Here is a quick look at where FY 2009 General Fund Revenues are derived, and how they are spent:
FY 2009 General Fund Revenue--Where It Comes From
Sales and Use Tax: $4,643.6
Individual Income Tax: $3,619.4
Corporate Income Tax: $871.2
Other: $133.7
TOTAL 1/$9,267.9
1/ Includes all legislative revenue changes, but does not include beginning balance or other one-time revenue adjustments.
The projected beginning balance is $1.0 million. Other one-time revenues adjustments equal $711.3 million.
FY 2009 Total General Fund Appropriations--Where It Goes
Education (K-12): $4,141.2
AHCCCS : $1,425.3
Universities: $1,080.4
Corrections: $947.5
Economic Security: $808.3
Health Services: $611.5
School Facilities Bd: $101.2
Other Agencies: $846.6
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET: $ 9,962.0
Data may be obtained through the JLBC website: http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/09app/apprpttoc.pdf
Showing posts with label Taxpayer Monies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxpayer Monies. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
New Law: HB 2620 Budget Adjustments; FY 2007-2008
This bill is NOT the most recently enacted budget but the budget changes/fixes that we voted on earlier this year to address the $1.8 Billion Dollar shortfall for the fiscal year that ended this past June. This bill revises the FY 2007-2008 budget.
- $4.1 Million revents to the GF (general fund) from the State Lake Improvement Fund
- $18.1 Million revents to the GF from the State Aviation Fund
- $1 Million from the FY 07 Appropriation for the Yuma Welcome Center reverts to the GF
- $1.5 Million from the 2006 conditional appropriation for the Yuma Welcome Center reverts to the GF
- $42 Million appropriated from the State Highway Fund to the Statewide Transportation Acceleration Needs Account (STAN) is now transferred to the Department of Public Safety for Highway Patrol costs.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Edwards’s 2-to-1 Budget Law
From Chris Edwards, the Director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute:
How should government officials decide on whether to fund big projects such as fighter aircraft, highways, bridges, and other types of infrastructure? First, they should check the Constitution to see whether they are legally allowed to spend on the object in consideration. Second, they should assume that the item will cost at least twice as much as initial estimates indicate.
There should be a 2-to-1 hurdle when the price tag of a project is being considered.
Government purchases of military hardware, highways, energy projects, space equipment, and other items often cost 50% or 100%, or more (see here and here), above what politicians originally promise.
Let’s be conservative and say that a 50% cost overrun is typical, such that we can expect a new $1 billion project to actually cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. But as economists often point out, paying for $1.5 billion in government spending will cost taxpayers much more than $1.5 billion because of the “deadweight losses” or inefficiency costs created by extracting taxes from the private sector with a complex and high-rate system.
How much more? Harvard’s Martin Feldstein thinks deadweight losses might be $1 for each added dollar of taxes. But let’s be conservative and say it’s only 50 cents on the dollar. So government projects impose deadweight losses of 50% on costs that are likely to balloon at least 50%.
The bottom line is that when America’s taxpayers hear that politicians want to spend, say, $10 billion on a new scheme, they should assume that they will face an ultimate financial hit of $22.5 billion. And that’s conservative!"
How should government officials decide on whether to fund big projects such as fighter aircraft, highways, bridges, and other types of infrastructure? First, they should check the Constitution to see whether they are legally allowed to spend on the object in consideration. Second, they should assume that the item will cost at least twice as much as initial estimates indicate.
There should be a 2-to-1 hurdle when the price tag of a project is being considered.
Government purchases of military hardware, highways, energy projects, space equipment, and other items often cost 50% or 100%, or more (see here and here), above what politicians originally promise.
Let’s be conservative and say that a 50% cost overrun is typical, such that we can expect a new $1 billion project to actually cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. But as economists often point out, paying for $1.5 billion in government spending will cost taxpayers much more than $1.5 billion because of the “deadweight losses” or inefficiency costs created by extracting taxes from the private sector with a complex and high-rate system.
How much more? Harvard’s Martin Feldstein thinks deadweight losses might be $1 for each added dollar of taxes. But let’s be conservative and say it’s only 50 cents on the dollar. So government projects impose deadweight losses of 50% on costs that are likely to balloon at least 50%.
The bottom line is that when America’s taxpayers hear that politicians want to spend, say, $10 billion on a new scheme, they should assume that they will face an ultimate financial hit of $22.5 billion. And that’s conservative!"
Monday, June 16, 2008
Greater Phoenix Economic Council asks CEOs to Push State for Solar Incentives
...sounds great, huh? As usual, the devil is in the details! The whispering has started and I hear that this is something that the legislature is going to be asked to entertain before session ends in two weeks.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Super Bowl wasn't a windfall
"Glendale did not recoup what it spent to host Super Bowl XLII, according to a new study that showed out-of-towners here for the game added an estimated $1.2 million to the city's tax coffers.
The city laid out $3.4 million preparing for and hosting the Feb. 3 game.
Bottom line: The city spent $2.2 million more than its estimated take in connection with the game."
The city laid out $3.4 million preparing for and hosting the Feb. 3 game.
Bottom line: The city spent $2.2 million more than its estimated take in connection with the game."
Saturday, February 9, 2008
SCR 1009~No Taxpayer Money for Lobbyists
Tough road ahead for ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying. Tell Sponor Senator Linda Gray to keep up the good fight!
In an effort to end the use of taxpayer funds for lobbying, Arizona Senator Linda Gray (R-Northwest Phoenix) introduced SCR 1009, a referendum bill also known as No Taxpayer Money for Lobbyists (NTML).
If passed during the current legislative session, NTML would allow Arizona voters in November to prohibit the use of public funds for lobbying, while safeguarding the ability of elected officials, public agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and political subdivisions to provide expert testimony and information to members of the Legislature.
Although it started off the session with more than a dozen sponsors, and earned the endorsement of the state GOP at its mandatory meeting on January 26th, NTML was held in the Senate’s Government Committee this week. The difficulties faced by the bill in that committee show just how tough it will be to get the reform through the Legislature.
One of the committee members, Sen. Meg Burton Cahill (D-Tempe), expressed the view that the democratic election of local government officials confers legitimacy on all of their decisions, including the decision to give public funds to lobbyists. That is a common view down at the Legislature, although it was not the view of the framers of the US and Arizona Constitutions, who believed that government should have limited powers.
Sen. Robert Blendu (R-Litchfield Park, Goodyear) expressed worries that a ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying would disrupt the information-providing function of the lobbying system. While he is correct that lobbying does facilitate the flow of information about policies, it does not follow that lobbyists should have access to public funds. Instead, elected officials and government employees should raise lobbying money the way other interest groups do—by means of private, voluntary contributions.
Sen. Jake Flake (R-Gila and Apache Counties) argued that there is no inherent big-government bias to taxpayer-funded lobbying. He is correct that we should not make blanket statements about the aims of all taxpayer-funded lobbying, but examples of big-government bias come readily to mind. In recent years, lobbyists in Arizona have used public funds to oppose popular efforts to end eminent domain abuse, reduce income and property taxes, and extend educational opportunities to children through school choice.
Sen. Flake also expressed some understandable concerns about geographical equity: the mayor of Snowflake will have more difficulty getting to legislative hearings than the mayor of Glendale. However, there is nothing in NTML that would prevent the Legislature from reimbursing city and county officials for travel expenses when they are invited to Phoenix to testify before legislative committees.
Facing opposition from the Committee’s majority—Senators Blendu, Burton Cahill, Flake, and the nearly silent Jorge Luis Garcia (D-Tucson)—Senator Gray held the bill.
From here, NTML faces a tough road. Perhaps an amended version of the bill can get out of committee and go to a vote before the full Senate. Or perhaps a House version of the bill can move forward. If the Legislature fails us, taxpayer activists will have to wait until next year to collect signatures and put a citizen initiative on the 2010 ballot.
Meanwhile, please send Senator Linda Gray an email (lgray@azleg.gov) or a phone message (602-926-3376) to thank her for her efforts to end taxpayer-funded lobbying. And please tell her to keep up the good fight!
URL for text of the January 26th state GOP resolution in favor of NTML:
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=4794&state=az
Contact: Tom Jenney, Arizona state director, Americans for Prosperity
tjenney@afphq.org (602) 478-0146
In an effort to end the use of taxpayer funds for lobbying, Arizona Senator Linda Gray (R-Northwest Phoenix) introduced SCR 1009, a referendum bill also known as No Taxpayer Money for Lobbyists (NTML).
If passed during the current legislative session, NTML would allow Arizona voters in November to prohibit the use of public funds for lobbying, while safeguarding the ability of elected officials, public agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and political subdivisions to provide expert testimony and information to members of the Legislature.
Although it started off the session with more than a dozen sponsors, and earned the endorsement of the state GOP at its mandatory meeting on January 26th, NTML was held in the Senate’s Government Committee this week. The difficulties faced by the bill in that committee show just how tough it will be to get the reform through the Legislature.
One of the committee members, Sen. Meg Burton Cahill (D-Tempe), expressed the view that the democratic election of local government officials confers legitimacy on all of their decisions, including the decision to give public funds to lobbyists. That is a common view down at the Legislature, although it was not the view of the framers of the US and Arizona Constitutions, who believed that government should have limited powers.
Sen. Robert Blendu (R-Litchfield Park, Goodyear) expressed worries that a ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying would disrupt the information-providing function of the lobbying system. While he is correct that lobbying does facilitate the flow of information about policies, it does not follow that lobbyists should have access to public funds. Instead, elected officials and government employees should raise lobbying money the way other interest groups do—by means of private, voluntary contributions.
Sen. Jake Flake (R-Gila and Apache Counties) argued that there is no inherent big-government bias to taxpayer-funded lobbying. He is correct that we should not make blanket statements about the aims of all taxpayer-funded lobbying, but examples of big-government bias come readily to mind. In recent years, lobbyists in Arizona have used public funds to oppose popular efforts to end eminent domain abuse, reduce income and property taxes, and extend educational opportunities to children through school choice.
Sen. Flake also expressed some understandable concerns about geographical equity: the mayor of Snowflake will have more difficulty getting to legislative hearings than the mayor of Glendale. However, there is nothing in NTML that would prevent the Legislature from reimbursing city and county officials for travel expenses when they are invited to Phoenix to testify before legislative committees.
Facing opposition from the Committee’s majority—Senators Blendu, Burton Cahill, Flake, and the nearly silent Jorge Luis Garcia (D-Tucson)—Senator Gray held the bill.
From here, NTML faces a tough road. Perhaps an amended version of the bill can get out of committee and go to a vote before the full Senate. Or perhaps a House version of the bill can move forward. If the Legislature fails us, taxpayer activists will have to wait until next year to collect signatures and put a citizen initiative on the 2010 ballot.
Meanwhile, please send Senator Linda Gray an email (lgray@azleg.gov) or a phone message (602-926-3376) to thank her for her efforts to end taxpayer-funded lobbying. And please tell her to keep up the good fight!
URL for text of the January 26th state GOP resolution in favor of NTML:
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=4794&state=az
Contact: Tom Jenney, Arizona state director, Americans for Prosperity
tjenney@afphq.org (602) 478-0146
Saturday, August 18, 2007
English Classes for Immigrants Fall Short of Demand
This Arizona Repugnant article details the challenges faced by both legal and illegal immigrants in accessing government (taxpayer) funded English classes because of long waiting lists. Sounds to me like there is a perfect oppotunity for more privately run schools to address this problem!
The article also notes some of the effects of voter-approved Prop 300. I am so thankful to hear how this initiative is working when it is implemented properly!
The article also notes some of the effects of voter-approved Prop 300. I am so thankful to hear how this initiative is working when it is implemented properly!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
