How to Win Friends & Influence People…

Yes, I know, we’re ones to follow this prescription. But then again, we’re not the Governor and have an $11 BILLION budget to deal with.

This is sure to invite Republican challengers as the issue becomes “The Governor is willing to shut down the State in order to get her tax increase.”

Here is the link to the video clip.


Comments

  1. kralmajales says

    Do you all realize that you control both houses and the Governorship, Sec. of Treasury, Sec of State. You STILL don’t have a budget and there is about to be a lawsuit.

    There is no way around this. You have the power and you are incompetent. TOTALLY incompetent. Your party is destroying this state and you cannot blame it on anyone. You can’t even pass your own budget or much of anything else.

    I am going to enjoy the next election if the Dems don’t screw it up like they always find a way to do.

  2. kralmajales says

    By the way, Brewer is earning my respect. She made Burns and Adams look like total fools. “Perplexing” Adams says…oh yes it is perplexing when she hands it to you and exposes your BS to the public! I might actually vote for her over Goddard. She is a STRONG leader.

  3. Kral,

    I’m pretty sure we know where the problem is with the State Budget. On one side an unelected Governor and special interests. On the other side, elected state legislators who promised NOT to raise taxes and the voters who showed up on the lawn of the capitol on April 15th.
    Arizona Taxpayers

  4. All I have to say about this is:

    FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

  5. And watch the likely Republican challengers line up!

  6. DSW- it won’t matter who lines up, we keep this up and they’ll all fall to an inferior Dem candidate. The infighting has got to stop. People have forgotten it was Janet who got us into this mess.

  7. kralmajales says

    Roger is right about everything except that Janet got us into this mess. Not at all true. We have a poor revenue structure in this state that is demanded by low tax conservatives and that is institutionalized in our state. We base our revenue on a theory that does not work, which is low taxes, equals growth, which equals revenues to pay for schools, transportation, and yes your prisons. The economy tanked, there is no growth and now their is a deficit. Janet did not deficit spend…your legislative control did not let that happen.

    So all you are left with now is that you would rather get out of the deficit by cutting vital state programs that the public wants…even some of your own members fear dismantling government to the tune of destroying our state and economy. Even business leaders do not support this to the level that your “theory” or “philosophy” supposes.

    What people are seeing are the GOPs true colors right now. They don’t like what they are seeing.

  8. kralmajales says

    DSW,

    If what you say is true, then this is easy. You should have the support for your low taxes and slashed spending. Send it to her, let her veto it, and see who is left standing by the public, shall we? Your guys look spineless because they wont even let her veto it.

    Oh and that unelected Gov. is a Republican who had a lot of your support in the past. Those special interests that she is bowing too are not liberal ones, they are moderate ones.

    You all are killing yourselves here. I am just here to tell you how badly and to watch you happlessly defend the fact that you have complete control of this state and cannot lead it.

  9. Oberserve says

    People have not forgotten. At the same time Jan is taking some bad advice from Coughlin & Co trying to ram the failed TIME initiative down taxpayers throats at the time they and the state are the most vulnerable. It’s shameless and Gov Brewer should be ashamed. It’s just more McCain/Lisa James/Verdone crew shenanigans. Those people will do anything to funnel a buck to their friends.

  10. Oberserve says

    I should add that it was Gov Brewer who stood up at the GOP state convention and used the word unity more times than it appears in an ACORN operations manual.

    I guess that getting that 1% tax implemented which Coughlin failed to get through with the failed time initiative is more important to Coughlin and friends (incl Brewer) than the Republican unity they claim to want.

    Republicans pushing higher taxes just means more Republican election losses.

  11. kralmajales says

    Funnel a buck to their friends? Shame? You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You are holding the state hostage, advocating drastic cuts to programs that are hurting real people, and you wont pass or even consider a temporary, crisis revenue generation…yes a miniscule tax…to get us out of this mess.

    As I said under the Ron Gould post, you all are greedy. Plain and simple. Most of you who are not rich get more from government than you pay and the effect of the tax on you will be miniscule over the entire year. The furloughs, job cuts, layoffs, and the like means that fewer people are going to be buying the houses you build, or even starting them.

    For those of you who are rich and want to starve the beast of government, well then you are just plain greedy. You do get yours…you do…and you know it. You also have proven to be quite the spenders yourselves on Government programs.

    You want the same benefits I do but refuse to pay for them. That is why we have a deficit…not because of spending but because of revenue.

  12. kralmajales says

    Observe,

    Explain this point please.

    “Republicans pushing higher taxes just means more Republican election losses.”

    Is this because you have no other issues, ideas, or plans that would differentiate the GOP from Democrats?

    Is it because no one wants what you are offering?

    Is it because the extremist stances of your caucus has started to turn off the business leaders that fund you?

    I should let you answer…im being rude.

  13. Oberserve says

    That is correct kral. The GOP is about limited government, lower taxes, increased prosperity for all and defense of individual rights and constitutional government.

    Well, it’s supposed to be anyway except for what people on the McCain/James/Coughlin crew try to do to get us off track.

  14. kralmajales says

    Taxes here are already low…among the lowest in the country, govt. is already limited and has been cut past the point of what is optimal, there is not increased prosperity (which is what you think that low taxes and little govt gets you) and the individual rights thing, we agree on.

    As to Constitutional government, read the state constitution. Your GOP caucus is violating it specifically and its spirit with its proposed cuts to education…for one example. Read the provisions where it says that the STATE (not private sources) will provide a quality education to it citizens. And there is a lot lot more in there.

    So those you support are NOT following the constitution either.

    Anyway, you are going to lose elections because fewer people think your philosophy works…most think it caused this disaster we are in now…and the answer your party gives when we are hurting the most, is to cut MORE and tax even LESS.

  15. Oberserve says

    Thus spake Zarathustra.

    Or in other words, spoken like a true Dem.

    (ref: Kral, #14 above)

  16. Karlmajales

    I think you need to go back to school and study government 101. This is exactly what the founding fathers of this country wanted to happen.

    When this is all done and said we will have a better and stronger finacial state.

  17. For heavens’ sake, how much do you lefties want Kral? Government spending has increased above and beyond growth inflation significantly over Napolitano years.

    Clearly from your concern about the “layoffs, furloughs and job cuts” you are concerned about protecting government workers.

    What about those in the private sector who are laid off or had their hours cut back who are now using savings to get by? Apparently you have no qualms in taking their money to protect a bunch of government workers. It’s clear where your priorities are.

  18. Kenny Jacobs says

    Tom, if the sales tax exceptions were removed (not including food and medicine) and would thus increase revenues, would that be a tax increase? If we applied the sales tax to things like 4 inch aluminum pipe or if we applied the tax to satellite tv just as we apply it to cable tv, would that pass your muster?

  19. Kenny,

    If your idea isn’t a tax increas then why exempt food and prescription drugs?

  20. Kenny Jacobs says

    OK, Tom, let’s ask the question your way; would removing all the exceptions to the sales tax including the examples in my original question constitute a tax increase and thus bad policy and/or in violation of the Norquist/ATR pledge?

    Remember, just removing the exceptions, not a change in the rate. I am curious as to your opinion.

  21. Kenny,

    Perhaps the question is best answered in reverse. Why wouldn’t it be a tax increase? You take things that were not taxed and put a tax on them. Isn’t that by definition an increase in taxes? Removing the so called exemptions would in fact put an immediate increase in the tax on that product would it not? Therefore would that not be a tax increase. Now you and the Democrats who are pushing this idea prefer to call it the increase in taxes “removing the exemption” or “broadening the base” those are semantics and nothing more.

    The Democrats know that and that’s why they would never propose removing the so-called sales tax exemption on food and/or prescription drugs, because they know that voters would recognize that for what it is – a tax increase.

  22. Simon says: says

    I know that I am a retailer who would be happy to see the tax base expanded. Under the Democrat’s plan my burden would go down (sales tax is incorporated in my price, not charged on top in my industry) and I think those who have not been collecting TPT have been getting a free ride. This sounds fairer to me.

  23. Oberserve says

    In other words, Kral along with Coughlin/James/McCain et al. are Torries:

    “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” –Thomas Jefferson

  24. kralmajales says

    Ha…Thomas Jefferson also believed in widespread education of the masses and a host of other things that government provide. Hell, he bought Lousiana after all as well.

    But I get off the point. Tom, you tried to argue that I care more about state workers than I do the average every day American who is laid off in the private sector. You make an assumption that a small tax increase, spread very widely would hurt the greatly…and an assumption that they are not already hurt by having the lean, mean government that you all have advocated for here. In other words, who is going to teach their children out of poverty? Where is the safety net that govt provides (not industry) that helps retrain workers, provide unemployment, and what they need to get back on their fit again…especially as the private sector fails miserably at this. Who is going to pay our police, our court officials, who must arrest those who are choosing to steal and process those cases through to punishment?

    Last, you argue about how govt. outstripped inflation. You make a serious mistake that I hope I can correct. Past cuts to the goverment of the state of Arizona, and cuts to its cities, towns, and counties were massive and they were yearly. Include inflation in those cuts. Then, Napolitano came through and restored some of those cuts because the past cuts had done real harm to people in this state and to the ability to attract business here. Even those restoration of past cuts, when considering time, and inflation, did not restore state funding of say, higher education, to its past levels. Everyone knows this and some, I understand, agree with this.

    BUT, don’t whine when tuition goes up at a faster rate than inflation. THAT is because our costs have gone up, the number of students we need to educate has gone up, and the constitutionally mandated state funding has gone down.

    Last, Observe, am I a torry? I dont think that arguing that our state is far behind other states in its provision of government services is being a Torry. The situation our state is in has harmed our state’s ability to compete with other states for employers. That doesn’t make me a Torry. The fact that we cannot pay our fireman, teachers, police officers, and other public servants the same as in other states doesn’t make me a torry either.

    I dont hide behind some stupid theory that does not work. I live in the real world and you cannot show me that lowering taxes to this level and cutting government to this level will do anything but make our state poorer and our kids leave.

  25. Kenny Jacobs says

    Tom, my question wasn’t about the food/medicine exception, but that’s my fault, I didn’t write well.

    Our legislature carved out special exceptions (not including food/medicine) for special interests AND because a group of Republicans can’t touch anything with the word “tax” associated with it.

    Tom, the Goldwater institute has looked approvingly upon the the proposed policy of eliminating loopholes (and lowering the overall rate) but you won’t hear about that at SA because the proposal is in the Democratic budget proposal at http://www.strongerarizona.com.

    Take a look, let me know what you think of the sales tax proposal.

  26. Oberserve says

    That is correct, Kral. You are a Tory by Thomas Jefferson’s and my standards as documented in #23.

    Also to say that we are not paying our public servants as you have said is patently absurd. More mindless liberal nonsense.

    Kral in #24 states: “Last, Observe, am I a torry? I dont think that arguing that our state is far behind other states in its provision of government services is being a Torry. The situation our state is in has harmed our state’s ability to compete with other states for employers. That doesn’t make me a Torry. The fact that we cannot pay our fireman, teachers, police officers, and other public servants “

  27. kralmajales says

    What I was clearly trying to say is that we pay our public servants squat in this state in comparison to others. It is why our firemen, police, and young people wanting to do this work are going to other states that pay better…or are not getting pay cuts and layoffs. That is true.

    At the universities (which none of you could care lick about), they are losing the best and brightest young and old teachers, scholars, researchers to places like Texas that have explicitly told their institutions to raid this state and other like it.

    You have no idea what you speak of. You cannot tell me that we are doing better for our police and firemen here than in other states. That is a horrendous amount of ignorance.

  28. kralmajales says

    Using Thomas Jeffersons quote above in #23 as you did is just sick. He would not agree with any of you on this effort to gut our public schools. Read his quote again…here is a piece of it…

    “who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

    What is talking about is taking from those who are hardworking and giving to those who are lazy. Thomas Jefferson cared very much about making sure that those who worked hard and that had the same ability to succeed would get rewards. That is why he favored a public education system that benefitted the masses. TJ would have said that everyone should get the best education possible so that they can then compete fairly. I also doubt that he would not have favored giving people a hand from the government when they were kicked down, faced tragedy, or were placed into positions where they could not compete.

    These are all things that many here advocated cutting as some kind of “welfare” and what leads you to bizzaro bastardizations of the founders of this country’s thought on citizenship, public service, and equality.

  29. Oberserve says

    Kral, you are a fireman, policeman, teacher, professor or medical or nursing student?

    No you are not. But you claim you know. In fact you are ignorant. Out of your ignorance you claim others are. That’s even more ignorant.

  30. It’s kind of fun to watch the anger come through in your posts Kralmajales. Clearly the self interest shines through. Let’s face facts, you want a tax increase so you and your government buddies can continue to get more and not have to take a furlough. I love your comments about how the “poor and moderate income people” need to get with it and pay more – a position that not even your Democrat legislators are willing to advocate – they oppose the temporary sales tax increase because they feel it hits the middle and lower classes too hard.

    I suspect you’d suck ’em dry to protect your job now wouldn’t you. As for your crazy assertion that state government has gone through massive cuts – my question is when?

    When has the state gone through these – in your words – “massive cuts in spending?”

    Or are you just like most other liberals who to say to heck with the facts, let’s make stuff up.

  31. And just to prove your (Kralmajales) assertion about all of these massive cuts to spending that apparently took place before Napolitano rode to the rescue, here are the spending numbers for each governor going back to Babbitt.

    Source: JLBC numbers as cited by the Goldwater Institute

    Percentage in excess of growth and inflation that spending increased:

    Babbitt (first term) – 15 percent in excess of growth and inflation

    Babbitt (second term) – 17 percent in excess of growth and inflation

    Mecham/Mofford – 17 percent

    Symington – 0 percent

    Symington/Hull – 16 percent

    Hull – 2 percent

    Napolitano – 29 percent

    Once again, where were the massive cuts? Or are you just going to accuse JLBC and Goldwater of cooking the numbers?

  32. Actually not prove your assertion, but prove it wrong.

  33. Kenny Jacobs says

    Tom, are you ditching my question or just waiting for instructions on how to answer?

  34. CopperDome says

    Kenny (re: #25),

    Your connection of the Dem proposal to expand the sales tax base and the Goldwater Institute report leaves out some vital “details.”

    First, the GW report recommends an expanded base strictly in the context of revenue neutral (or tax cut) reform. After all, they’re advocating for pro-growth economic policies, not a job-killing tax increase.

    Several Republicans, most notably Rep. Rick Murphy (House Ways & Means chairman), have been publicly supportive of expanding the sales tax base as well. The difference is that they don’t plan to raise taxes by $1 billion in the process. They understand that a low rate applied to a broad base in a simple manner is the best way to encourage economic growth and reduce revenue volatility.

    Revenue volatility, combined with excessive spending and lack of job growth, created our current mess. Boldly addressing those problems is the only way to accelerate our recovery and help prevent future downturns from getting this bad.

    A famous smart guy once said, “Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.” Seems to apply here.

  35. Kenny,

    Very much like you liberal friend Kralmajales, you tend to leave out some details when making arguments.

    Yes, as a concept, like the Goldwate Institute, I do support the elimination of most exemptions. However, the Dem proposal, as I am sure you know is not revenue neutral and is in fact nothing more than an attempt to get their hands on revenue from services. But even then I wouldn’t reject it out of hand. But as you know and CopperDome has pointed out, the Dem plan would not be revenue neutral and would put in a place a permanent tax increase.

    Now on the other hand, if the plan was revenue neutral, I would be open minded to the idea – with one caveat, a cap on further increases. Because the other problem with the Dem proposal is that it provides cover for local government to further increase sales taxes. Currently most local governments are close to hitting a ceiling with their sales tax. Many are over 8 percent and reaching a point where they risk sales tax flight if they continue to raise it. Broadening the base and lowering it enough in a revenue neutral fashion would be good, but it could open the door to further increases by giving the perception that taxes have been lowered in some way.

    And as you conveniently omitted in your comments, the Goldwater Institute generally supports eliminating exemptions in context of getting rid of the state income tax.

  36. Kenny Jacobs says

    Tom and Copperdome, I apologize for not replying to your snarky responses sooner. BTW, I was asking questions, not making an argument, but thanks for all your defensive assumptions. I thought there might be some common ground and wanted to explore it.

    That being said it is now clear that both of you favor subjugating our tax system to the whims of special interests in our business community.

    The current loopholes are reflective of Republican priorities and neither of you came out against them unconditionally.

    I’m sorry neither of you are capable of policy dialog, merely reflexive attacks.

Leave a Reply