State Rep. Terri Proud: Where’s the Money Huck?

What did you get for 1.5 billion dollars?

The Arizona legislature is considering a bill, HB2565, which will protect the citizens of Pima County from the bait-and-switch bond tactics which have been perpetrated for years by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry and the 3-vote majority on the Board of Supervisors.

Pima County alone has almost $1.5 billion in bond debt, more than two and a half times all the other counties in Arizona – COMBINED. Tucson ranks among the worst in the nation for foreclosures yet has the highest property taxes in the state.

Citizens of Pima County are losing jobs while struggling to pay off government debt. Meanwhile, Huckelberry is interfering with job growth but presiding over a bloated bureaucracy. Taxpayers are losing their homes but Huckelberry is keeping property taxes sky-high. He is taking money from honest, hard-working families while creating more debt on projects that after 14 years are still not completed.

During FY 2011-2012, the Pima County Board of Supervisors, with Huckelberry’s approval, created a communications department, allocating a half million dollars for a staff of 12 people. Their graphic services design department, which was already established, paid out $530,129 in FY 2009/2010, $460,849 in 2010/2011 and $358,153 in 2011/2012. So with the creation of the communication department, “communication” costs total nearly 1 MILLION dollars for FY2011/2012.

For their next step, they raised YOUR property taxes and blamed the state for lack of money. For what? So Huck can send out “educational” pamphlets to everyone within Pima County with misinformation about your representatives, about the state, and about whatever else he wants you to think.

So while he’s sitting like a fat cat on your tax dollars telling you how much more bonding we need because the nearly 1.5 BILLION dollars you are already in debt … AND STILL PAYING FOR … isn’t enough, I’m out here fighting for you so your taxes can go down, and so you can stay in your homes.

He’s now using Raytheon as a selling point for his “new” bond. We’ll, Raytheon is only getting 10% of that money for the land next to Davis Monthan that they’re protecting. It’s another sweet deal for Huckelberry and his good friend Don Diamond, because Diamond owns the land.

Yes, I predict something will happen shortly after that and not far behind will be the Pima County Bond Program designed to offer first-time homebuyers a mortgage loan with YOUR tax money.

So, here are the facts to counteract Huck’s propaganda and fight over HB2565:

  • Since he’s repeatedly taken bond money and spent it on projects other than what voters intended, it’s only fair to have those who he’s taking it from be fairly represented by the people they have elected.
  • Nothing in this bill eliminates his advisory committee. Nothing in this bill is going to cancel established projects. Nothing in this bill is going to stop bonds from ever happening. All it’s doing is allowing the elected officials in the surrounding towns to fairly represent their taxpayers. Why should Huck have a problem with that?
  • The bond problem has been an issue for years in Pima County, so this is nothing new.
  • This is a local control issue. All it’s doing is giving power to the government closest to the people: the surrounding towns.

Get the Facts. Read the bill yourself. Go to www.azleg.gov and enter HB2565. Fight back and stop the misuse of YOUR taxes. Support HB2565. We need your voice!

Wil Cardon Statement on President Obama’s FY2013 Budget

For Immediate Release: February 13, 2012
Contact: Katie Martin

Phoenix, Arizona – Wil Cardon, Mesa businessman and candidate for U.S. Senate, issued the following statement after President Obama released his FY2013 budget:

“President Obama’s budget promotes more government spending, higher taxes to fund that wasteful spending and more government debt for future generations. Regardless if you are Republican or Democrat, when looking at this budget from a business perspective, it is clear that President Obama has no real world business experience or concept of Main Street America.

“The President and Congress continue to play politics with the country’s budget and with $15 trillion of debt; we don’t have time for political theater. The President said today in a campaign stop in Virginia, ‘we can’t cut our way to growth.’ America needs a leader who understands that spending cuts will bring us to prosperity, and that more government spending is not the answer. Letting job creators do what they do best is the path to growth, but businesses are struggling to jump through the hoops of big government. Over regulation, higher taxes and Obamacare are three policies from this administration that result in less private sector growth. It is unfair for President Obama and this do-nothing Congress to continue to hinder business owners with their failed policies and political grandstanding.

“As a business owner, I know what it’s like to balance a budget, make payroll, and I have run my business for the last decade completely debt free. There is a way to do this on the national level, but when you have career politicians with zero private sector experience handling the budget, you get career politician results. This was President Obama’s final attempt to write and promote a budget that would fix our dismal economic outlook, but instead, he chose to use this opportunity to stay the course regardless of the disastrous results. We need business men and women to take over the nation’s budget. It is imperative that we send leaders to Washington who know what to do, have a willingness to do it and will get the job done.”

###

Rep. David Schweikert: Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 13, 2012
CONTACT: Rachel Semmel

Washington, D.C. – Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ) released the following statement Monday after President Obama released his Fiscal Year 2013 Budget request which calls for unprecedented levels of spending and debt increases and tax hikes:

“President Obama’s fourth go-around at a budget is not much better than his previous attempts. This document is terrible for jobs and a raw deal for America’s seniors. Further, it is laden with the same tax-and-spend gimmicks that drove us to our $15 trillion debt and counting.

“This budget breaks the president’s promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and actually increases it in the next few years. If enacted, the president’s budget would add $8 trillion to the debt over the next 11 years.

“I sincerely wish the President would put new batteries in his calculator and realize that increased spending and stimulus will not lower our debt and deficit, nor will a faulty and mathematically unrealistic ‘Buffett Rule.’

“It is hard to read this budget and believe the President is taking his fiscal duty seriously.”

###

Rep. Quayle Responds to Obama’s Latest Budget Bust

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 13, 2012
CONTACT: Zach Howell

WASHINGTON (DC) – Congressman Ben Quayle released the following statement regarding the release of President Obama’s proposed FY 2012 budget:

“President Obama has already added trillions to the national debt, but he’s not done drowning us in red ink yet. Far from keeping his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, the President sent us a budget blueprint that would continue increasing the size of the deficit, and would pile on trillions in new debt over the next decade.

“At a time when the economy is struggling to get back on track, the last thing we should be doing is adding $1.9 trillion in new taxes as President Obama suggests. The President just doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand that our nation is in real danger unless we take meaningful actions right away to reduce spending and debt. This willfully ignorant budget is more about the President’s reelection than it is about finding solutions to this country’s problems.”

###

Rep. Jeff Flake: We’re rolling in deep debt

For Immediate Release: February 13, 2012
Press Contact: Genevieve Frye Rozansky

So Just How Broke Are We?

Washington, D.C. – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today illustrated the size and scope of the growing national debt.

Adele walked away from last night’s Grammy Awards as the show’s biggest winner with six gold statues, including the coveted Album of the Year award. The accolades were all for Adele’s sophomore album, “21,” which has set album sales records with approximately 6.4 million copies sold since it debuted in early 2011.

The U.S. is so broke that at an average cost of about $13, more than 1.2 trillion copies of Adele’s “21” album could be purchased with our $15.3 trillion debt. That’s 187,500 times the current amount of record sales for “21.”

“We’re rolling in deep debt,” said Flake.

Along with Senators McCain and Rubio, Congressman Flake introduced H.R. 634, the Debt Buy-Down Act, which allows taxpayers to designate up to 10 percent of their federal income tax liability to reduce the national debt. The bill then requires Congress to reduce federal spending by that amount. More information on the Debt Buy-Down Act can be found here.

###

The Capitol Buy-Back: Not a Bad Idea

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.

When I first heard Governor Brewer’s proposal to retire debt on the state’s capitol buildings, I thought it was a bad idea. The main reason: early-payoff penalties. There just was no good reason to bear such costs.

It turns out that early payoff penalties are not an issue. The state has to deposit a lump-sum of $106 million into an account that is held by a third party, over which ownership is exercised by the creditors who lent the state the $81 million secured by the capitol buildings. The cash substitutes for the buildings as collateral and we get back the deeds, free and clear.

The $106 million accounts for all the interest and principal we were going to have to spend to pay off the loan over the next 20 years. There is no pre-payment penalty.

Some might say that getting back the capitol buildings’ paper is just symbolic nonsense for the sake of the state’s centennial. And sentiment is a bad reason to pursue any policy. But this is more than a feel-good idea.

The biggest advantage to this early payoff, though, is that it avoids the temptation to spend temporary money on ongoing programs – the ones that it looks like we can afford now, but that we might not be able to afford later. We did that for several years before the recession, and look where that got us.

It’s not safe to assume we’ve entered into a long-term, steady economic expansion with steady government revenues to accompany it. So, while we have a temporary surplus, let’s pay down the state’s debt.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Learn more:

Office of the Governor: The Facts about a Capitol Buy-Back

Goldwater Institute: Living Debt Free: Restoring Arizona’s Commitment to its Constitutional Debt Limit

Maricopa County better not settle expensive lawsuits of cronies

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

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

Friday, February 3, 2012

Maricopa County manager David Smith proposing to settle million dollar lawsuits of cronies      

Greedy county officials should be forced to litigate their claims fully to reveal how worthless they are, instead of receiving million dollar settlements

 Maricopa County manager David Smith, the hatchet man for the County Supervisors, is proposing that the county settle the million dollar lawsuits filed by the Supervisors’ cronies against Maricopa County and its taxpayers for amounts of several hundred thousand dollars up to $15 million each. This is a bad, bad idea that will end up very costly to taxpayers. The greedy county bureacrats, who are suing the county over nothing more than “stress” from being prosecuted by Sheriff Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, should be forced to plead their cases in a court of law, so taxpayers can see how sketchy their lawsuits are.

The Supervisors better do the right thing and not award their cronies million dollar settlements. Two of the lawsuits are from their fellow Supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley! This is a blatant conflict of interest for them to award them huge amounts of money.

The Supervisors have already paid Judge Fields $100,000 of your taxpayer dollars for his lawsuit against the county. He received that money for his claims that he was stressed over Arpaio and Thomas attempting to prosecute him. That prosecution went nowhere since he was able to thwart it.  None of his assertions of stress were ever heard and tried in a court of law, the county simply $100,000 at him in a settlement.

Next, Judge Baca received a $100,00 settlement for her stress over being sued by Arpaio and Thomas. Stephen Wetzel, the county director of IT, received an undisclosed settlement amount.

This is not right. These officials should be forced to go through the regular court system like the rest of us. They should not be awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars for “stress” based on their claims that they were wrongly prosecuted. We will never know if they were wrongly prosecuted, because they were able to successfully thwart Arpaio’s and Thomas’s attempts to prosecute them. It is despicable that they they are being awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars for successfully avoiding prosecution!!! David Smith claims that the county is saving money by settling the claims, but the claims are so groundless the county would end up not paying any money if they were fully litigated. He knows this but wants to guarantee his cronies are vindicated, which in turn vindicates his legal attacks against Arpaio and Thomas. This sets a bad, bad precedent for future bureaucrats down the road to sue over “stress” and receive millions of dollars too.

If the greedy bureaucrats are awarded these lavish amounts of money, taxpayers will consider a citizens’ lawsuit against them. Tea Parties and organizations like the Goldwater Institute and Americans for Prosperity have grounds to sue them based on abuse of our tax dollars.

 The Arizona Republic has coverage.

ACTION ITEM:

Contact the Supervisors who will be deciding whether or not to award these outrageous settlements and let them know that you disapprove of them awarding large settlements to the other two supervisors and their cronies. Tell them these speculative claims need to be heard in a court of law where they will inevitably be DISMISSED.

Supervisor Andrew Kunasek
(602) 506-7562
akunasek@mail.maricopa.gov

Supervisor Max Wilson
(602) 506-7642
mwwilson@mail.maricopa.gov

Supervisor Fulton Brock
(602) 506-1776
fbrock@mail.maricopa.gov

Join Our Mailing List

“Conservatives” Angling for a NEW National Tax?

 

Right when we should be CUTTING spending (not just the rate of increase, but ACTUAL spending) and lowering taxes, certain elements of the RNC and “think tanks” are angling not just to keep existing spending and taxes going but ADD an entirely NEW federal tax for us to pay.

What the heck is going on, aren’t we in the midst of a teaparty?

=====
 
Is a European Style VAT Tax the GOP’s Answer to the Growing Federal Funding Crisis? 
 
With all the GOP candidates fussing over Mitt Romney and his track-record at Bain Capital, does it not strike anyone as odd that none of them are putting the screws to the Massachusetts Republican in debates over his unwillingness to rule out a European-style Value Added Tax (VAT)?
Mitt and VAT (Valued Added Tax)
While Romney says he doesn’t want to go down the path of European socialism, in a recent Wall Street Journal he did not rule it out and even suggested that it might be an option.
 
The lack of clarity on this subject is ominous given that a VAT is probably the only way to come close to funding the federal government at its current levels of outrageous spending. Since none of the other candidates are forcefully calling Romney out on the VAT issue, I suspect an eventual Republican betrayal on establishing a VAT tax is likely.
 
As a reminder, a VAT would tax goods at ALL layers of production, from their origin as raw material to manufacture to final product.
 
Rising levels of federal deficit spending create momentum toward the VAT “solution.” Debt-addicted central governments in Europe and the United States have no intention of dealing with the true causes of the financial crisis.
 
To get to a VAT from here, all the political class needs to do is wait around for a “responsible” Republican to come around and act as a tax collector for the welfare state. My point is the Big Government people have already established the new unsustainable spending baselines.   All they need now is a gullible Republican to come in and “do something.” Paralysis and dysfunction are their friends, because it will lead to a crisis that may well result in the imposition of the VAT tax.
 
=======
 
Interestingly, the imposition of a VAT by the federal government is currently illegal and unconstitutional.
 
So, how do they implement it?
 
 
So, what does “balanced budget” mean?  To you, me, the teaparty, and normal people it means to bring spending in line with revenues.  I.e. don’t spend more than you have.
 
But once you enter the twisted mind of a politician, “balanced budget” means RAISING REVENUE to match the amount of money you WANT TO SPEND.
 
Since
a) imposition of a VAT by the federal government is now illegal and unconstitutional,
b) congress and certainly our state legislature lacks any will or spine to CUT REAL spending (not just rates of increases), and
c) it requires a constitutional amendment to pass this new tax,
there is no other conlcusion to draw than this travesty certain state legislators want to desecrate our God-inspired constitution with will lead to anything other than a new federal tax to meet spending targets the government wants to achieve.
 
Frankly, any state legislator who believes otherwise is an idiot.  (Yes, I just called you that.  Embrace it.)  A real Republican would be withholding remittance of tax receipts to the federal government, not empowering the federal government to levy yet another tax from Arizonans.
 
The fact that Republicans are behind this one is disgusting and only proves that RINO hunting should be an active and ongoing endeavor by any real American patriot.
 
Our God-inspired constitution is just fine, thank you.    Leave it alone.
 
Teaparty, y’all!
 

Do police officers pay for release time?

By Taylor Earl

The Goldwater Institute recently filed a lawsuit challenging Phoenix’s “release time” practice that sends six city police officers to work as full-time union managers, 35 to work as part-time union representatives, and one to work as a union lobbyist. Although these employees are released from city duties to perform union duties, taxpayers continue to pay the officers’ salaries and benefits.

The city and the union say this practice doesn’t waste taxpayer money because it’s police officers who pay for the release time by foregoing higher pay and benefits in exchange for release time.

But that isn’t true.

The city doesn’t consider release time a trade off for lower officer salaries – until recently the city council didn’t know release time existed. The city grants release time simply because it’s been buried in the city’s contracts with the unions since the 1970s.

And even if the city does grant release time in exchange for officers accepting lower pay, it doesn’t mean officers are funding release time. As long as the city signs the paychecks of officers doing union work, taxpayers are the ones who pay.

Officers would fare better if the city defunded release time and redirected the associated $950,000 per year to officer salaries. Then, individual officers could choose whether to keep their portion of the money or put it back into funding release time via union dues.

Of course, union bosses fear this idea — give officers direct control over the funding of release time, and they just might find that six full-time union managers and 15,000 hours of release time aren’t necessary after all.

Taylor Earl is a staff attorney at the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Cheatham v. Gordon

Goldwater Institute: “Money for Nothing: Phoenix Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Union Work

Rep. Jeff Flake: So Just How Broke Are We?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 17, 2012
CONTACT: Genevieve Frye Rozansky

Washington, D.C. – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today illustrated the size and scope of the growing national debt.

For a $2 fee and by placing a minimum order of either $8 or $10, some residents in the greater Washington, D.C. area could enjoy home delivery from fast food giant Burger King. It was announced over the weekend that Burger King has been testing home delivery for its menu items from four of its locations in the D.C. suburbs.

The U.S. is so broke that even adding the $2 delivery fee and based on a minimum purchase of $10, our $15.2 trillion federal debt could pay for $1.3 billion at-home Burger King deliveries.

“The level our debt has reached is a real Whopper,” said Flake.

Along with Senators McCain and Rubio, Congressman Flake introduced H.R. 634, the Debt Buy-Down Act, which allows taxpayers to designate up to 10 percent of their federal income tax liability to reduce the national debt. The bill then requires Congress to reduce federal spending by that amount. More information on the Debt Buy-Down Act can be found here.

###

Arizona House Speaker Promotes Economic Development

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 12, 2012
CONTACT: Rey Torres

Commends Governor Brewer’s Tax Proposal

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (January 12, 2012) – Speaker Andy Tobin today commended Governor Jan Brewer on her announcement of a series of tax reforms designed to spur economic growth. “I am very supportive of the Governor’s tax reform proposals,” said Speaker Tobin. “The fiscal health of our economy remains the number one issue facing our state.” Speaker Tobin further iterated the importance of promoting capital investment and workforce development as well as reducing the administrative and regulatory burdens placed on businesses.

Last year, House Republicans spearheaded Arizona’s Jobs Bill, which laid down the foundation for the state’s economic recovery, and which Governor Brewer signed into law. This year, Speaker Tobin is advocating for additional tax cuts as well as regulatory reforms to cement Arizona’s status as a place businesses want to set up shop.

In addition to the Governor’s tax reforms, Speaker Tobin is proposing a regulatory tax credit. This plan will provide a dollar for dollar tax credit equal to the cost of excessive government regulations. “The cornerstone of job creation is lowering the cost of doing business in our state,” said Speaker Tobin. “This tax credit will supplement the Governor’s other tax reforms to help encourage business expansion as well as new businesses locating across the state.”

###

Rep. Ben Quayle: Another Presidential Punt

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 12, 2012
CONTACT: Zach Howell

WASHINGTON (DC) Congressman Ben Quayle released the following statement Thursday regarding President Obama’s request for yet another $1.2 trillion increase to the debt ceiling:

“The President’s decision to seek yet another $1.2 trillion increase to the debt limit reinforces the unfortunate trend of raising the debt ceiling while taking no action to rein in spending.

“Because of President Obama’s lack of leadership, our national debt has surpassed the size of the American economy. House Republicans have passed numerous bills that will start to get our spending under control only to be blocked by the Democrat controlled Senate and the President. It’s time for the President and Senate Democrats to join Republicans in Congress in making substantive spending cuts and meaningful reforms to our entitlement programs.”

###

Ending the Solar Subsidy Fiasco

By Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute

It’s not every day that the New York Times makes a compelling case against government giveaways. But a recent page-one article underscored that the Solyndra scandal was only the tip of the solar-subsidy iceberg. Huge companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, General Electric, utilities including Exelon and NRG, and even Google are receiving government guarantees that ensure large profits with virtually no risk — except to the taxpayer.

The Times ascribes to the Obama administration a “gold-rush mentality” when Congress expanded green-power incentives in 2009, despite a paralyzing federal deficit. The chief executive of NRG, which received $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees plus hundreds of millions in other subsidies for solar projects, gushed that “I have never seen anything . . . in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects.”

A start-up industry with no capital risk to investors? It’s a nifty deal if you can get it—and many have. “It is like building a hotel, where you know in advance you are going to have 100 percent room occupancy for 25 years,” the Times quotes the CEO of SolarReserve. Even some of President Obama’s top advisors have warned of industry “double-dipping.”

Solar may be the most-subsidized industry in American history. Not only are producers subsidized at the federal, state, and sometimes even local levels, but consumers are subsidized to purchase solar panels, utility companies are forced to use and further subsidize solar power, and higher utility rates are passed along to Americans amidst deep recession.

Arizona is immersed in solar subsidies, providing tax breaks and (through the Corporation Commission) mandating that 15 percent of all utility energy be provided through specified renewable sources. Cost and technological feasibility are no object, and every dollar in added costs is passed along to consumers through a utility surcharge.

If the New York Times gets it, shouldn’t sensible, self-styled conservative elected officials? It’s time for government to stop playing Santa Claus to this pampered industry.

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

Learn more:

New York Times: A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search

It’s time to square up the state’s debt

By Nick Dranias, Goldwater Institute

Governor Jan Brewer has declared that one of her priorities in the coming session is to pay down the state’s debt. The idea, mirrored by leadership proposals in the state house and senate, is both timely and refreshingly frank.

By any straight-face test, the state has continuously violated the Arizona Constitution’s mandate that current-year expenses be funded largely on a “pay as you go” cash basis — not through debt. Now that the state anticipates as much as $650 million in surplus tax revenue, it is time to square Arizona’s fiscal policy with the state constitution.

Enabled by legal precedents that embraced fiscal gamesmanship decades ago, the state has long skirted the Arizona Constitution’s $350,000 debt limit using a variety of budget tricks. Officials have sold and leased-back buildings, used credit lines and warrants to cover huge gaps between spending and revenue, and rolled-over liabilities from one budget year into the next.

While last year’s budget was relatively gimmick-free, hundreds of millions of dollars of past fiscal gimmickry remain on the books.

An unretired debt is a tax on future generations. Our state’s founders largely banned debt to protect those voiceless future generations from taxation without representation.

Arizona’s “pay-as-you-go” constitutional policy properly imposes political accountability on current politicians for their fiscal choices. For this reason, constitutionalists, tax hawks and fiscal responsibility mavens should agree with Governor Brewer and legislative leadership: Use the surplus to retire the state’s unconstitutional debt.

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:

Arizona Republic: Plans for Arizona Budget Vary

Goldwater Institute: Living Debt Free: Restoring Arizona’s Commitment to its Constitutional Debt Limit

Washington spending: Have we learned our lesson yet?

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

Promises of reduced spending swept dozens of self-proclaimed conservatives into power during the 2010 congressional elections. What did they do? They gave President Obama the power to lift the federal debt limit, twice failed to move a Balanced Budget Amendment proposal out of the House and promised spending cuts that look increasingly illusory.

As history increasingly shows, Washington’s limitless ability to incur debt is one of the greatest errors in our Constitution. Fortunately, there is no reason to wait for Congress to propose what Thomas Jefferson called the “Missing Amendment.”

Federalist No. 43, written by James Madison, emphasizes that Article V of the U.S. Constitution empowers “State governments to originate the amendment of errors.” This means state legislatures can compel Congress to call a convention for proposing constitutional amendments when 34 of them pass “applications” requesting one.

Not surprisingly, states and citizens are increasingly recognizing that Article V was designed to tackle the problem of the federal debt.

Last session, two states — Louisiana and North Dakota — passed National Debt Relief Amendment (NDRA) applications. They request an Article V convention to require any increase in the federal debt to be approved by a majority of state legislatures. Legislators in 20 states, including Arizona State Senator Linda Gray, will sponsor the NDRA this year.

Moving the federal debt debate to state legislatures would enable states and ordinary citizens to exert far more influence than they currently have. And the logistics of complying with this amendment would require the federal government to prepare budgets, debt financing proposals, and fiscal contingency plans months in advance.

The National Debt Relief Amendment would decentralize power, establish transparency and encourage basic fiscal responsibility. But no one should hold their breath waiting for Congress to propose it. The only realistic option is to impose it from the outside, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives us this power.

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:

Goldwater Institute: Article V research resources

New York Times: Obama Waits Before Asking for Increase in Debt Limit

RestoringFreedom.org: The National Debt Relief Amendment

Jeff Flake: Payroll-tax gimmicks hinder serious reform

By Jeff Flake (reposted from The Arizona Republic)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A state with prosperity, lower taxes is possible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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