February 20, 2006
Representative Trish Groe
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Representative Groe:
I am appointing you to serve on the House Select Committee on Government Operations, Performance and Waste. The Committee membership will include Representatives Allen, Brown, Gallardo, Murphy and Paton.
The committee is charged with making inquiries of, and recommendations to, state agencies to ensure the agencies are performing their duties at the highest possible level. These inquiries and recommendations shall include, but not be limited to, staffing levels, vacancy rates, system inefficiencies, budget recommendations, and the role of privatization. The committee shall summarize its findings and make recommendations to the Speaker of the House in a timely manner.
Thank you for your willingness to serve on this committee. I look forwarding to receiving your recommendations.
Sincerely,
JAMES P. WEIERS
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Supremacist Judicial Mischief In Arizona
Supremacist Judicial Mischief In Arizona
by Phyllis Schlafly, Feb. 22, 2006
One of the most outrageous current examples of out-of-control judges is the case called Flores v. Arizona, now pending in federal court in Tucson, Arizona. Originally filed in 1992, plaintiff lawyers claim to represent an estimated 160,000 children of illegal aliens attending public schools.
The case seeks to force Arizona taxpayers to pay for bringing these children, euphemistically called English Language Learners, up to grade level. The lawyers are trying to accomplish this by turning a state legislative issue into a federal judicial command.
In 2000, a Carter-appointed judge ruled that the inability of illegal alien children to speak English well enough to succeed in school meant that Arizona was violating the federal Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974. This EEOA requires "appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation."
A decade ago, in a case that involved Alabama's policy about foreign-language driver's license exams, the liberals attempted to induce activist judges to insert the word "language" into the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of "national origin." The lawyers did persuade the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to legislate from the bench and do that.
However, in the 2001 case of Alexander v. Sandoval, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the claim that someone can sue for accommodation for his foreign language based on the Civil Rights Act. In our era of supremacist judges who so often believe that they can "evolve" new meanings into the Constitution and into statutes, and impose their own policy preferences, this was a welcome case of judicial restraint.
Nevertheless, hope springs eternal in the creative minds of lawyers who seek out supremacist judges. They are spurred on when deep pockets are available, and they find the deepest pockets when they can raid the American taxpayers.
So, back to Flores v. Arizona where the Carter-appointed judge had ruled against the taxpayers. But since the statute sets no standards for "appropriate action," the judge wisely said in 1999 that he would not substitute the court's "educational values and theories for the educational and political decisions reserved to state or local school authorities."
The judge ordered the state to prepare a cost study so the legislature could act. The legislature then passed three bills providing funds to address the problem of English Language Learners, but Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed all three.
The original judge retired, and the Flores case was handed over to a Clinton-appointed judge. In December 2005, he imposed fines of $500,000 a day, escalating to $2 million a day, for every day that the legislature fails to authorize funding acceptable to the Governor.
Governor Napolitano wants the state legislature to appropriate nearly $1,200 per child. That could total $192 million, and she wants it without accountability for how it is to be spent.
Since January 25, millions of dollars in court-ordered fines have been accumulating. If this continues to the end of the legislative session, the fines will total more than $77 million.
With the judge on her side, the Governor has no incentive to sign any bill passed by the legislature until she gets what she wants. Governor Napolitano is the same person who, when she was State Attorney General, had the responsibility to defend Arizona's taxpayers.
If there is any issue that should be clearly and exclusively a function of the legislature elected by the people it is the matter of raising taxes and spending the people's money. Unfortunately, there are many supremacist judges who think they (in this case, a judge and a governor) can order the legislature to raise taxes and tell them how to spend the taxpayers' money.
Flores v. Arizona makes it clear that our battle to reform the Imperial Judiciary is not finished just because two Bush-appointed justices have been seated on the Supreme Court. Hundreds of Clinton-appointed, Carter-appointed, and even Lyndon Johnson-appointed federal judges are continuing their judicial mischief in cases that will probably never reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Millions of non-English-speaking immigrants have come to America over several centuries. When their children went immediately into schools where only English was spoken, they learned English rapidly and taught it to their parents.
Immersion in English in public schools was the way this happened, and nobody ever thought of rewarding the immigrants or the schools with special appropriations. The immersion system worked just fine until liberal busybodies, with too much tax money at their disposal, decided to experiment on vulnerable immigrant children with unworkable, expensive projects such as the now discredited and misnamed "bilingual education."
Nobody seems to know why some Arizona children haven't learned English in the last five years. Can it be that the schools are allowing them to use Spanish in the classroom instead of the proven immersion method?
by Phyllis Schlafly, Feb. 22, 2006
One of the most outrageous current examples of out-of-control judges is the case called Flores v. Arizona, now pending in federal court in Tucson, Arizona. Originally filed in 1992, plaintiff lawyers claim to represent an estimated 160,000 children of illegal aliens attending public schools.
The case seeks to force Arizona taxpayers to pay for bringing these children, euphemistically called English Language Learners, up to grade level. The lawyers are trying to accomplish this by turning a state legislative issue into a federal judicial command.
In 2000, a Carter-appointed judge ruled that the inability of illegal alien children to speak English well enough to succeed in school meant that Arizona was violating the federal Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974. This EEOA requires "appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation."
A decade ago, in a case that involved Alabama's policy about foreign-language driver's license exams, the liberals attempted to induce activist judges to insert the word "language" into the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of "national origin." The lawyers did persuade the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to legislate from the bench and do that.
However, in the 2001 case of Alexander v. Sandoval, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the claim that someone can sue for accommodation for his foreign language based on the Civil Rights Act. In our era of supremacist judges who so often believe that they can "evolve" new meanings into the Constitution and into statutes, and impose their own policy preferences, this was a welcome case of judicial restraint.
Nevertheless, hope springs eternal in the creative minds of lawyers who seek out supremacist judges. They are spurred on when deep pockets are available, and they find the deepest pockets when they can raid the American taxpayers.
So, back to Flores v. Arizona where the Carter-appointed judge had ruled against the taxpayers. But since the statute sets no standards for "appropriate action," the judge wisely said in 1999 that he would not substitute the court's "educational values and theories for the educational and political decisions reserved to state or local school authorities."
The judge ordered the state to prepare a cost study so the legislature could act. The legislature then passed three bills providing funds to address the problem of English Language Learners, but Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed all three.
The original judge retired, and the Flores case was handed over to a Clinton-appointed judge. In December 2005, he imposed fines of $500,000 a day, escalating to $2 million a day, for every day that the legislature fails to authorize funding acceptable to the Governor.
Governor Napolitano wants the state legislature to appropriate nearly $1,200 per child. That could total $192 million, and she wants it without accountability for how it is to be spent.
Since January 25, millions of dollars in court-ordered fines have been accumulating. If this continues to the end of the legislative session, the fines will total more than $77 million.
With the judge on her side, the Governor has no incentive to sign any bill passed by the legislature until she gets what she wants. Governor Napolitano is the same person who, when she was State Attorney General, had the responsibility to defend Arizona's taxpayers.
If there is any issue that should be clearly and exclusively a function of the legislature elected by the people it is the matter of raising taxes and spending the people's money. Unfortunately, there are many supremacist judges who think they (in this case, a judge and a governor) can order the legislature to raise taxes and tell them how to spend the taxpayers' money.
Flores v. Arizona makes it clear that our battle to reform the Imperial Judiciary is not finished just because two Bush-appointed justices have been seated on the Supreme Court. Hundreds of Clinton-appointed, Carter-appointed, and even Lyndon Johnson-appointed federal judges are continuing their judicial mischief in cases that will probably never reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Millions of non-English-speaking immigrants have come to America over several centuries. When their children went immediately into schools where only English was spoken, they learned English rapidly and taught it to their parents.
Immersion in English in public schools was the way this happened, and nobody ever thought of rewarding the immigrants or the schools with special appropriations. The immersion system worked just fine until liberal busybodies, with too much tax money at their disposal, decided to experiment on vulnerable immigrant children with unworkable, expensive projects such as the now discredited and misnamed "bilingual education."
Nobody seems to know why some Arizona children haven't learned English in the last five years. Can it be that the schools are allowing them to use Spanish in the classroom instead of the proven immersion method?
Monday, February 20, 2006
Weekend Wrap-Up
Bullhead City Lincoln Day Dinner
Great Event...Jan Brewer was the highlight of the evening. Meet great people I serve...some who like me and some, who quite passionately don't.
Not unexpected but still unpleasent. Being the voice of the people is tremendously rewarding but challenging along the way. There is not always agreement but I can assure you, there is respect...from my side at least.
Pregnancy Care Banquet on Sunday Afternoon in Lake Havasu City...what a blessing! A fantastic group of volunteers that coach others through life's hardship and misfourtunes.
Met a couple people who are running for the legislature...who can blame them as it is such an awesome job. Pray that the candidates focus on the issues, not personality conflicts and such. We all derserve much better than that!
Great Event...Jan Brewer was the highlight of the evening. Meet great people I serve...some who like me and some, who quite passionately don't.
Not unexpected but still unpleasent. Being the voice of the people is tremendously rewarding but challenging along the way. There is not always agreement but I can assure you, there is respect...from my side at least.
Pregnancy Care Banquet on Sunday Afternoon in Lake Havasu City...what a blessing! A fantastic group of volunteers that coach others through life's hardship and misfourtunes.
Met a couple people who are running for the legislature...who can blame them as it is such an awesome job. Pray that the candidates focus on the issues, not personality conflicts and such. We all derserve much better than that!
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Bad Bill Alert
Bad Bill Alert: Once again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!
Today in the appropriations committee we were asked to pass legislation that would have required the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department to pay $5.00 Cash to people who waited in line more than 30 minutes. Now folks, personally I think our time is worth much more than that though I could not vote in favor of such legislation. I do though admire the sponsor of the bill and suggest that next time she offers such legislation she should up the dollar amount....my mantra is "Go Bigg or Go Home!"
Just kidding folks...just another example of misguided legislation.
Today in the appropriations committee we were asked to pass legislation that would have required the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department to pay $5.00 Cash to people who waited in line more than 30 minutes. Now folks, personally I think our time is worth much more than that though I could not vote in favor of such legislation. I do though admire the sponsor of the bill and suggest that next time she offers such legislation she should up the dollar amount....my mantra is "Go Bigg or Go Home!"
Just kidding folks...just another example of misguided legislation.
State Legislature Wrap-Up
State Legislature Wrap-Up
* With the way the legislature is dealing with illegal immigration, you’d think there was an emergency or something. Oh wait, there is. This week, Republicans demonstrated their continued commitment to action over lip-service on border security.
The House passed House Bill 2701, which forces the governor to deploy the National Guard to help defend the border. Despite declaring an emergency in August, Governor Napolitano has taken no steps to stop the flow of thousands of illegal aliens coming across our border. The legislation now heads to the Senate.
The Senate and House also now each have bills heading to floor votes that would deploy radar technology to help secure the border.
Another action highlighting the effort by legislative Republicans was the passage through committee of Senate Bill 1157. This would make the illegal crossing of Arizona’s international border a state crime of “trespass,” giving local authorities greater opportunities to engage in the defense of the border. Only two members of the Senate Judiciary committee voted against the bill – both Democrats.
* Republicans promised broad-based tax relief and they are delivering. Senate Bill 1545 provides more than $250 million in income and property tax relief to Arizona residents. This measure to help spur the economy and give Arizonans the opportunity to decide how to spend more of their own money instead of a further bloating of government bureaucracy passed the Finance committee 7-1.
* Legislative leaders are engaged in a series of meetings with the governor on English Language Learners. This is an effort by Republican leadership to try and reach some compromise with an executive who has already vetoed three attempts to send an ELL funding plan to a federal judge – vetoes that continue to cost Arizona’s taxpayers $500,000 per day.
The leaders continue to hold firm on the principles of funding the effort to teach English to ELL students on the basis of actual costs. There also must be real accountability so that these children are made proficient in English thoroughly and quickly. Republicans also feel that federal dollars must be used to help meet funding requirements for this federal mandate and that the voters’ desire for English immersion expressed through the passage of Proposition 203 must be served.
Did you know: Senate Bill 1110 protecting private property rights against over reaching local government eminent domain efforts passed the Senate with only four “no” votes. All those voting against the protections for private property rights were Democrats, including the “two-hatted” Senator Harry Mitchell. Confusingly, Mitchell serves as both Senator from District 17 and state Democrat Party Chairman.
* With the way the legislature is dealing with illegal immigration, you’d think there was an emergency or something. Oh wait, there is. This week, Republicans demonstrated their continued commitment to action over lip-service on border security.
The House passed House Bill 2701, which forces the governor to deploy the National Guard to help defend the border. Despite declaring an emergency in August, Governor Napolitano has taken no steps to stop the flow of thousands of illegal aliens coming across our border. The legislation now heads to the Senate.
The Senate and House also now each have bills heading to floor votes that would deploy radar technology to help secure the border.
Another action highlighting the effort by legislative Republicans was the passage through committee of Senate Bill 1157. This would make the illegal crossing of Arizona’s international border a state crime of “trespass,” giving local authorities greater opportunities to engage in the defense of the border. Only two members of the Senate Judiciary committee voted against the bill – both Democrats.
* Republicans promised broad-based tax relief and they are delivering. Senate Bill 1545 provides more than $250 million in income and property tax relief to Arizona residents. This measure to help spur the economy and give Arizonans the opportunity to decide how to spend more of their own money instead of a further bloating of government bureaucracy passed the Finance committee 7-1.
* Legislative leaders are engaged in a series of meetings with the governor on English Language Learners. This is an effort by Republican leadership to try and reach some compromise with an executive who has already vetoed three attempts to send an ELL funding plan to a federal judge – vetoes that continue to cost Arizona’s taxpayers $500,000 per day.
The leaders continue to hold firm on the principles of funding the effort to teach English to ELL students on the basis of actual costs. There also must be real accountability so that these children are made proficient in English thoroughly and quickly. Republicans also feel that federal dollars must be used to help meet funding requirements for this federal mandate and that the voters’ desire for English immersion expressed through the passage of Proposition 203 must be served.
Did you know: Senate Bill 1110 protecting private property rights against over reaching local government eminent domain efforts passed the Senate with only four “no” votes. All those voting against the protections for private property rights were Democrats, including the “two-hatted” Senator Harry Mitchell. Confusingly, Mitchell serves as both Senator from District 17 and state Democrat Party Chairman.
Prudent Spending?
How important to you, the hard working taxpayer, is an Arizona Welcome Center in Yuma? Worth $4 Million Dollars? I am hearing testimony if we fund this project it will be a beacon to entice visitors to Arizona. What say you?
Monday, February 13, 2006
SCR 1024- PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
Dear Friends,
SCR 1024 is the proposed Property Tax Relief legislation sponsored by Senator Gould and myself.
Below is an endorsement/email from the Arizona Seniors Coalition:
SCR 1024
OK you people all over the state here is the opportunity that we have been wanting for for years. This bill is similar to Prop 13 in California that was passed years ago to protect seniors against the loss of their homes through taxation. This bill will limit property taxes to 2% a year. Over the past five years our property tax in Arizona has increased by about 6% a year. Now similar bills have been introduced in the Legislature before and have failed. In order to get this bill passed there has to be a lot of home owners putting pressure on their Legislators to get them to support it.
So get on your phone, send an e-mail, or letter, or talk face to face with your state Senator and house members. It will not take more than five or ten minutes and will benefit you extremely well financially. For example the tax on my house is almost $1900 and I expect it to be about $2200 next year. My house in California, similar to the one I now have, would be about $1440 because the taxes could not increase more than 2% a year.
If you sit on the sideline we will miss and opportunity that may not come along again for years. Send this on to your friends to get them involved also.
Charlie Powell
President - Arizona Seniors' Coalition
cepowell@theconservativepress.org
SCR 1024 is the proposed Property Tax Relief legislation sponsored by Senator Gould and myself.
Below is an endorsement/email from the Arizona Seniors Coalition:
SCR 1024
OK you people all over the state here is the opportunity that we have been wanting for for years. This bill is similar to Prop 13 in California that was passed years ago to protect seniors against the loss of their homes through taxation. This bill will limit property taxes to 2% a year. Over the past five years our property tax in Arizona has increased by about 6% a year. Now similar bills have been introduced in the Legislature before and have failed. In order to get this bill passed there has to be a lot of home owners putting pressure on their Legislators to get them to support it.
So get on your phone, send an e-mail, or letter, or talk face to face with your state Senator and house members. It will not take more than five or ten minutes and will benefit you extremely well financially. For example the tax on my house is almost $1900 and I expect it to be about $2200 next year. My house in California, similar to the one I now have, would be about $1440 because the taxes could not increase more than 2% a year.
If you sit on the sideline we will miss and opportunity that may not come along again for years. Send this on to your friends to get them involved also.
Charlie Powell
President - Arizona Seniors' Coalition
cepowell@theconservativepress.org
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Tipping Point: Wake up, Arizona; heed the warings of a looming water crisis
Tipping point
Wake up, Arizona; heed the warnings of a looming water crisis
JonTaltonRepubliccolumnistFeb. 12, 2006 12:00 AM
When catastrophe finally arrives, suddenly one morning, or maybe overnight while most Arizonans sleep air-conditioned dreams, what will we tell the nation and the world? How did we get to the point where we need a water rescue that dwarfs in cost the savings and loan bailout and many natural disasters?We may remember reassurances as concrete as the Central Arizona Project canal, aquifers that seemed to rest comfortingly beneath every part of the parched land and copious regulations about assured water supplies for new developments. We had expert white papers and agreements with other states. Didn't our leaders tell us Arizona could hold 8 million, 16 million, 30 million people? And the wishful thinking: New technologies to re-use water, make fresh supplies from the ocean and inexpensively expand the CAP canal would somehow drop from the sky just when we needed them. The tribes would sell water to the cities if worse came to worst. Pinal County wasn't replenishing enough groundwater, but that would work out, right? We could handle 350,000 houses in Buckeye - they told us. We could settle things with other states claiming Colorado River water, couldn't we? And fanciful theories: Water could be assured by market forces, where it was commoditized and bought and sold. Surely this would work out better than the deregulation of electricity in California. Maybe some would remember the reluctance of leaders to talk about water issues. To do so might scare away growth. But at the time it seemed like confidence. They knew more than we did, after all.With few exceptions the media, sleepy in a retirement state, didn't see it coming. Most people get their news from television, and night after night they heard about car wrecks, police chases, meth busts and a bright health story. Water is complicated, and the media don't like complicated.The rest of the nation didn't pay much attention, either. Arizona is far away from the government and media capitals, both of which were increasingly distracted with world crises and the latest disappearance of an attractive blond teenager. The increasing destabilization of a world competing for oil and, yes, water resources, needed Washington's attention.Where did we reach a point of no return?We might look back to 2006, when developers proposed building 160,000 houses between Kingman and the state line, as new suburbs to Sin City. The trouble is, Mohave County isn't known for its water supplies. Some people living there must haul their water.Much of the state was not under the groundwater rules that affect Greater Phoenix and a few other areas, requiring a 100-year assured supply. Developers exploited a loophole in rural areas that allowed them to build without water. They did it throughout rural Arizona.Arizona faced a choice. The historic sanctity of property rights and local control seemed to trump all else, including the public welfare. A middle ground was possible: extending the assured water supply rules to the entire state, but giving a great deal of control to localities. Towns and counties in rural Arizona could generate their own water management goals. But the Legislature would not budge.Some said even this wouldn't have been enough. In reality, Arizona couldn't keep growing its population by 40 percent each decade, spreading out in single-family houses and hoping the infrastructure would follow. The only way Arizona could sustainably handle 8 million or more people was in compact, urban living arrangements in areas with renewable water supplies, such as the Salt River Project service area.And even then, we didn't count in the historic drought, which wrecked the assumptions about the snow runoff for the Colorado and Salt rivers, just as drought had destroyed the earlier civilization that lived in Phoenix. Did the Hohokam share our arrogance born of technological mastery? They had every right to, before the timeless, merciless logic of the desert reasserted itself.When catastrophe finally arrives, like the broken gasoline pipeline or the transformer fire only infinitely worse, what will we tell the nation and the world and ourselves?We slept most of all because too much money was being made in the great real-estate boom. It was a force too powerful, determining everything else, consuming every resource, whether the courage of elected leaders or the last phantom aquifer. And like all the booms in the West, like all the speculative manias since time began, it ended badly.
Wake up, Arizona; heed the warnings of a looming water crisis
JonTaltonRepubliccolumnistFeb. 12, 2006 12:00 AM
When catastrophe finally arrives, suddenly one morning, or maybe overnight while most Arizonans sleep air-conditioned dreams, what will we tell the nation and the world? How did we get to the point where we need a water rescue that dwarfs in cost the savings and loan bailout and many natural disasters?We may remember reassurances as concrete as the Central Arizona Project canal, aquifers that seemed to rest comfortingly beneath every part of the parched land and copious regulations about assured water supplies for new developments. We had expert white papers and agreements with other states. Didn't our leaders tell us Arizona could hold 8 million, 16 million, 30 million people? And the wishful thinking: New technologies to re-use water, make fresh supplies from the ocean and inexpensively expand the CAP canal would somehow drop from the sky just when we needed them. The tribes would sell water to the cities if worse came to worst. Pinal County wasn't replenishing enough groundwater, but that would work out, right? We could handle 350,000 houses in Buckeye - they told us. We could settle things with other states claiming Colorado River water, couldn't we? And fanciful theories: Water could be assured by market forces, where it was commoditized and bought and sold. Surely this would work out better than the deregulation of electricity in California. Maybe some would remember the reluctance of leaders to talk about water issues. To do so might scare away growth. But at the time it seemed like confidence. They knew more than we did, after all.With few exceptions the media, sleepy in a retirement state, didn't see it coming. Most people get their news from television, and night after night they heard about car wrecks, police chases, meth busts and a bright health story. Water is complicated, and the media don't like complicated.The rest of the nation didn't pay much attention, either. Arizona is far away from the government and media capitals, both of which were increasingly distracted with world crises and the latest disappearance of an attractive blond teenager. The increasing destabilization of a world competing for oil and, yes, water resources, needed Washington's attention.Where did we reach a point of no return?We might look back to 2006, when developers proposed building 160,000 houses between Kingman and the state line, as new suburbs to Sin City. The trouble is, Mohave County isn't known for its water supplies. Some people living there must haul their water.Much of the state was not under the groundwater rules that affect Greater Phoenix and a few other areas, requiring a 100-year assured supply. Developers exploited a loophole in rural areas that allowed them to build without water. They did it throughout rural Arizona.Arizona faced a choice. The historic sanctity of property rights and local control seemed to trump all else, including the public welfare. A middle ground was possible: extending the assured water supply rules to the entire state, but giving a great deal of control to localities. Towns and counties in rural Arizona could generate their own water management goals. But the Legislature would not budge.Some said even this wouldn't have been enough. In reality, Arizona couldn't keep growing its population by 40 percent each decade, spreading out in single-family houses and hoping the infrastructure would follow. The only way Arizona could sustainably handle 8 million or more people was in compact, urban living arrangements in areas with renewable water supplies, such as the Salt River Project service area.And even then, we didn't count in the historic drought, which wrecked the assumptions about the snow runoff for the Colorado and Salt rivers, just as drought had destroyed the earlier civilization that lived in Phoenix. Did the Hohokam share our arrogance born of technological mastery? They had every right to, before the timeless, merciless logic of the desert reasserted itself.When catastrophe finally arrives, like the broken gasoline pipeline or the transformer fire only infinitely worse, what will we tell the nation and the world and ourselves?We slept most of all because too much money was being made in the great real-estate boom. It was a force too powerful, determining everything else, consuming every resource, whether the courage of elected leaders or the last phantom aquifer. And like all the booms in the West, like all the speculative manias since time began, it ended badly.
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
Some Other Vampire Slayers...Check their Record
Pamela Gorman...an unsurpassed classic conservative leader.
Andy Biggs...a gentleman by definition, with a servant nature, fighting for freedom and individual rights.
Bob Stump...he guards our souls, our eggs, our reproductive sanctity.
Eddie Farnsworth...a class act, a true leader, a wise man who fights to protect individual rights, to protect families, to protect all of the freedoms that this country was founded upon.
Check out their voting records, check out their websites....get to know them...they are warriors for you, fighting your battle. I am proud to know them, learn from them and fight the tough fight with them...for you.
Andy Biggs...a gentleman by definition, with a servant nature, fighting for freedom and individual rights.
Bob Stump...he guards our souls, our eggs, our reproductive sanctity.
Eddie Farnsworth...a class act, a true leader, a wise man who fights to protect individual rights, to protect families, to protect all of the freedoms that this country was founded upon.
Check out their voting records, check out their websites....get to know them...they are warriors for you, fighting your battle. I am proud to know them, learn from them and fight the tough fight with them...for you.
Today
Today.....
today and every day this session I continue to be insulted in committee with some really bad bills. You would not believe the scope of the proposed legislation....absolutley absurd...being assigned a hearing just because of the power/position of the legislator who sponsored the garbage. I am proud to say that Rep. McLain and I have taken a stance...just say no! I have been joking to my colleagues that if they want a bad bill passed all they have to do is make sure that "Veteran's" appears in the title of the bill and it will pass because it is an election year...not far from the truth i am sorry to say. Tomrrow I will post a list of the repulsive legislation and hopefully people will not only inquire about sponsored legislation but about something meaningful like how many bad bills have i killed. I feel like a vampire slayer.
today and every day this session I continue to be insulted in committee with some really bad bills. You would not believe the scope of the proposed legislation....absolutley absurd...being assigned a hearing just because of the power/position of the legislator who sponsored the garbage. I am proud to say that Rep. McLain and I have taken a stance...just say no! I have been joking to my colleagues that if they want a bad bill passed all they have to do is make sure that "Veteran's" appears in the title of the bill and it will pass because it is an election year...not far from the truth i am sorry to say. Tomrrow I will post a list of the repulsive legislation and hopefully people will not only inquire about sponsored legislation but about something meaningful like how many bad bills have i killed. I feel like a vampire slayer.
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
Taxpayer Appreciation and Investment Act
Top 10 Reasons to Support the TAIA
by Tom Jenney
Executive Director, Arizona Federation of Taxpayers
Testimony to House Ways and Means, February 6, 2006
10) The surplus is a clear sign that taxes are too high. Arizona has collected between $850 million and $1 billion in extra revenue over projections. The Taxpayer Appreciation and Investment Act would reduce personal and corporate income tax burdens for all Arizona taxpayers by about ten percent, providing much-needed tax relief for the working people and retirees of Arizona. The current package, which would be phased in over two years, will use up between a quarter and a fifth of the surplus.
9) Arizona already spends far too much. Arizona’s FY 2006 budget is $1.3 billion, or almost 18 percent, over what it would have been had the state limited its budget growth to the rate of population plus inflation. The ten-year average for the rate of population growth plus inflation in Arizona has been 4.8 percent. But the average growth in general fund spending has been 6.7 percent. Anecdotally, the year of greatest infamy was FY 2005, when the Governor and her Big Spender friends teamed up to increase total expenditures by 17.4 percent, or $1.2 billion. That was an outrageous increase. Most taxpayers haven’t seen anything like 17-percent annual increases in their incomes. Even the relatively restrained FY 2006 budget grew faster (7.2 percent) than the 12-year average growth in personal income of 6.8 percent and more than twice as fast as the increase of wages.
8) There is plenty of room in the surplus if the Big Spenders don’t blow it on new spending. Without new spending, we could have the full TAIA as it was introduced, and the Martin-Huffman property tax cut package.
7) There is even more room in the surplus if the Big Borrowers don’t blow it on repaying the raided funds and the K-12 rollover. If there’s any conflict between tax cuts and repaying the funds, cut taxes. The raided funds should be reimbursed out of the general fund, through savings in current programs. Otherwise, we’re setting up what the insurers call “moral hazard.” If the taxpayers bail out the Big Borrowers every time there’s a surplus, the Big Borrowers will never learn to control themselves.
6) This is a tiny tax cut, in the big scheme of things. In Figure 2, which uses simple trendlines, we can see how the TAIA compares with trendline revenue growth (6.4 percent) and with a proposal to eliminate the income tax over 20 years. Notice the difference between the mythical static trendlines (labeled “Stat”) and the one-third dynamic-scoring feedback for both taxes (labeled “Dyn”). AFT supports the 20-year phase-out of the income tax, because it would reduce revenue to a level consistent with budgets that are limited in growth to the rate of population plus inflation. But that’s another matter for another committee. The point here is how modest the TAIA is.
5) Arizona’s “three-legged stool” is unbalanced. The average combined burden of personal and corporate income taxes as a portion of state tax revenue for the past twelve years has been over 40 percent. By cutting ten percent off that 40 percent, we would get closer to reducing income taxes to one-third of state tax revenues.
4) Arizona should rely more heavily on consumption taxes. Here are four reasons:
A) Sales taxes are highly visible, which makes it harder for the government to raise them. Sales taxes are visible in every purchase we make, especially the larger ones. But many folks do not keep a close eye on their income taxes because they are withheld by their employers.
B) Consumption taxes are among the least damaging of taxes to economic growth (their marginal excess burden is lower than that for other taxes).
C) Reducing Arizona’s income taxes would not increase the volatility of general fund revenue sources—and it might even decrease that volatility. Arizona’s sales tax revenue has been much more stable than Arizona’s income revenue.
D) Sales taxes are not necessarily regressive. First, lifetime income mobility means that only a tiny fraction of persons is poor for longer than a few years. Most people are poor when they’re 22 years old, but those same people are not poor when they’re 42 years old.
3) Americans vote with their feet, and they vote for low taxes and strong business climates. According to Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb, there are 19 states with lower personal income tax rates than Arizona, and the Tax Foundation lists ten states with lower personal income taxes in per-capita terms. [This just in: a new Tax and Budget Bulletin from the Cato Institute shows that 14 states have lower state and local tax burdens than Arizona, measured as a percent of income.] The TAIA would reduce Arizona’s highest rate to 4.64 percent, even with Colorado’s flat income tax rate. That’s not as good as the zero-percent rates of Nevada and Texas, but it’s a good start.
2) Arizona needs to dramatically reduce—if not abolish—its corporate income tax. It is especially important to reduce corporate income taxes as part of the overall package. Corporate income taxes are far and away the most volatile of Arizona’s large taxes. And they are perhaps the most destructive taxes on a dollar for dollar basis when it comes to retarding employment growth. As any economist will tell you, corporations do not pay taxes. Workers pay part of those taxes through lower wages, customers pay part of them through higher prices, and shareholders—including retirees—pay part through lower dividends.
(Link to Slivinski report: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/292.pdf)
And the number one reason (drum roll, please)…
1) Income taxes are especially destructive because they are taxes on capital and taxes on savings. In the jargon of economics, they have very high marginal excess burdens. A dollar of revenue raised through income taxes destroys more economic activity than a dollar of revenue raised through almost any other kind of tax. As economist Richard Vedder explained in a survey of various state taxes, “The income tax is the champion of bad taxes, in terms of its destructive effect on people, prosperity, and their economic well-being.” Arizona’s destructive, growth-harming income taxes have not been cut in ten years. We are asking you to give us relief from these taxes. Do it now. Please.
--Tom Jenney is executive director of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. To view AFT’s 2005 Legislative Scorecard, visit www.aztaxpayers.org.
by Tom Jenney
Executive Director, Arizona Federation of Taxpayers
Testimony to House Ways and Means, February 6, 2006
10) The surplus is a clear sign that taxes are too high. Arizona has collected between $850 million and $1 billion in extra revenue over projections. The Taxpayer Appreciation and Investment Act would reduce personal and corporate income tax burdens for all Arizona taxpayers by about ten percent, providing much-needed tax relief for the working people and retirees of Arizona. The current package, which would be phased in over two years, will use up between a quarter and a fifth of the surplus.
9) Arizona already spends far too much. Arizona’s FY 2006 budget is $1.3 billion, or almost 18 percent, over what it would have been had the state limited its budget growth to the rate of population plus inflation. The ten-year average for the rate of population growth plus inflation in Arizona has been 4.8 percent. But the average growth in general fund spending has been 6.7 percent. Anecdotally, the year of greatest infamy was FY 2005, when the Governor and her Big Spender friends teamed up to increase total expenditures by 17.4 percent, or $1.2 billion. That was an outrageous increase. Most taxpayers haven’t seen anything like 17-percent annual increases in their incomes. Even the relatively restrained FY 2006 budget grew faster (7.2 percent) than the 12-year average growth in personal income of 6.8 percent and more than twice as fast as the increase of wages.
8) There is plenty of room in the surplus if the Big Spenders don’t blow it on new spending. Without new spending, we could have the full TAIA as it was introduced, and the Martin-Huffman property tax cut package.
7) There is even more room in the surplus if the Big Borrowers don’t blow it on repaying the raided funds and the K-12 rollover. If there’s any conflict between tax cuts and repaying the funds, cut taxes. The raided funds should be reimbursed out of the general fund, through savings in current programs. Otherwise, we’re setting up what the insurers call “moral hazard.” If the taxpayers bail out the Big Borrowers every time there’s a surplus, the Big Borrowers will never learn to control themselves.
6) This is a tiny tax cut, in the big scheme of things. In Figure 2, which uses simple trendlines, we can see how the TAIA compares with trendline revenue growth (6.4 percent) and with a proposal to eliminate the income tax over 20 years. Notice the difference between the mythical static trendlines (labeled “Stat”) and the one-third dynamic-scoring feedback for both taxes (labeled “Dyn”). AFT supports the 20-year phase-out of the income tax, because it would reduce revenue to a level consistent with budgets that are limited in growth to the rate of population plus inflation. But that’s another matter for another committee. The point here is how modest the TAIA is.
5) Arizona’s “three-legged stool” is unbalanced. The average combined burden of personal and corporate income taxes as a portion of state tax revenue for the past twelve years has been over 40 percent. By cutting ten percent off that 40 percent, we would get closer to reducing income taxes to one-third of state tax revenues.
4) Arizona should rely more heavily on consumption taxes. Here are four reasons:
A) Sales taxes are highly visible, which makes it harder for the government to raise them. Sales taxes are visible in every purchase we make, especially the larger ones. But many folks do not keep a close eye on their income taxes because they are withheld by their employers.
B) Consumption taxes are among the least damaging of taxes to economic growth (their marginal excess burden is lower than that for other taxes).
C) Reducing Arizona’s income taxes would not increase the volatility of general fund revenue sources—and it might even decrease that volatility. Arizona’s sales tax revenue has been much more stable than Arizona’s income revenue.
D) Sales taxes are not necessarily regressive. First, lifetime income mobility means that only a tiny fraction of persons is poor for longer than a few years. Most people are poor when they’re 22 years old, but those same people are not poor when they’re 42 years old.
3) Americans vote with their feet, and they vote for low taxes and strong business climates. According to Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb, there are 19 states with lower personal income tax rates than Arizona, and the Tax Foundation lists ten states with lower personal income taxes in per-capita terms. [This just in: a new Tax and Budget Bulletin from the Cato Institute shows that 14 states have lower state and local tax burdens than Arizona, measured as a percent of income.] The TAIA would reduce Arizona’s highest rate to 4.64 percent, even with Colorado’s flat income tax rate. That’s not as good as the zero-percent rates of Nevada and Texas, but it’s a good start.
2) Arizona needs to dramatically reduce—if not abolish—its corporate income tax. It is especially important to reduce corporate income taxes as part of the overall package. Corporate income taxes are far and away the most volatile of Arizona’s large taxes. And they are perhaps the most destructive taxes on a dollar for dollar basis when it comes to retarding employment growth. As any economist will tell you, corporations do not pay taxes. Workers pay part of those taxes through lower wages, customers pay part of them through higher prices, and shareholders—including retirees—pay part through lower dividends.
(Link to Slivinski report: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/292.pdf)
And the number one reason (drum roll, please)…
1) Income taxes are especially destructive because they are taxes on capital and taxes on savings. In the jargon of economics, they have very high marginal excess burdens. A dollar of revenue raised through income taxes destroys more economic activity than a dollar of revenue raised through almost any other kind of tax. As economist Richard Vedder explained in a survey of various state taxes, “The income tax is the champion of bad taxes, in terms of its destructive effect on people, prosperity, and their economic well-being.” Arizona’s destructive, growth-harming income taxes have not been cut in ten years. We are asking you to give us relief from these taxes. Do it now. Please.
--Tom Jenney is executive director of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. To view AFT’s 2005 Legislative Scorecard, visit www.aztaxpayers.org.
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Colorado City School District Reform
Cost cuts begin in Colo. City
School district staff also slashed by state
Pat Kossan
Arizona Republic
January 24, 2006
Arizona cut Colorado City School District's administrative staff in half, canceled its 52 credit cards and sold nine of its 18 vehicles, according to a report made Monday to the state Board of Education.
Despite the cost-cutting moves, two Utah educators visited the troubled district's classes and found education programs passing most state and federal requirements.
The staff cuts and disposal of property are part of a state takeover triggered in December when the board found the district had "grossly mismanaged" its money. The 378-student district sits in a remote community on the Arizona-Utah line that is home to several polygamist religious sects.
State-appointed receiver Peter Davis, owner of Phoenix-based Simon Consulting, also cut the district's 35 cellphones down to seven and closed a 60,000-square-foot office building, where only 10 staff members were working. That should save about $70,000 a year in utility bills. Davis also whittled down 27 non-classroom employees to about 14, which is expected to save about $450,000 by the end of next school year.
The district's airplane will be auctioned next month.
Eventually, Davis wants to raise the $17,000 starting salary for teachers, but now the district needs every penny. It has an operating budget of about $2.2 million but owes the state $360,000 for budget overruns, has a bond debt of $1.2 million, and owes $1.3 million to the Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, which has been helping it cover checks.
School district staff also slashed by state
Pat Kossan
Arizona Republic
January 24, 2006
Arizona cut Colorado City School District's administrative staff in half, canceled its 52 credit cards and sold nine of its 18 vehicles, according to a report made Monday to the state Board of Education.
Despite the cost-cutting moves, two Utah educators visited the troubled district's classes and found education programs passing most state and federal requirements.
The staff cuts and disposal of property are part of a state takeover triggered in December when the board found the district had "grossly mismanaged" its money. The 378-student district sits in a remote community on the Arizona-Utah line that is home to several polygamist religious sects.
State-appointed receiver Peter Davis, owner of Phoenix-based Simon Consulting, also cut the district's 35 cellphones down to seven and closed a 60,000-square-foot office building, where only 10 staff members were working. That should save about $70,000 a year in utility bills. Davis also whittled down 27 non-classroom employees to about 14, which is expected to save about $450,000 by the end of next school year.
The district's airplane will be auctioned next month.
Eventually, Davis wants to raise the $17,000 starting salary for teachers, but now the district needs every penny. It has an operating budget of about $2.2 million but owes the state $360,000 for budget overruns, has a bond debt of $1.2 million, and owes $1.3 million to the Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, which has been helping it cover checks.
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Upcoming Tax Legislation
Good Senate Tax Bills— This Thursday, February 2, at 9:00 a.m., the Senate Finance Committee will meet in Senate Hearing Room 1. Among the bills the committee will hear are Sen. Dean Martin’s SB 1465, which would phase out the state income tax over 20 years
Taxpayer Appreciation and Investment Act— Next Monday, February 6, the House Ways and Means Committee will hear public testimony on HB 2489, introduced by Rep. Laura Knaperek (R-Tempe). The TAIA, to be phased in over two years, would reduce personal and corporate income tax burdens by 10 percent. The committee hearing will begin at 1:30 p.m.
Taxpayer Appreciation and Investment Act— Next Monday, February 6, the House Ways and Means Committee will hear public testimony on HB 2489, introduced by Rep. Laura Knaperek (R-Tempe). The TAIA, to be phased in over two years, would reduce personal and corporate income tax burdens by 10 percent. The committee hearing will begin at 1:30 p.m.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Governor Napolitano Has Presented a Phony Budget
Danger: Budget on board
Napolitano's plans for spending in 2007 are based on assumptions (and we know how that works)
Jan. 22, 2006 12:00 AM
In a very material respect, Gov. Janet Napolitano has presented a phony budget. It depends on an assumption that just isn't going to happen.Napolitano's budget assumes that there will be about a billion dollars in excess funds from this year to pay for spending next year. Current law, however, provides that at least $440 million of this year's surplus go into the "rainy day fund," and arguably all of it.
At the end of last year's legislative session, Napolitano did a curious thing. She vetoed legislation that earmarked some of last year's surplus for the rainy day fund, about $314 million. But she failed to veto a similar provision for this year's surplus.So, current law says that any surplus for this year automatically goes into the rainy day fund. Arguably that could mean the entire $1 billion. There is, however, a separate law that limits the amount of deposit into the rainy day fund to a percentage of state revenue. Legislative budget staffers are assuming that law caps the deposit at $440 million.
Usually in these budget fights, Napolitano has the upper hand. Nothing gets done without her signature.But in this case, the Legislature has the upper hand. If nothing is done, the money goes automatically into the rainy day fund and isn't available for spending next year. And the money begins to be deposited there as early as next month. So, Napolitano's budget rests on the assumption that the Republican Legislature will repeal the automatic deposit to the rainy day fund and make it available for Napolitano to spend. That's not going to happen. Perhaps it's useful for Napolitano to put out a budget that shows what, in an ideal world, she would do. But, realistically, she's going to have a lot less money to spend, probably at least the difference between what current law provides for a rainy day deposit and the $180 million she proposes for next year. Knowing how she would propose to spend within that more realistic constraint would be more valuable than the pretend budget she has presented.
During her State of the State address, Napolitano said that she would never again let the state get into the position of being unprepared for a fiscal downturn. Her budget, however, would increase rather than diminish the state's vulnerability to such a downturn. Next year, Napolitano assumes that the state will collect about $9.2 billion in revenue. Napolitano purposes spending about $10.1 billion, with the difference being made up through this year's surplus.Even subtracting a proposed deposit to the rainy day fund and repaying various state funds that were swept during the lean years, Napolitano purposes to spend about $400 million more next year than will be generated in taxes. The states that did best in the last downturn were those where spending increased the least during the go-go days of the 1990s. Napolitano is trying to lead Arizona in precisely the opposite direction.
With state revenues booming, Napolitano has been revealed as quite a spender, contrary to the penny-pinching image she sought to project with last year's budget.According to the legislative budget staff, maintaining state programs and obligations will cost $8.9 billion next year. Napolitano proposes spending about $700 million more than that, excluding a rainy day deposit and repayment of the swept funds. Overall, Napolitano is recommending an increase in state spending, again excluding savings and fund repayments, of nearly 17 percent. But the revelation is perhaps clearest in her so-called "targeted tax relief" proposal. "Targeted" means government gives you a break for doing things approved by the government. In Napolitano's case, that means offering health insurance, buying certain items at certain times, driving a fuel-efficient car, and investing in university-related research.There are two problems with such "targeted" tax cuts. They are economically inefficient, since government doesn't make spending or investing decisions as optimally as people exercising their own judgments with their own money. And they erode the tax base, making a truly economically productive tax code, which would feature low rates on broad bases, more difficult.
Real tax relief is when government lets you keep more of what you earn to spend on whatever you think best and most productive or enjoyable. What Napolitano is proposing is more accurately thought of as spending through the tax code. Direct subsidies would be a more honest and less economically disruptive approach.
Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8472. His column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Napolitano's plans for spending in 2007 are based on assumptions (and we know how that works)
Jan. 22, 2006 12:00 AM
In a very material respect, Gov. Janet Napolitano has presented a phony budget. It depends on an assumption that just isn't going to happen.Napolitano's budget assumes that there will be about a billion dollars in excess funds from this year to pay for spending next year. Current law, however, provides that at least $440 million of this year's surplus go into the "rainy day fund," and arguably all of it.
At the end of last year's legislative session, Napolitano did a curious thing. She vetoed legislation that earmarked some of last year's surplus for the rainy day fund, about $314 million. But she failed to veto a similar provision for this year's surplus.So, current law says that any surplus for this year automatically goes into the rainy day fund. Arguably that could mean the entire $1 billion. There is, however, a separate law that limits the amount of deposit into the rainy day fund to a percentage of state revenue. Legislative budget staffers are assuming that law caps the deposit at $440 million.
Usually in these budget fights, Napolitano has the upper hand. Nothing gets done without her signature.But in this case, the Legislature has the upper hand. If nothing is done, the money goes automatically into the rainy day fund and isn't available for spending next year. And the money begins to be deposited there as early as next month. So, Napolitano's budget rests on the assumption that the Republican Legislature will repeal the automatic deposit to the rainy day fund and make it available for Napolitano to spend. That's not going to happen. Perhaps it's useful for Napolitano to put out a budget that shows what, in an ideal world, she would do. But, realistically, she's going to have a lot less money to spend, probably at least the difference between what current law provides for a rainy day deposit and the $180 million she proposes for next year. Knowing how she would propose to spend within that more realistic constraint would be more valuable than the pretend budget she has presented.
During her State of the State address, Napolitano said that she would never again let the state get into the position of being unprepared for a fiscal downturn. Her budget, however, would increase rather than diminish the state's vulnerability to such a downturn. Next year, Napolitano assumes that the state will collect about $9.2 billion in revenue. Napolitano purposes spending about $10.1 billion, with the difference being made up through this year's surplus.Even subtracting a proposed deposit to the rainy day fund and repaying various state funds that were swept during the lean years, Napolitano purposes to spend about $400 million more next year than will be generated in taxes. The states that did best in the last downturn were those where spending increased the least during the go-go days of the 1990s. Napolitano is trying to lead Arizona in precisely the opposite direction.
With state revenues booming, Napolitano has been revealed as quite a spender, contrary to the penny-pinching image she sought to project with last year's budget.According to the legislative budget staff, maintaining state programs and obligations will cost $8.9 billion next year. Napolitano proposes spending about $700 million more than that, excluding a rainy day deposit and repayment of the swept funds. Overall, Napolitano is recommending an increase in state spending, again excluding savings and fund repayments, of nearly 17 percent. But the revelation is perhaps clearest in her so-called "targeted tax relief" proposal. "Targeted" means government gives you a break for doing things approved by the government. In Napolitano's case, that means offering health insurance, buying certain items at certain times, driving a fuel-efficient car, and investing in university-related research.There are two problems with such "targeted" tax cuts. They are economically inefficient, since government doesn't make spending or investing decisions as optimally as people exercising their own judgments with their own money. And they erode the tax base, making a truly economically productive tax code, which would feature low rates on broad bases, more difficult.
Real tax relief is when government lets you keep more of what you earn to spend on whatever you think best and most productive or enjoyable. What Napolitano is proposing is more accurately thought of as spending through the tax code. Direct subsidies would be a more honest and less economically disruptive approach.
Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8472. His column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Bill Summaries
I now have the capability to email you electronic copies of all proposed legislation in either as written (sometimes confusing) or the summary which provides the history and the provisions of the bill. If you would like additional information on a specific bill just send me a quick email with the bill number, if known, or a keyword that I can use to search. This is a great tool and I am excited that we have this new way to communicate.
State Employee Pay Raise
The legislature has passed a $170 Million Dollar pay raise that gives state workers on average a 6.3% boost that includes $1,600 base raise witha a 2.5% performance pay increase. The increased salaries take effect March 11, 2006
Chamber Day at the Capitol
Today is Chamber Day at the Capitol and I am excited about seeing all of those from my district who work so tirelessly to support small businesses throughout the state!
Monday, January 30, 2006
Mr. David Burnell Smith
God is so good to give us all strength as we walk through the fire!
Today, on the floor, we heard the resignation/floor speech of Mr. David Burnell Smith...a good man who made an unfortunate mistake when spending his campaign monies provided by the clean elections commisssion. Representative Smith came forward when he realized his mistake and attempted to rectify the situation. I would like to take this time to acknowledge his honesty and to commend him for his composure through out the continuing media circus and clean elections investigation. I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans that treated Mr. Smith with dignity and respect. My hope is that this graciousness continues throughout the remainder of the session.
Today, on the floor, we heard the resignation/floor speech of Mr. David Burnell Smith...a good man who made an unfortunate mistake when spending his campaign monies provided by the clean elections commisssion. Representative Smith came forward when he realized his mistake and attempted to rectify the situation. I would like to take this time to acknowledge his honesty and to commend him for his composure through out the continuing media circus and clean elections investigation. I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans that treated Mr. Smith with dignity and respect. My hope is that this graciousness continues throughout the remainder of the session.
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
