No New Taxes, No on 204 Releases First Television Ad, “Temporary”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

No New Taxes, No On 204

October 4, 2012

No New Taxes, No on 204 Releases First Television Ad, “Temporary”

PHOENIX – Today, the No New Taxes, No on 204 committee released its first television advertisement titled, “Temporary.” The special interest groups that promised voters that the temporary sales tax increase would expire are now looking to create a permanent $1 billion a year tax increase making Arizona the second highest sales tax state in the nation. Arizona families were promised a temporary tax and can’t afford to fund special interest projects in a still struggling economy.

YouTube Preview Image

 

Script For “Temporary”:

VIDEO TEXT: SPECIAL INTERESTS ARE BACK…PROP 204

VOICEOVER: “The special interests are back…with Prop 204”

VIDEO TEXT: MAKES “TEMPORARY” TAX INCREASES PERMANENT 

Proposition 204

VOICEOVER: “Prop 204 makes those “temporary” tax increases permanent.”

VIDEO TEXT: RAISES TAXES $1 BILLION A YEAR

Arizona Legislative Council, 8/23/12

VOICEOVER: “Prop 204 raises taxes one billion dollars a year.”

VIDEO TEXT: NOT TO SUPPORT STUDENTS

TO FUND BIGGER BUREAUCRACY

NO REAL EDUCATION REFORM

Proposition 204

VOICEOVER: “Not to support students, but to fund bigger bureaucracy…with no education reform…”

VIDEO TEXT: NO GUARENTEE MONEY WILL EVER REACH THE CLASSROOM

VOICEOVER: “…and with no guarantee the money will ever reach the classroom.”

VIDEO TEXT: GIVES ARIZONA SECOND-HIGHEST SALES TAXES IN THE U.S.

The Tax Foundation, 7/31/12

VOICEOVER: “Prop 204 would give Arizona the second highest sales taxes in the US.”

VIDEO TEXT: VOTE NO ON PROP 204

CHECK THE FACTS AT: VOTENOON204.COM

VOICEOVER: “Check the facts for yourself, and vote no on Prop 204.”

# # #

Paid for by No New Taxes, No on 204. Major funding by Americans for Responsible Leadership, Lincoln Heritage Life Insurance Company, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and the Arizona Chapter of NAIOP

Dr. Craig Barrett Speaks Out Against Prop 204

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

No New Taxes, No On Prop 204

October 02, 2012

Dr. Craig Barrett Speaks Out Against Prop 204

Former CEO and Chairman of Intel Corp. Shares Why $1 Billion More in Taxes Won’t Reach the Classrooms

PHOENIX – Dr. Craig Barrett has joined Governor Jan Brewer and State Treasurer Doug Ducey in their outspoken opposition to Prop 204. Barrett currently serves as BASIS School Inc.’s President and Chairman of the Board, and as Chairman of the Arizona Ready Education Council.

“If you’re looking to improve education, there are many systemic things we need to change like the introduction of the Arizona Common Core Standards, paying teachers based on their performance in the classroom, and helping failing schools to improve,”   said Dr. Barrett.  “Prop 204 throws money at education and numerous other special interest groups, but doesn’t tie that money to performance improvements. Unless we fix the system, we won’t see any improvement in results.  I also think sales taxes are the most regressive taxes we have; it puts more strain on the middle class and working poor than any other group. Prop 204 is bad for our economy, and if our recent history is any indication, these dollars will not make it to the classroom and lead to any improvement, like we’re always promised they will.”

Dr. Barrett has been committed to true education reform for a number of years. In 2001 he supported Prop 301, which created the Classroom Site Fund. In 2010, he supported Prop 100, which promised a temporary one cent sales tax increase. Prop 204 breaks that promise.

“Real education reform happens inside the classroom,” added Barrett. “Prop 204 doesn’t address the key areas that will make education better in Arizona. Our tax dollars need to be better focused on attracting, training, rewarding and retaining the best teachers in the nation – that’s what will get us the results we’re looking for.”

Craig Barrett joins a number of business organizations opposing the permanent $1 billion annual tax increase, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, North Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Small Business Association and the Arizona Retailers Association.

# # #

Paid for by No New Taxes, No on 204. Major funding by Americans for Responsible Leadership, Lincoln Heritage Life Insurance Company, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and the Arizona Chapter of NAIOP

Proposition 204 Hurts Arizona’s Middle Class and Low Income Families

 

Proposition 204 disproportionately hurts Arizona’s middle class and low income families

What is a regressive tax? Simply, if a taxes’ burden falls more on the middle class or the poor than those who are wealthy, the tax is considered regressive or disproportionately punitive on those who can least afford it.

Proposition 204 is the perfect example of a regressive tax, targeting those Arizona families that can least afford to pay more for the goods that they need. Proposition 204 makes Arizona’s “temporary” sales tax “permanent,” making Arizona the second highest sales taxed state in America. Incredibly, the only state that has a higher sales tax is Tennessee, a state with no income tax.

Proposition 204 is marketed for education, but the revenue raised is not required to go to teachers or the classroom. In fact, the measure is a grab bag for special interest groups, containing over $100 million dollars for public transit and roads. So, while Proposition 204 contains money for politically connected special interest groups, the revenue raised is coming from those who cannot afford to be politically connected.

By their very nature, sales taxes are regressive because expenses such as clothing, shelter, food, and other household goods tend to be the primary costs of a middle class and low income households’ budget.

That’s why opposition to Proposition 204 is coming from all sides, from those who know it is bad for business and job creation and from those who know it will hurt poor Arizona families. Why are we “permanently” raising taxes on those people who can least afford it? Why are we “permanently” increasing taxes during a time when Arizona’s unemployment rate is still high? Why are we raising taxes under the auspices of education, but sending that revenue to groups not related to education?

There is nothing more important than the education of our children. Arizonans want a bright future for their kids and improving education is an important priority. But, we need real education reforms, not permanently mandated tax increases devoid of independent oversight or accountability.

Proposition 204 is bad for Arizona middle class and low income families, it is bad for teachers, and it is bad for Arizona’s economy. We need to Vote No on Proposition 204.

To learn more about Proposition 204, please visit our Website or our Facebook Page for more information.

There is nothing more important than the education of our children. That is why we oppose Proposition 204, a broken promise to make Arizona’s temporary tax increase “permanent.” Proposition 204 brings a permanent, billion-dollar-per-year price tag to Arizona families. While raising your taxes, Proposition 204 provides no real reform and contains no real accountability.

Arizonans want a bright future for their kids and improving education is an important priority. Although wanting to improve education, throwing money at the problem is not the answer. We need real education reforms, not permanently mandated tax increases devoid of independent oversight.

Additionally, Proposition 204 was written by special interests for special interests.

While Arizonans continue to struggle, do we really want to continue to raise their tax burden? Are we willing to have the second highest sales tax in America?

Arizona needs real education reform and jobs. Proposition 204 will make Arizona less competitive while providing very little benefit to Arizona’s education system.

Proposition 204 is too taxing on Arizona families, Vote No on 204.

 

Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen Releases No on Proposition 204 Op-Ed

Proposition 204 (“Permanent Sales Tax Increase, Education & Transportation”) is NOT the same temporary tax that is in place now and that will expire in 2013. This is a whole new tax with many changes written into the initiative.

Prop 204 is very dangerous, because it changes our constitutional form of government that requires the legislature to appropriate the tax dollars. The tax in place now did not make constitutional changes. Prop 204 decreases the power of the people by taking away their vote to check the legislature in the budgeting process. If Prop 204 passes, it will be nearly impossible for the legislature to change the sales tax rate, one of the highest in the nation, in the future.

Our national economic future is uncertain. Congress is wrestling with their $1.4 trillion budget deficit and the $16 trillion debt, and has passed a budget reduction bill that will cut aid to the state by 9% in 2013. The Arizona Legislature, which is elected by the people and accountable to the people, will need the ability more than ever to appropriate our tax dollars in the best interest of the public’s welfare and safety to keep all state responsibilities functioning.

In addition to the significant structural change in our management of tax money, Prop 204 also has language written into the bill stipulating that the legislature cannot reduce education funding from the 2012 levels going forward. This is reckless, considering that school enrollment can go up or down, and education funding should reflect that reality.

The proposition also has language that gives the Arizona Department of Transportation millions of dollars that can’t be touched and yet there is no reduction in the state gasoline tax that citizens are paying at the pump.

Those who wrote Prop 204 were also generous with other areas concerning welfare and healthcare, throwing millions of dollars into programs, and again tying the hands of the legislature in the budgeting process.

As the teachers union and others talk about the reductions to education these last three years, remember the $3 billion deficit that was brought about by increases in spending that could not be sustained. Between 2008 and 2010, the state lost 33% of its revenue, yet education received a reduction of 3.4%, in comparison to other state agencies which received reductions from 15.8% to 53%.

In 2008, state aid was $5,431 per student. Today it is $5,244. (Schools also receive federal and local dollars we have no control over.) This last session we increased funding to education by $56 million and as revenues improve, the legislature will add more.

The Arizona Legislature worked hard to bring our state budget back into balance. Along with other good legislation we have been able to improve our state economy whereas national job growth is stagnant. Arizona is now Number 4 in the nation for job creation opportunities.

Please vote NO on Prop 204 and protect your ability to have a say in the budgeting process through your elected legislator.

Senator Sylvia Allen
District 5
President pro tempore

# # #

Proposition 204 is the Wrong Choice for Arizona Families

Proponents of Proposition 204 – the so-called Quality Education and Jobs Initiative – have hit the television airwaves with an ad that hides the measure’s wasteful spending and the special interests that back it.

In fact, a large portion of the funds will never see the classroom, but will be redirected to other projects unrelated to education spending.

With the usual appeal to helping the children, the ad hammers the point that the $1 billion a year permanent sales tax hike will put increased education funding out of the reach of state legislators. That is the fatal flaw in the measure. The peoples’ elected representatives will have nothing to say about how the money is spent.

If you read the measure, there is no accountability or oversight on how they money is to be spent either. The legislature will be “exempted” from meaningfully guarding against wasteful spending.

The direct appeal to voter emotions says that Proposition 204 will create a stable and permanent source of funding for K-12 classrooms. What it fails to say is that few of the dollars will actually reach the classroom and millions will go to programs that have nothing to do with education.

Glaringly absent from the ad is any mention of the $100 million a year subsidy that will go directly to road building and public transit. Including the construction industry in the taxpayer-funded payout is a clever way to get contractors to help finance the pro 204 campaign.

Also missing is any mention of funds sent to social service programs. Absent too is mention of the millions that will go to databases and monitoring that bypass the classroom.

Arizona needs real education reform. But Arizona has continued to invest in education, as Arizona’s education funding has increased over time. We have suffered two recessions since 2001 and consequently local and state tax revenue has changed.

Arizona needs transformative education reform and not higher taxes for special interest groups. Proposition 204 is too taxing on Arizona families, please Vote No on Prop 204.

For more information, please visit our Facebook Page.

Arizona Proposition 204 is Bad Policy

Arizona Proposition 204

Arizona Proposition 204 is bad policy. A close look at the fine print in Proposition 204 reveals the true purpose of the initiative.

The measure creates 14 separate carve outs for special interest groups, creating a grab bag of taxpayer funded giveaways. While special interests are getting enriched, Arizona families will see a $1 Billion dollar PERMANENT tax increase. If passed, Arizona will become the second highest sales tax state in America, just behind Tennessee, a state with no income tax.

But, how does Proposition 204 reward politically connected groups? The device is a list of “designated funds” that would dictate how the money is spent. Students and teachers in the classroom are barely in the equation.

Arizonans need only to read the ballot language to see that Prop 204 is more about “pet projects” and less about improving the state’s education system.

CHAPTER 28

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING 
ARTICLE 1. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR STATE INFRASTRUCTURE

28-9301. State infrastructure fund

A. THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE FUND IS ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS, FEDERAL MONIES, PRIVATE GRANTS, GIFTS, CONTRIBUTIONS, DEVISES AND MONIES DEPOSITED IN THE FUND PURSUANT TO SECTION 42- 5029.02. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATED TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURPOSES PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION AND ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35-190 RELATING TO LAPSING OF APPROPRIATIONS.

That’s why Doug Ducey, Arizona’s State Treasurer said, “Prop 204 is genuinely bad policy. It makes a permanent, billion-dollar-a-year spending commitment; it provides for no oversight as to how the money is spent; and it makes no reforms that actually improve accountability or the quality of education. Prop 204 amounts to just throwing money at a problem and hoping that somehow, magically, things will just get better.”

Out of the $1 billion collected every year, only $125 million would go to the state’s general fund for “inflation adjustments” for K-12 education. Then the spending begins to disburse $875 million to the initiative’s pet projects through the designated funds.

  • The largest share, $500 million, goes to something called the quality education and performance fund to assist K-12 schools with “assessment and accountability” rules. Sounds good right? But the ballot language specifically uses the word “may use the monies.” There is no guarantee that they will be used effectively, again no oversight or accountability, just words on a page.
  • The state infrastructure fund gets $100 million for road-building and public transportation.
  • The family stability and self-sufficiency fund receives $100 million to support families living below the poverty level.

That takes care of $700 million projected for the designated funds. The first fund feeds bureaucratic record keeping. The second supports contractors and transportation subsidies. The third funds a social services program outside the purview of education.

The rest of the money — $175 million – goes to fund areas that again lack accountability and oversight.

To fund the $1 billion a year initiative, taxpayers will be forced to pay a one-cent increase in the state’s sales tax rate. The initiative forbids the Governor and State Legislature from any participation in spending the funds.

In fact, Prop 204 prevents the Auditor General, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee or the Governor’s Office from doing any performance audits on how the money raised is to be spent. So much for sunshine and accountability.

If Arizona wants long-term education reform, Proposition 204 is not the answer. Proposition 204 is just too taxing on Arizona families.

To learn more, please visit VoteNoOn204.com or Vote No on 204′s Facebook Page.

Education Policy Expert Vicki Murray Alger to Speak at NE Valley Pachyderm Coalition Meeting

Vicki Murray Alger will be speaking at the NE Valley Pachyderm Coalition meeting Wed, September 12, 2012.

Treat yourself to an informative evening about how the bulk of your non-federal tax dollars are spent and how they SHOULD be spent (or not spent).

We’re looking forward to seeing you there!

Here are the meeting details:

Our September 2012 meeting features the

 
Nationally Renowned Education Policy Expert

Vicki Murray Alger
Talking about the benefits of school choice including a review of Education Benefits for Veterans which is one of the largest school choice activities in our nation’s history.

This is a great opportunity to meet an intelligent, nationally recognized education policy expert and get a first hand account of cutting edge research on education issues from a conservative perspective. When you consider that education spending accounts for the bulk of non-federal taxes we pay, this is a critical issue for taxpayers as well as students and their parents.
As always, there will be plenty of opportunity for questions and answers.


 

Location:

Rock Bottom Brewery at Desert Ridge Marketplace
21001 N Tatum Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85050
(Near intersection of N Tatum and Hwy 101)

Date: Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012. (2nd Wed of Month)
Time: Dinner (order from menu) available at 6 pm.

Meeting from 7-8:30 pm


Contact Information:
RSVP to Howard Levine,
NE Valley Chapter Chairman

Howard_Levine@rocketmail.com , www.pachydermcoalition.com

480-269-1467 

 

NEW REPORT: “Uncertainty” Dominates the Top Five Small-Business Concerns

Only the cost of health insurance is greater

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 22, 2012 — Small-business owners prominently rank “Uncertainty Over Economic Conditions” and “Uncertainty Over Government Actions” as their second and fourth most serious problems in the quadrennial National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) report, Problems and Priorities. The top problem remains “Cost of Health Insurance,” which has historically been the No. 1 problem for small employers; 52 percent labeled it as “critical”. Nearly 40 percent of those surveyed said that economic uncertainty is the most critical problem, followed by 35 percent who identified “Energy Costs, Except Electricity” as critical for their firms; another 35 percent of owners named  “Uncertainty Over Government Actions” as their most critical issue.

“This year’s survey was conducted on the heels of the worst U.S. recession since the 1930s; historically high levels of unemployment and housing foreclosures, and historically low levels of consumer confidence and hiring still plague the small-business community,” said Holly Wade, senior policy analyst and survey author. “The high level of uncertainty cited by small employers helps to explain the sector’s inability to recover and expand. Fears over increasing health insurance costs continue to dominate the list of concerns for small businesses, very much in spite of the president’s health insurance reform law—certainly not an endorsement of the policy, nor a good sign for the future of the sector.”

The “Cost of Health Insurance” has been the top problem for small employers for the 25 years of the survey history. The percent of small-business owners who cite this problem as critical overshadowed the runner-up by 14 percentage points. Health-insurance costs for small firms have risen 103 percent in the last decade, an increase outpacing wages and inflation, and rendering insurance unaffordable for many small-business owners. The contention around the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called “Obamacare,” has proven valid, as it has failed to address the fundamental causes of rising health-care cost while opting to focus on coverage. NFIB challenged the law in the Supreme Court of the United States, after the overwhelming majority of its membership expressed a desire to have it repealed. Without a major refocus of current thinking, the cost of health insurance will almost certainly be the most critical business problem facing small-business owners again in four years.

Uncertainty has emerged as a major hurdle to small-business recovery and growth, prompting the addition of two new problems, “Uncertainty over Economic Conditions” and “Uncertainty over Government Actions” to this year’s survey. Small-business owners ranked these two problems as the second and fourth (respectively) most severe problems facing their businesses. In the last four years, the federal government has enacted significant policy changes of an immense nature; their impact will continue as the regulatory system works to implement new policy directives. Uncertainty also surrounds pending government action on the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the debt ceiling and the federal budget. All of these policy changes create a huge “question mark” for small-business owners, impeding their ability to make short and long-term business decisions.

Other notable survey findings include:

  • As a category, “Taxes” takes the top position as the most severe problem cluster in the 2012 survey, followed by the category “Regulations.” Five of the top 10 most severe problems are tax-related, including “Tax Complexity,” “Frequent Changes to Tax Rules and Regulations,” and “Federal and State Taxes on Business Income.” Comparatively, the most severe problem cluster in 2008 was “Costs.”
  • Regulations and financing lead the problems of increasing importance to small-business owners. “Environmental Regulations” topped the list, rising 20 positions from a rank of 47th in 2008 to 27th in 2012. “Finding Out about Regulatory Requirements” increased 13 positions from a ranking of 38th in 2008 to its current 25th position. “Obtaining Long-Term (five years or more) Business Loans” moved up 17 positions from 73rd to 56th. “Obtaining Short-Term (less than 12 months or revolving) Business Loans” follows moving 14 positions from 72nd to 58th.
  • The least severe problems identified by small-business owners include: “Exporting My Products/Services,” “Undocumented Workers,” “Access to High-Speed Internet.” Exporting, the least severe problem proves critical for three percent of small business owners, virtually unchanged from 2008. “Undocumented Workers” and “Access to High-Speed Internet” are both a critical problem for seven percent of respondents.
  • While the critical nature of some problems increased, for others, it declined, perhaps as a sign of the times. The largest decline in the ranking was “Interest Rates”, falling 30 positions from 32nd to 62nd. Also declining in importance and severity were “Finding and Keeping Skilled Employees” and “Employee Turnover”. Both fell 21 positions from 17th to 38th for the former and 51st to 72nd for the latter.

While small-business owners tended to evaluate most problems in the 2012 survey as they did in 2008, the major changes that did occur are largely related to the recession and increased regulations. The magnitude and duration of the recession significantly altered the small-business landscape along with the problems owners now face in operating their businesses. The four years between the last edition published in 2008 and the current edition saw a near collapse of the financial system and housing market, unprecedented government bailouts of the banking and automotive industries, and the enactment of massive economic stimulus programs. While the economy is over two years into its recovery, progress is painfully slow as economic headwinds and uncertainty remain. The effects of the recession and fragile economic recovery are reflected in owners’ assessment of business problems.

The findings of this publication are based on the responses of 3,856 NFIB small-business owner/members to a mail survey conducted from mid-January through April 2012. A sample of 23,000 members was drawn for a response rate of 17 percent. Owners evaluated 75 potential business problems individually and assessed their severity on a scale of “1” for a “Critical Problem” to “7” for “Not a Problem.” A mean (average) was calculated from the responses for each problem. Problems are ranked by mean score. A copy of the report is available at http://nfib.com/priorities. More information about the NFIB Small Business Research Foundation is available at http://nfib.com/research.

# # #

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C., and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

Kirk Adams: Matt Salmon calls support for the Chicago Cubs a tax increase?

In a flailing attempt to discredit Kirk Adams’ sterling conservative record, Matt Salmon recently sent out a mail piece charging that a fee on baseball tickets was a tax increase.

Here’s the truth:

Tourism plays an important role in our economy, and Cactus League spring training baseball attracts thousands of visitors to Mesa every year. In 2010, Mesa Mayor Scott Smith asked the Arizona legislature to support the development of a new spring training stadium for the Chicago Cubs.

To ensure that Arizona taxpayers would NOT be forced to fund the stadium, the Mayor asked the legislature to create a fee on tickets so that baseball fans who chose to attend the games would pay for the costs.

The bill that Matt Salmon cited in his baseless attack, HB2736, protected Arizona taxpayers by ensuring that only stadium users paid for the Cactus League Development Fund which financed the project.

About the Salmon campaign’s obvious confusion on the issue, Kirk Adams said,

“Mayor Smith has a solid record and a bright future. I’m surprised that Matt Salmon would attempt to tarnish Mayor Smith’s record by accusing him of leading an effort to raise taxes.

But I’ll cut Matt some slack when it comes to his unfamiliarity with recent local issues in Mesa—after all, he’s been a Washington-based lobbyist for over a decade and Matt was home in D.C. during the time that Mayor Smith and I were working together on this important effort.”

The Facts:

    • HB2736 created the Cactus League Development Fund for the purpose of financing the development and renovation of baseball spring training facilities. Watch Mayor Smith’s eloquent explanation of the bill here at 1:31 http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=6780
    • To finance the Cactus League Development Fund, HB2736 enabled the collection of a surcharge on the price of admission to spring training baseball events.
    • HB2736 did not increase taxes.
    • The Arizona constitution requires a 2/3 vote by the legislature to increase taxes. Any legislation that increases taxes or state revenues must meet this threshold. HB2736 did not trigger this requirement because it was not a tax increase.

 

###

Rep. Paul Gosar Supports Legislation to End Energy Tax Subsidies

The Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act Ends the Federal Practice of Picking Winners and Losers in the Energy Sector 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Congressmen Paul Gosar (R-AZ) announced he has cosponsored the Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act (H.R.3308) introduced by fellow freshman Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS).  H.R. 3308 will reduce government interference in the energy sector by repealing all energy tax credits.

“The federal government has no business picking winners and losers in the energy sector,” said Rep. Gosar.  “Mr. Pompeo’s bill eliminates these wasteful subsidies while concurrently lowering taxes for job creators.  Our nation can create jobs and implement an all-of-the-above energy strategy without subsidizing any form of energy production.”

As one of the top watchdogs on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Congressman Gosar has fought to expose the Department of Energy’s mismanagement of the Management of Loan Guarantee Programs.  The investigations into Solyndra have made it clear that the Obama Administration ignored merit-based considerations in order to push a political agenda, leaving the taxpayer still on the hook for millions of dollars.

Additionally, Congressman Gosar has voted to end the federal government’s practice of picking winners and losers in the energy sector.  Last month, hevoted to eliminate the account used by the Department of Energy to issue its preferential loans and put the $1.45 billion in savings toward deficit reduction.  He also voted to block all future loans under Section 1703 of the Title 17 loan guarantee program.

Last week, Congressman Gosar introduced The Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act of 2012legislation that streamlines permitting for renewable energy projects on public lands, facilitates job creation, and reduces the deficit.  The Congressman knows our nation can put forth a bold all-of-the-above energy plan without subsidizing any form of energy production.

 

###

Travis Grantham: No More Talk, Stop the Wasteful Spending

Tempe – Travis Grantham, candidate for Congress in Arizona’s 9th Congressional District released the following statement today in his efforts to call on Congress to stop talking and start taking action when it comes to stopping the wasteful spending.

“Yesterday I discussed the negative implications baseline budgeting has on the American tax payer and how it is a back door way for Washington D.C. to increase spending while masking the fact that they are actually increasing spending. This type of practice must stop.”

“However, we continue to hear politicians in Washington D.C. call for spending cuts but have yet to see any of their calls come to fruition. Every day our debt clock is ticking. We need action, not talk.”

“The Obama administration’s exuberant spending continues to expose how laden with waste the stimulus plan was. The waste continues to pile up, and the Democrats erroneously continue to advocate that the only path to economic recovery is to increase taxes on the American people. They already have increased our debt that generations after us will be paying back and now they want more of your money. This is illogical and will only be detrimental to Americans who are trying to survive in this economy.”

“As a member of the United States Congress I vow to rein in spending. I will be a voice against any practice relative to baseline budgeting or any policy that creates a fictitious budget only meant to suit the special interests in Washington D.C.”

 

###

Did Matt Salmon lobby for pork?

We know Matt Salmon lobbied for Obamacare, but did Matt Salmon also lobby for pork? 

Matt Salmon continues to leave many unanswered questions about his role in lobbying for “access to and coverage of specialty pharmaceuticals” in Obamacare. Mr. Salmon lobbied on behalf of two multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies that are members of PhRMA, a group that spent $150 million to help pass Obamacare. These two companies were loyal clients of Mr. Salmon’s, following him from Policy Impact Communications to Upstream Consulting the lobbying firm that Mr. Salmon founded.

Now we learn that during this same time, Matt Salmon entered into a $300,000 lobbying contract to bring pork barrel stimulus money to the city of El Mirage. At a town hall meeting the Mayor of El Mirage explained to residents why the city hired lobbyist Matt Salmon, “$300,000 is also a drop in the bucket compared to the stimulus funds that other cities…receive. The reason they receive that money is because every other city has a lobbyist firm…has representatives that work for them at the state and at the federal level getting money to bring back to their city…we all hear of them as pet projects, those sorts of things.”

YouTube Preview Image

###

Top Democrats Ready to Push Economy Over Fiscal Cliff and Risk a Recession, Is Ann Kirkpatrick?

Democrats Wage Political War For Tax Increases to Feed Their Spending Addiction and 700,000 Jobs are the Casualties 

WASHINGTON — Washington Democrats have proposed their fiscal plan – to attack job creators with new tax hikes to fuel their massive government spending addiction. As Democrat leaders champion devastating tax hikes in order to grow the government even more, will Ann Kirkpatrick join their cause?

“Democrats are so addicted to spending that they’re doubling down on sky high tax increases on small businesses that could send the economy spiraling further into financial decline,” said NRCC Communications Director Paul Lindsay. “Will Ann Kirkpatrick stand up against her party’s political ploys and demand that tax hikes for small businesses be taken off the table?”

A newly-released Ernest & Young report exposed that Democrats’ proposed tax hikes will devastate the economy and cost more than 700,000 jobs. (Robert Carroll & Gerald Prante, “Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013,” Ernst & Young LLP, 7/17/2012)

But Senate Democrat Leader Patty Murray refuses to give up her party’s addiction to limitless spending sprees and government takeovers in favor of economic stability:

“’If we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013,’ Murray plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post.” (Lori Montgomery, “Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes,” Washington Post, 7/15/2012)

According to the CBO, if Washington Democrats were successful in pushing America over a fiscal cliff, the economy could fall into a recession as early as next year:

“A stalemate over how to tackle a series of fiscal deadlines at year’s end would likely push the United States economy into recession in the first half of next year, the Congressional Budget Office warned on Tuesday. A wave of U.S. tax hikes and automatic spending cuts – dubbed the “fiscal cliff” – are set to take effect in January unless Congress and the White House agree on ways to delay or revise at least some of them.” (“’Fiscal cliff’ could cause U.S. recession: CBO,” Reuters, 5/23/2012)

Risky Business: Understanding the Business Side of Government Bonds

By Mark Flatten, Goldwater Institute

Three law firms dominate the legal work that goes into issuing state and local government debt in Arizona, according to a review of bond documents done by the Goldwater Institute. That finding is consistent with what bond lawyers and government officials have said in interviews about the industry.

Near the end of the lengthy documents that describe government bond offerings to investors is a section called “relationships among the parties.” This is where potential conflicts of interest among the law firms and bond houses involved in the deal are disclosed. The number of names that appear is small but the relationships are extensive.

The Goldwater Institute analyzed the official statements in 75 recent bond sales with a total value of almost $6.8 billion, issued by a variety of state and local governments, to determine who profits from putting the deals together. All but one of those issues involved at least one of the three law firms: Greenberg Traurig, Gust Rosenfeld or Squire Sanders. Two-thirds of the transactions involved more than one of the three firms in different roles.

Two other firms were involved in far fewer transactions, but did work for agencies such as the City of Tucson and state universities that issue large amounts of debt. Those firms are Ballard Spahr and Kutak Rock.

There is nothing illegal or unethical about the close relationships among the law firms, the bond houses they work for and the governments that issue the debt, as long as those relationships are disclosed and conflict-of-interest waivers are obtained.

To read the entire Watchdog Report, click here.

Judge rejects Treasurer’s attempt to stop $975,000 payout for “stress” to County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox

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
Tuesday, July 10, 2012

In an outrageous decision reeking of liberal judicial activism, federal district court court judge Neil Wake has rejected County Treasure Hos Hoskins’ motion to intervene and stop the taxpayers from giving corrupt County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox $975,000 for “stress.” Even the other County Supervisors oppose the payout! Wake is the same judge who ruled that Sheriff Arpaio broke the law in 2008 over jail conditions. He is predisposed against Arpaio.

Judge Wake rejects Hoskins’ motion saying, “It is doubtful that Hoskins can bring such a motion.” EXCUSE ME? He says it is doubtful yet rules against it? What kind of law is that? If there is room for disagreement, the judge could have come down on the side of allowing Hoskins’ motion. Clearly the judge has an agenda to choose to come down on the side of giving our tax dollars to slimy Wilcox.

Judge Wake awarded even more attorneys fees and costs to Wilcox’s attorneys relating to Hoskins’ motion to intervene. When is the gravy train going to end for this greedy, corrupt Supervisor? Are there any grown-ups in the judiciary or are they all part of the gravy train?

There is an alternative to corrupt Supervisor Wilcox in this year’s election. Tea Party activist Ron Harders is running a write-in campaign against her. He needs around 250 people to write him in on their ballots during the primary election in order to get on the ballot. Then he will be on the general election ballot. Get the word out. This disgusting leech on the taxpayers needs to be removed from office.

Ron Harders
Ron Harders

A Tale of Two Cities

By Stephen Slivinski

It was almost like the gold rush all over again in Stockton, California. With booming property values and tax revenue during the past decade, city coffers were flush and cash was flying to sports arenas, retail centers, office buildings, and parking garages.

Today, Stockton faces bankruptcy. Property values have plummeted, blowing a massive hole in the city budget, and police and fire forces have been cut by around 30 percent. The newly built city hall – which never officially opened – has been repossessed after bond defaults by the city. Bond holders have also repossessed a few new parking garages. The arena – mainly a home to the local minor league hockey team – is under-booked for the foreseeable future. The city has dwindling reserves and is expected to run a budget deficit of around $26 million this year.

Stockton will be entering Chapter 9 bankruptcy to reorganize its hemorrhaging balance sheet and renegotiate with public-sector unions that have heaped hundreds of millions in unfunded liabilities and unsustainable short-term costs on the city. It will be the biggest American city to ever declare bankruptcy.

The tale of Stockton is also a cautionary tale to many cities across the nation that heavily indebted taxpayers during the boom years, including Glendale, Arizona. Just last weekend, for instance, the Arizona Republic reported that the city might need to pledge city hall and the police station as collateral for more bonds.

Like Stockton, Glendale gambled on retail centers and sports arenas. In both cases, much of it was fueled by public debt. Glendale’s overall long-term bonded debt load is just over $1 billion, according to data from the Arizona Department of Revenue. That’s $4,341 per resident of Glendale (over $17,000 for a family of four). By contrast, Stockton’s bonded debt was around $700 million, or around $2,400 per resident – about half of Glendale’s.

Of course there are plenty of differences between the cities. But it’s important to note that for many cities across America, avoiding Stockton’s fate might be simply a matter of making sure they don’t over-leverage themselves during boom periods in the first place.

Constitutional debt limits can provide such a barrier, but in Arizona and many other states, judges have eviscerated debt limits. Policymakers across the nation owe it to taxpayers to consider the importance of limiting public debt, particularly for risky ventures that provide more benefit to private interests or government unions than the public at large.

Stephen Slivinski is a senior economist with the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Living Debt-Free: Restoring Arizona’s Commitment to its Constitutional Debt Limit (PDF)

Sacramento BeeVote Tuesday could send Stockton to bankruptcy court

Arizona RepublicGlendale weighs options to cover sports-related debt

County Supervisors’ attacks on other county officials cost taxpayers $28 million so far

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
Wednesday, June 20, 2012

$975,000 went to pay off Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox;  $11 million over Supervisors illegally stealing County Attorney’s Civil Division

Costs artificially higher due to Supervisors insisting on hiring outside counsel for everything due to alleged “conflicts of interest”

As a result of the Maricopa County Supervisors attacking other elected officials beginning in 2008 and attempting to strip their budgets in order to steer more funding to themselves, taxpayers are on the hook for a cool $28 million.
Over $3 million has been spent defending the County from lawsuits filed by defendants who Sheriff Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas tried to prosecute. Conley Wolfswinkel, a convicted felon and former business partner of Supervisor Don Stapley, Stapley, Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, and a few others including judges who ruled against Arpaio/Thomas have all filed lawsuits against the County demanding millions of dollars for “stress.” So far there have been several large “settlements” (ahem – payoffs) paid out. Five defendants have received “settlements” from $50,000 to $500,000 of taxpayer money. There’s more still to come, folks, as these cases continue to be litigated or settled. Meanwhile, their friends in the left wing media are cheering them on, excited to make Sheriff Arpaio look bad. The sole deputy county attorney whistleblower who refused to go along with the exorbitant payoffs, which she said were purposely designed to make Arpaio and Thomas look bad, was fired in retaliation.
Former Maricopa County manager David Smith awarded the costly crony payouts, including $975,000 to Superior Wilcox for “stress.” All of Wilcox’s attorneys fees were paid, totaling over $1 million. Smith abruptly resigned his position as County Manager in April. He is trying to get a job lobbying the County with lobbyist John Kaites. Giving those large payouts to Mary Rose Wilcox and other county employees will score him points when he tries to lobby them in the future. Don’t expect to read about this bribery in the left-leaning media, which paints the Supervisors and their former hatchet man as victims; meanwhile their hands are in the public trough awarding themselves more and more of our money.
$138,442 was spent by the Supervisors to defend themselves against an investigation by Arpaio and Thomas into the $340 million Taj Mahal court tower they built for the judges to buy them off.
The Supervisors illegally took away the Civil Division from the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. The County Attorney sued to get it back and won, with the Arizona Court of Appeals holding that the Supervisors had wrongly taken it away. That illegal move cost taxpayers a whopping $11 million. $9 million of that alone went to pay for the new illegal legal department the Supervisors created. Note that no one was ever prosecuted over this, nor did the Bar prosecute the Supervisors’ attorneys over the illegal action.
Over $6,000 was spent to defend two of the Supervisors’ attorneys from bar complaints. We find this very interesting considering the County will not fund the bar complaints against Thomas and his deputies.

John Chamberlin, political-science and public-policy professor at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, said accountability for the costly infighting ultimately rests with voters.

“This is the kind of thing that drives voters nuts,” he said. “It’s bad behavior that seems to have no public interest attached to it. It’s eating up money at a time when budgets are being cut, and people think there are much better uses of the funds.”

The corruption needs to stop. Time to clean up Maricopa County and elect new officials who will be more responsible with our money! Be sure to vote when early ballots come out in July or at the polls in August.
Join Our Mailing List