:   10:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Location:   Arizona State House of Representatives, Hearing Room 3, 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix

A successful restructuring effort will unleash entrepreneurs to freely generate more electricity to meet demand and to innovate in developing energy sources of all types, especially green, while maintaining stable prices. Restructuring, when done right, has never failed, indeed it has been successful in Texas, Pennsylvania and Britain. It will succeed here too.

Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

Phoenix–Late yesterday the Goldwater Institute continued its legal challenge of the Arizona Corporation Commission’s authority to impose renewable energy mandates on utility companies and surcharges on consumers to pay for those mandates.

In 2006, the Arizona Corporation Commission passed a rule requiring electricity companies to produce an increasing amount of the power they supply to consumers from renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power. As part of the mandate, the ACC required electricity companies to impose a surcharge on each of their customers. This tax is expected to cost Arizona families and businesses $2.4 billion over the next 15 years.

“These regulations may be the largest intrusion into private business in Arizona’s history, and consumers are picking up the tab,” said Clint Bolick, director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.

The Goldwater Institute filed suit against the ACC because under the Arizona Constitution the Commission’s authority is limited to protecting consumers from excessive energy prices. It does not have the authority to set energy policy, which is the legislature’s role, and it doesn’t have the authority to require utilities to charge more.

The Institute also has weighed in on a related issue involving the Commission. Solar panel manufacturing companies like Tempe-based Solar City are working with school districts to finance solar panels that will provide power to the schools. But the ACC is considering regulating solar panel manufacturers as utility companies, which would increase their costs and add mountains of compliance red tape.

But solar firms do not meet any of the normal conditions that would allow the ACC to regulate them as utilities: solar firms do not produce energy–they are simply facilitators that enable private entities to generate their own energy; the firms are not a “natural monopoly”; and they are not required to provide service–customers choose whether or not they want to buy their service, unlike a traditional electricity company.

“The ACC is trying to impose a 20th Century regulatory structure on 21st Century technology,” continued Bolick. “Instead of command-and-control regulation, government needs to let technology flourish in a free economy. There are plenty of entrepreneurs who would relish the chance to supply green energy to customers who want to buy it.”

This appeal of a September 2009 Maricopa County Superior Court decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals is the latest round in Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission, initially filed by the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation in June 2008.

For more information on this and other Goldwater Institute litigation, visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Clint Bolick and Sandy Bahr
 
Many aspects of environmental and energy policy divide the authors of this column. But we join together to urge the Arizona Corporation Commission not to squelch an innovative approach to solar energy that benefits private and public entities alike.

At issue are solar-service agreements, in which solar companies install and maintain solar panels on schools and other tax-exempt organizations for free. The schools receive power for a low monthly fee over an extended period of time. The solar companies collect renewable-energy tax credits for which tax-exempt entities are not eligible.

Such solar-service agreements are a reality with unlimited potential in Arizona–but only if the commission decides in the coming days not to treat the solar companies as public utilities and subject them to costly and burdensome regulation. The likely effect would be to send the firms packing to other states that do not regulate them like utilities.

Solar companies are not utilities. They are not producing energy; rather, they are facilitators that enable private entities to generate their own energy. They assist entities that could not afford to construct solar facilities and that are unable to access the tax credits that otherwise could make such facilities economically feasible.

Schools across the state, which are copious consumers of energy, are anxious to reap the benefits of solar service agreements. The escalating and constantly gyrating costs of energy can play havoc with a school district’s budget.

The commission’s decision comes down to either expanding its power or accomplishing its renewable energy mission. In this instance, it can best achieve its mission by recognizing that these solar firms should not be treated as utilities.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. Sandy Bahr is chapter director for the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. A longer version of this email ran in the Arizona Republic.

By Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Arizonans are facing down a speeding locomotive of utility rate hikes. This runaway train is fueled both by increasing demand for electricity and by regulation that forces utilities to generate electricity from costly sources. Worse, the current system of state-sanctioned electrical utility monopolies ties consumers to the tracks–giving them no choice but to pay whatever rates are forced upon them.
 
It doesn’t have to be this way, the free market can be unleashed to minimize the pain. Arizona can open up its electrical grid to competition. Opening the grid would let innovative entrepreneurs fulfill the demand for all types of energy, including renewable, green energy. For example, once the electricity market in Texas was restructured for competition, generation capacity increased by 35 percent and much of that was through renewable sources.

By letting entrepreneurs sell electricity from renewable sources to environmentally-minded consumers, competition shifts the costs of green policies to green consumers, keeping rates lower for everyone else. Although the Texas market is still evolving and rates have not yet fallen overall, in Britain’s more mature market, a similar expansion in capacity driven by competition eventually lowered overall rates by 30 percent.
 
Electrical utilities should compete for your-hard earned dollar just like every other business.  And when they do, your rates will stabilize and ultimately go down.
 
Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.