The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is an fiscally conservative organization that sends out email updates during the Arizona Legislative Session discussing the pros & cons of proposed legislation. I am almost always in agreement with their position. If you click on the red circled envelope at the bottom right corner of their website, you can sign up for their email updates.
Americans For Prosperity or, as the Arizona Chapter is known, Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, is also a great source of information during the legislative session. Tom Jenney, the ATF’s president, sends out email updates on budget issues & legislative proposals that effect the taxpayer. Some of his emails serve as “action alerts” so that you can organize a group of like-minded folks to call or email legislators.
The Goldwater Institute sends emails almost daily during session about all types of legislative proposals, weighing in on both fiscal & social proposals. They also rate legislators each year & compile a scorecard, much like Americans for Prosperity/Arizona Federation of Taxpayers.
Showing posts with label The Goldwater Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Goldwater Institute. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Theme Park Measure Could Take State for a Ride
UPDATE: This measure passed out of the Senate, despite being poor policy, and is now headed to the Governor.
By Byron Schlomach, Commentary
In the Mel Brooks play, “The Producers,” a planned swindle would only succeed if a joke of a Broadway play was a monumental flop. The play, “Springtime for Hitler,” ended up being a success against all reason. Right now the Arizona Legislature is planning a similar heist: the Decades Music Theme Park.
The Legislature has proposed a law to create a “special attraction district” in Eloy that would only include the Decades park and give it quasi-governmental status. Why is this proposed law a scam? In essence, the law is designed to subsidize private companies that cannot raise the money or otherwise get financing without special government treatment. In this case, the special privilege is the ability to issue government bonds. The bill now being considered would allow the owners of Decades to issue $750 million in government bonds.
People who buy government bonds accept less interest than they would otherwise for two reasons. First, they don’t have to pay federal income tax on the interest earned. Second, government bonds are backed by the ability of a government entity to tax its citizens, so they are generally safe investments.
In the case of the proposed theme park, the bonds will be financed by sales taxes paid only by park visitors. That means these bonds are really every bit as speculative as corporate bonds, because they are entirely dependent on the ability of a company to attract customers.
There are very likely to be good-faith buyers of these special attraction district bonds who will have every reason to think the bonds are as safe as school district bonds.
Then, if the park doesn’t work out and goes out of business, widows, retirees and institutional investors could find their government-grade bonds worth pennies on the dollar at best. If this unfortunate scenario were to happen, disappointed investors would likely sue those responsible, including the state of Arizona. Even if there’s no lawsuit, Arizona’s bond ratings will suffer if the park goes belly-up. Future bond buyers, with no idea if they’re really buying speculative corporate bonds or genuine government bonds, might avoid buying Arizona bonds all together.
Not only could Arizonans lose financially if policymakers ultimately approve this highly speculative project, we could lose in other ways. The private sector sets a pretty high bar for potential enterprises to pass in order to get funding. That doesn’t mean there is always success when enterprises are privately funded, but it does mean the winners often win big. Who knows what kind of big winner this government-backed project might prevent from opening.
If a theme park comes to Arizona, it needs to stand on its own financial feet. The test any such proposal passes should come from the private sector school of hard work, not the political school of smooth talk.
Byron Schlomach is director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Economic Prosperity
By Byron Schlomach, Commentary
In the Mel Brooks play, “The Producers,” a planned swindle would only succeed if a joke of a Broadway play was a monumental flop. The play, “Springtime for Hitler,” ended up being a success against all reason. Right now the Arizona Legislature is planning a similar heist: the Decades Music Theme Park.
The Legislature has proposed a law to create a “special attraction district” in Eloy that would only include the Decades park and give it quasi-governmental status. Why is this proposed law a scam? In essence, the law is designed to subsidize private companies that cannot raise the money or otherwise get financing without special government treatment. In this case, the special privilege is the ability to issue government bonds. The bill now being considered would allow the owners of Decades to issue $750 million in government bonds.
People who buy government bonds accept less interest than they would otherwise for two reasons. First, they don’t have to pay federal income tax on the interest earned. Second, government bonds are backed by the ability of a government entity to tax its citizens, so they are generally safe investments.
In the case of the proposed theme park, the bonds will be financed by sales taxes paid only by park visitors. That means these bonds are really every bit as speculative as corporate bonds, because they are entirely dependent on the ability of a company to attract customers.
There are very likely to be good-faith buyers of these special attraction district bonds who will have every reason to think the bonds are as safe as school district bonds.
Then, if the park doesn’t work out and goes out of business, widows, retirees and institutional investors could find their government-grade bonds worth pennies on the dollar at best. If this unfortunate scenario were to happen, disappointed investors would likely sue those responsible, including the state of Arizona. Even if there’s no lawsuit, Arizona’s bond ratings will suffer if the park goes belly-up. Future bond buyers, with no idea if they’re really buying speculative corporate bonds or genuine government bonds, might avoid buying Arizona bonds all together.
Not only could Arizonans lose financially if policymakers ultimately approve this highly speculative project, we could lose in other ways. The private sector sets a pretty high bar for potential enterprises to pass in order to get funding. That doesn’t mean there is always success when enterprises are privately funded, but it does mean the winners often win big. Who knows what kind of big winner this government-backed project might prevent from opening.
If a theme park comes to Arizona, it needs to stand on its own financial feet. The test any such proposal passes should come from the private sector school of hard work, not the political school of smooth talk.
Byron Schlomach is director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Economic Prosperity
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Goldwater Institute Legislators Report Card
This link will take you to 2005-2007 Scores for Gould, McLain, and myself. 2008 Report Cards will be out early fall, I believe.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Growing Government
Over the past seven years, the state budget has increased 94%, while the population has only increased 24%. According to the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, total state spending for fiscal year 2008, which began July 1, 2007 will be an estimated $27 billion – or $855 every second. This is one of the reasons, besides the steep economic decline, that the state is facing the current budget crisis today and, hopefully, explains my consistant opposition to the budgets presented the past three sessions.
Friday, June 23, 2006
All Aboard!
All Aboard!
Democrats boarding the school choice train
by Clint Bolick
June 23, 2006
The Arizona legislature’s 2006 session set a record for school choice legislation by enacting four new or expanded programs allowing disadvantaged children to attend private schools. Even more remarkable: The programs were enacted with a Democratic governor.
School choice has experienced unprecedented legislative success over the past two years for a few underlying reasons. First and foremost, the school choice movement is acting smarter. Advocates are pursuing small programs addressing specific problems that are difficult for politicians to oppose.
Another factor inducing a more tolerant attitude toward school choice among Democrats is that they are running out of viable alternatives. The U.S. Department of Education reported recently that three million children are attending schools that have failed to satisfy minimal state standards for at least six consecutive years.
For Democrats who truly believe in social justice, that presents a terrible dilemma: Either forcing children to remain in schools where they have little prospect for a bright future, or enlisting private schools in a rescue mission. Democrats are increasingly unwilling to forsake the neediest children.
Arizona is evidence of the possible. Although she could have allowed them to become law without her signature, as she did with the corporate scholarship tax credits, Gov. Napolitano yesterday became the first Democrat to sign new voucher programs into law. For children with disabilities or in foster care, how the bill became law is of little moment; but by affixing her imprimatur, Ms. Napolitano conveyed powerful symbolic evidence that the future for school choice is bright.
Clint Bolick is president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice and a Goldwater Institute senior fellow. A version of this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal
Democrats boarding the school choice train
by Clint Bolick
June 23, 2006
The Arizona legislature’s 2006 session set a record for school choice legislation by enacting four new or expanded programs allowing disadvantaged children to attend private schools. Even more remarkable: The programs were enacted with a Democratic governor.
School choice has experienced unprecedented legislative success over the past two years for a few underlying reasons. First and foremost, the school choice movement is acting smarter. Advocates are pursuing small programs addressing specific problems that are difficult for politicians to oppose.
Another factor inducing a more tolerant attitude toward school choice among Democrats is that they are running out of viable alternatives. The U.S. Department of Education reported recently that three million children are attending schools that have failed to satisfy minimal state standards for at least six consecutive years.
For Democrats who truly believe in social justice, that presents a terrible dilemma: Either forcing children to remain in schools where they have little prospect for a bright future, or enlisting private schools in a rescue mission. Democrats are increasingly unwilling to forsake the neediest children.
Arizona is evidence of the possible. Although she could have allowed them to become law without her signature, as she did with the corporate scholarship tax credits, Gov. Napolitano yesterday became the first Democrat to sign new voucher programs into law. For children with disabilities or in foster care, how the bill became law is of little moment; but by affixing her imprimatur, Ms. Napolitano conveyed powerful symbolic evidence that the future for school choice is bright.
Clint Bolick is president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice and a Goldwater Institute senior fellow. A version of this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal
Monday, January 30, 2006
School Choice-Goldwater Institute
Unions or Children First?
Democratic officials are increasingly embracing school choice
by Dan Lips
January 30, 2006
If the legislature passes corporate tuition tax credits for a third time, Governor Napolitano will have a choice to honor her promise or, once again, veto this popular program.
Democratic officials are increasingly embracing school choice
by Dan Lips
January 30, 2006
If the legislature passes corporate tuition tax credits for a third time, Governor Napolitano will have a choice to honor her promise or, once again, veto this popular program.
This isn't the easy calculation it might seem to be. Napolitano and Democratic officials across the nation face a similar dilemma—school choice legislation forces them to choose between core constituencies.
The families who benefit most from school choice are the most undeserved by the current public school system: low-income and often minority. But those most opposed to school choice are another core Democratic constituency: the teachers unions that provide campaign funding and grassroots manpower for Democratic campaigns.
Many democrats are beginning to part ways with the unions. Democratic Mayor Anthony Williams and Senators Robert Byrd, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman all provided critical support for the new Washington, D.C., voucher program. Last year, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell expanded the state's private school scholarship program. And Democratic state legislators in New Jersey are pushing a school voucher program to help inner-city children.
Governor Napolitano must strike a balance between the demands of the 30,000-member Arizona Education Association and the needs of Arizona's children. Wisconsin’s Democratic Governor Jim Doyle faces a similar quandary. Milwaukee’s voucher program has proven so popular that more families apply for scholarships than are available. But Gov. Doyle has vetoed several proposals to raise the cap on enrollment. Because of these vetoes, thousands of inner-city children may be sent back to public schools this fall.
What will it take to change these Democratic governors' political calculus? As more parents recognize that school choice can improve their children's lives, a growing number of Democratic leaders will be forced to choose whether to stand with the teachers unions or with underprivileged children.
Dan Lips is Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation and a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
