Move afoot to revive spring training bill
Make sure you read the comments...most folks are against this tax increase that would build a new stadium and agree that private entities like the ball club itself, should finance this endeavor.
Showing posts with label bad bill blues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad bill blues. Show all posts
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Catching Up ~ Abeit Briefly
UPDATE: Arizona Federation of Taxpayers also came out against the Mason Solar Tax Credit bill. Mason has decided to hold the bill at this point.
Forgive my lack of posts over the last two days. We are more than knee-deep in garbage here at the Capitol and instead of pressing forward to negotiate a responsible budget we are passing out bills that without question will result in increased taxes.
Two of these bills I am referring to are provisions that were in the now defunct job stimulus package: Lucy Mason's Solar Tax Credit and Pima County's Cactus League~Spring Training Bill. Unfortunately for the taxpayer, both of these bills passed out of committee despite objections from such groups as the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the D.C. based Taxpayer Foundation, and the Arizona Restaurant Association. The Mason Solar-Energy Tax Credit received a thorough beating during our recent republican caucus so perhaps there is a ray of hope (get it?) that it will go down in flames.
As you have probably read by now, the Senate passed out their horrific budget proposal last night ( or rather, at 5:33 this morning) that includes $2 BILLION DOLLARS IN NEW BORROWING besides the fact that we are currently facing a $2.3 BILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL! Ugh! Props to my good friend and seatmate, Senator Ron Gould for seriously doing all he could to protect the citizens of Arizona and prevent the Senate from successfully passing the budget. Senator Gould got almost no assistance from his fellow republicans...it is a shame that he has to take heat from his colleagues for taking seriously his oath of office.
Oh, surprise, surprise...house leadership just put the APPALLING Senate Budget Feed Bill (HB 2209) on the "Board of Truth" and the bill passed with the assistance of the following republicans:
Lucy Mason
Jennifer Burns
Michelle Reagan
Pete Hershberger
Without these REPUBLICANS ( though now perhaps, RINOS), the outrageous Senate Budget Feed Bill would not have passed and we would have then had the opportunity to negotiate a more fiscally responsible budget on behalf of the taxpayers.
FYI, I will list the travesties of the Senate Budget in a later post...must pay attention to the bills as they are voted. Can you believe that I am receiving emails from district 3 AEA members pleading me to vote in favor of this Senate budget? Increased gambling, increased photo radar, increased borrowing...and AEA members believe this is prudent?
Forgive my lack of posts over the last two days. We are more than knee-deep in garbage here at the Capitol and instead of pressing forward to negotiate a responsible budget we are passing out bills that without question will result in increased taxes.
Two of these bills I am referring to are provisions that were in the now defunct job stimulus package: Lucy Mason's Solar Tax Credit and Pima County's Cactus League~Spring Training Bill. Unfortunately for the taxpayer, both of these bills passed out of committee despite objections from such groups as the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the D.C. based Taxpayer Foundation, and the Arizona Restaurant Association. The Mason Solar-Energy Tax Credit received a thorough beating during our recent republican caucus so perhaps there is a ray of hope (get it?) that it will go down in flames.
As you have probably read by now, the Senate passed out their horrific budget proposal last night ( or rather, at 5:33 this morning) that includes $2 BILLION DOLLARS IN NEW BORROWING besides the fact that we are currently facing a $2.3 BILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL! Ugh! Props to my good friend and seatmate, Senator Ron Gould for seriously doing all he could to protect the citizens of Arizona and prevent the Senate from successfully passing the budget. Senator Gould got almost no assistance from his fellow republicans...it is a shame that he has to take heat from his colleagues for taking seriously his oath of office.
Oh, surprise, surprise...house leadership just put the APPALLING Senate Budget Feed Bill (HB 2209) on the "Board of Truth" and the bill passed with the assistance of the following republicans:
Lucy Mason
Jennifer Burns
Michelle Reagan
Pete Hershberger
Without these REPUBLICANS ( though now perhaps, RINOS), the outrageous Senate Budget Feed Bill would not have passed and we would have then had the opportunity to negotiate a more fiscally responsible budget on behalf of the taxpayers.
FYI, I will list the travesties of the Senate Budget in a later post...must pay attention to the bills as they are voted. Can you believe that I am receiving emails from district 3 AEA members pleading me to vote in favor of this Senate budget? Increased gambling, increased photo radar, increased borrowing...and AEA members believe this is prudent?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Jerry Weier's OHV Bill & the Perils of it's Passage
UPDATE: The Governor signed this bill into law on 6/27/08.
The Senate's passage of this Off-Highway Vehicle (ATV) bill is horrible news; now the bill goes straight to the Governor. I have voiced my opposition to this bill in the past and am inspired to do so again at this time after recievng an email praising the legislation from an otherwise well-informed constituent.
Though this bill has multiple provisions; the one mentioned most by the print media is a provision that creates a special designated fund to mark appropriate riding trails and allows a new licensing fee to be collected to fill the fund. I seriously doubt that the monies collected from the new licensing fee will ever be used for this purpose but intead will be stolen by members of the legislature and used to balance the budget. As you well know, in the past two budget cycles the legislature has robbed from almost every designated fund in existence and with the state of this economy, I do not see this practice coming to an end.
Another problem with this bill is the lack of definable terms. This bill will not only fine but also criminalize people who unknowingly damage desert landscape or impede riparian ways, without defining what “damage” means. (Impeding a riparian way is defined in other AZ statute as blocking it even 99 %.) Game and Fish officials admitted during committee testimony that they could not provide a definition of damage, but would know it when they see it. This is poorly drafted legislation…terms of abuse or damage should be defined. Without these definitions I fear that employees of government agencies will be instructed to pursue ticketing with giddy abandon in order to fulfill their empty coffers. Excuse my cynicism; it is a result of acknowledging the truth of the state of the government.
The intent of this bill is admirable; the execution of the bill is deplorable. I attempted to offer solutions to improve this bill including stripping all provisions with the exception of the new licensing fee. My thought was that at least Game and Fish could collect the monies for a time being until they had enough money to mark the trails. After this first step, then perhaps a fine for violations could be imposed. I strongly stand behind my judgment that this bill is bad for the citizens of Arizona and horrible for those in Mohave County…the intent of the measure I applaud but action on an issue is not enough. Something needs to be done to address the pillaging of our desert but this is not the answer.
The Senate's passage of this Off-Highway Vehicle (ATV) bill is horrible news; now the bill goes straight to the Governor. I have voiced my opposition to this bill in the past and am inspired to do so again at this time after recievng an email praising the legislation from an otherwise well-informed constituent.
Though this bill has multiple provisions; the one mentioned most by the print media is a provision that creates a special designated fund to mark appropriate riding trails and allows a new licensing fee to be collected to fill the fund. I seriously doubt that the monies collected from the new licensing fee will ever be used for this purpose but intead will be stolen by members of the legislature and used to balance the budget. As you well know, in the past two budget cycles the legislature has robbed from almost every designated fund in existence and with the state of this economy, I do not see this practice coming to an end.
Another problem with this bill is the lack of definable terms. This bill will not only fine but also criminalize people who unknowingly damage desert landscape or impede riparian ways, without defining what “damage” means. (Impeding a riparian way is defined in other AZ statute as blocking it even 99 %.) Game and Fish officials admitted during committee testimony that they could not provide a definition of damage, but would know it when they see it. This is poorly drafted legislation…terms of abuse or damage should be defined. Without these definitions I fear that employees of government agencies will be instructed to pursue ticketing with giddy abandon in order to fulfill their empty coffers. Excuse my cynicism; it is a result of acknowledging the truth of the state of the government.
The intent of this bill is admirable; the execution of the bill is deplorable. I attempted to offer solutions to improve this bill including stripping all provisions with the exception of the new licensing fee. My thought was that at least Game and Fish could collect the monies for a time being until they had enough money to mark the trails. After this first step, then perhaps a fine for violations could be imposed. I strongly stand behind my judgment that this bill is bad for the citizens of Arizona and horrible for those in Mohave County…the intent of the measure I applaud but action on an issue is not enough. Something needs to be done to address the pillaging of our desert but this is not the answer.
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
Friday, June 20, 2008
More Opposition to the Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008
NOTE: The Cactus League Baseball Proposal is part of the bill that the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers is calling the Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008. Please call Speaker Jim Weier's office at 602-926-4173 and urge him to rethink his support of this measure. If you would prefer to email, his email address is jweiers@azleg.gov.
Re: Cactus League Baseball Proposal
Dear Representative,
On behalf of the Arizona Restaurant Association (ARA) I am writing to respectfully request that you oppose the Cactus League Baseball proposal which would create a 0.75% tax on restaurants, bars, hotels and rental car companies. As you know, this proposal is part of the Jobs Creation Package which is expected to be voted on very soon. As recently as today, there has been discussion on modifying this proposal but keeping the above mentioned entities as the tax revenue source, we oppose this recommendation as well. The ARA understands the importance of preserving and promoting the sport’s industry in Southern Arizona, however, imposing a tax on restaurants, bars, hotels and rental cars is not the answer.
Issues such as these are not taken lightly and as a member-based organization we contacted each of our Southern Arizona members to get their understanding and position on the proposed measure. We found that members are overwhelmingly opposed to any additional tax increase on our industry including a tax for Cactus League Baseball. Our members are in part against this measure because the revenue generated from sports in Southern Arizona is beneficial to all businesses and forcing a select few to shoulder the burden is not a fair or palatable solution to this problem.
Furthermore, restaurants generate 24% of their revenue from tourism while hotels and rental cars generate 2.5 to 3 times that amount from tourism…clearly the paradigm is different for restaurants in this case. We want to see baseball training thrive in Southern Arizona. However, we cannot support a measure that unfairly taxes an industry and thus forces a select few to pay for a measure that would benefit all Southern Arizona businesses.
On behalf of the Arizona Restaurant Association, I thank you for your consideration and urge you to oppose the Cactus League Baseball component of the Jobs Creation Package. As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Steve Chucri
President and CEO
Arizona Restaurant Association
Re: Cactus League Baseball Proposal
Dear Representative,
On behalf of the Arizona Restaurant Association (ARA) I am writing to respectfully request that you oppose the Cactus League Baseball proposal which would create a 0.75% tax on restaurants, bars, hotels and rental car companies. As you know, this proposal is part of the Jobs Creation Package which is expected to be voted on very soon. As recently as today, there has been discussion on modifying this proposal but keeping the above mentioned entities as the tax revenue source, we oppose this recommendation as well. The ARA understands the importance of preserving and promoting the sport’s industry in Southern Arizona, however, imposing a tax on restaurants, bars, hotels and rental cars is not the answer.
Issues such as these are not taken lightly and as a member-based organization we contacted each of our Southern Arizona members to get their understanding and position on the proposed measure. We found that members are overwhelmingly opposed to any additional tax increase on our industry including a tax for Cactus League Baseball. Our members are in part against this measure because the revenue generated from sports in Southern Arizona is beneficial to all businesses and forcing a select few to shoulder the burden is not a fair or palatable solution to this problem.
Furthermore, restaurants generate 24% of their revenue from tourism while hotels and rental cars generate 2.5 to 3 times that amount from tourism…clearly the paradigm is different for restaurants in this case. We want to see baseball training thrive in Southern Arizona. However, we cannot support a measure that unfairly taxes an industry and thus forces a select few to pay for a measure that would benefit all Southern Arizona businesses.
On behalf of the Arizona Restaurant Association, I thank you for your consideration and urge you to oppose the Cactus League Baseball component of the Jobs Creation Package. As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Steve Chucri
President and CEO
Arizona Restaurant Association
Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008
Dear Arizona Taxpayer:
As I wrote yesterday, the Arizona Senate is considering SB1450, a bill that would award a private company the privilege of issuing $750 million in tax-free bonds, so that it can build a rock music theme park in Eloy.
Proponents of SB1450 have contacted me, arguing that the bill's language removes any legal obligation for taxpayers to bail out the theme park district in the event that it cannot attract enough visitors to pay back the bond creditors.
That appears to be true about the legal obligation, but the legislation does not remove the political obligation to bail out the theme park district. If the Eloy theme park turns out to be a flop, future legislatures will be under intense pressure to bail out the theme park. If they do not, the failure of the district to pay back creditors will hurt Arizona's bond ratings, effectively raising the interest rates for revenue bonds for traditional public-private partnerships, such as road construction projects.
Again, the economic downsides of the Decades Theme Park deal are not nearly as important as the question of principle at stake: Should the government give special taxing privileges to chosen companies? Again, the answer to that question is, "NO." The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the economy.
Further, if we let the Eloy deal pass, it will only encourage the rest of the sharks, who are already pestering the Legislature to pass the Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008, which includes special tax breaks for entertainment districts, ballparks, and other politically-favored industries, all in the name of "economic stimulus." Remember that every dollar given to a favored industry in a tax credit is a dollar that cannot be cut from the taxes of ordinary individuals, families, and businesses. Somehow, that does not seem very stimulating...
For emerging details on the Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008, see this story in the Republic:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/18/20080618stimulus0618.html
The tax credit handouts in the Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008 make the Eloy deal look almost innocent. It seems that our politicians just can't break the habit of picking winners and losers in the Arizona economy-no matter how many losers they pick. We will keep you posted on developments related to the Big Boondoggle Bill.
For Liberty,
Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
(Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
http://www.aztaxpayers.org/
tjenney@afphq.org
As I wrote yesterday, the Arizona Senate is considering SB1450, a bill that would award a private company the privilege of issuing $750 million in tax-free bonds, so that it can build a rock music theme park in Eloy.
Proponents of SB1450 have contacted me, arguing that the bill's language removes any legal obligation for taxpayers to bail out the theme park district in the event that it cannot attract enough visitors to pay back the bond creditors.
That appears to be true about the legal obligation, but the legislation does not remove the political obligation to bail out the theme park district. If the Eloy theme park turns out to be a flop, future legislatures will be under intense pressure to bail out the theme park. If they do not, the failure of the district to pay back creditors will hurt Arizona's bond ratings, effectively raising the interest rates for revenue bonds for traditional public-private partnerships, such as road construction projects.
Again, the economic downsides of the Decades Theme Park deal are not nearly as important as the question of principle at stake: Should the government give special taxing privileges to chosen companies? Again, the answer to that question is, "NO." The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the economy.
Further, if we let the Eloy deal pass, it will only encourage the rest of the sharks, who are already pestering the Legislature to pass the Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008, which includes special tax breaks for entertainment districts, ballparks, and other politically-favored industries, all in the name of "economic stimulus." Remember that every dollar given to a favored industry in a tax credit is a dollar that cannot be cut from the taxes of ordinary individuals, families, and businesses. Somehow, that does not seem very stimulating...
For emerging details on the Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008, see this story in the Republic:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/18/20080618stimulus0618.html
The tax credit handouts in the Big Boondoggle Bill of 2008 make the Eloy deal look almost innocent. It seems that our politicians just can't break the habit of picking winners and losers in the Arizona economy-no matter how many losers they pick. We will keep you posted on developments related to the Big Boondoggle Bill.
For Liberty,
Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
(Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
http://www.aztaxpayers.org/
tjenney@afphq.org
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A Message from Arizona Federation of Taxpayers
Dear Arizona Taxpayer:
Right now, members of the Arizona Senate are considering whether or not to award a private company the privilege of issuing $750 million in tax-free bonds, so that it can build a rock music theme park in Eloy.
If the project turns out to be a flop, and if tourists fail to come to Eloy in sufficient numbers, the state could have to pay back creditors, or it could jeopardize its bond rating, making it more expensive in the future to borrow money for traditional projects, such as road construction.
But the economic downsides of the Decades Theme Park deal are not nearly as important as the question of principle at stake: whether or not the government should not be handing out special privileges to chosen companies. The answer to that question is clearly, “NO.” The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in business.
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR, AND ENCOURAGE HIM OR HER TO OPPOSE THIS BILL. WE ARE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT ANY SENATOR WHO VOTED YES (“Y”) ON THE EARLIER VERSION OF THE BILL:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/2r/bills/sb1450.sthird.1.asp
In response to a query from the Senate, AFP Arizona hereby announces that the bill, SB1450, will be included in our 2008 Legislative Scorecard. Given the potential yearly fiscal impact, and the importance of the principle at stake, the bill will be a 50-point bill. In last year’s scorecard, that would have been just under 5 percent of the total, but there are fewer bills this year, so SB1450 could weigh as much as 10 percent of the overall score.
For more information about why SB1450 is a bad bill, see the pieces from the Goldwater Institute and the AZ Free Enterprise Club (pasted below).
For Liberty,
Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
(Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org
(602) 478-0146
Springtime for Decades: Eloy theme park bill bad for Arizona
By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Economic Prosperity.
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 Arizona 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 talking.
Decades Music Theme Park Bill Strikes the Wrong Chord~
exempting income and property taxes is corporate and investor welfare
Phoenix, AZ – The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a pro-economic growth advocacy group, today announced its opposition to SB1450, the Regional Attraction District, otherwise known as the Decades Music Theme Park. The legislation exempts for-profit companies within the district from paying income and property taxes.
During testimony on the bill in Senate Commerce, proponents claimed that without this legislation, the area in Eloy where the park is proposed would not be an internationally recognized music theme park. Proponents of the bill also stated that some of the private investment was contingent on the bill.
“What gets built in Eloy should not be determined by legislating corporate subsidies being pushed by those who stand to benefit financially,” said Steve Voeller, president of the Club. “When corporate welfare is needed so that the private investment pays off, you could say the role of government has been exceeded.”
The legislation exempts businesses who locate with the district from paying property or income taxes. The park’s supporters claim that because they are required to raise $100 million in private investment before the bonds can be issued, the state’s investment is a sound one.
“If building a music theme park in Eloy makes economic sense, so much so that the first $100 million can be raised privately, then the project should be financed like other large projects and the owners should pay taxes like everybody else.”
Right now, members of the Arizona Senate are considering whether or not to award a private company the privilege of issuing $750 million in tax-free bonds, so that it can build a rock music theme park in Eloy.
If the project turns out to be a flop, and if tourists fail to come to Eloy in sufficient numbers, the state could have to pay back creditors, or it could jeopardize its bond rating, making it more expensive in the future to borrow money for traditional projects, such as road construction.
But the economic downsides of the Decades Theme Park deal are not nearly as important as the question of principle at stake: whether or not the government should not be handing out special privileges to chosen companies. The answer to that question is clearly, “NO.” The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in business.
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR, AND ENCOURAGE HIM OR HER TO OPPOSE THIS BILL. WE ARE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT ANY SENATOR WHO VOTED YES (“Y”) ON THE EARLIER VERSION OF THE BILL:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/2r/bills/sb1450.sthird.1.asp
In response to a query from the Senate, AFP Arizona hereby announces that the bill, SB1450, will be included in our 2008 Legislative Scorecard. Given the potential yearly fiscal impact, and the importance of the principle at stake, the bill will be a 50-point bill. In last year’s scorecard, that would have been just under 5 percent of the total, but there are fewer bills this year, so SB1450 could weigh as much as 10 percent of the overall score.
For more information about why SB1450 is a bad bill, see the pieces from the Goldwater Institute and the AZ Free Enterprise Club (pasted below).
For Liberty,
Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
(Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org
(602) 478-0146
Springtime for Decades: Eloy theme park bill bad for Arizona
By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Economic Prosperity.
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 Arizona 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 talking.
Decades Music Theme Park Bill Strikes the Wrong Chord~
exempting income and property taxes is corporate and investor welfare
Phoenix, AZ – The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a pro-economic growth advocacy group, today announced its opposition to SB1450, the Regional Attraction District, otherwise known as the Decades Music Theme Park. The legislation exempts for-profit companies within the district from paying income and property taxes.
During testimony on the bill in Senate Commerce, proponents claimed that without this legislation, the area in Eloy where the park is proposed would not be an internationally recognized music theme park. Proponents of the bill also stated that some of the private investment was contingent on the bill.
“What gets built in Eloy should not be determined by legislating corporate subsidies being pushed by those who stand to benefit financially,” said Steve Voeller, president of the Club. “When corporate welfare is needed so that the private investment pays off, you could say the role of government has been exceeded.”
The legislation exempts businesses who locate with the district from paying property or income taxes. The park’s supporters claim that because they are required to raise $100 million in private investment before the bonds can be issued, the state’s investment is a sound one.
“If building a music theme park in Eloy makes economic sense, so much so that the first $100 million can be raised privately, then the project should be financed like other large projects and the owners should pay taxes like everybody else.”
Saturday, May 31, 2008
How Arizona Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation
"...The Lieberman-Warner legislation promises extraordinary perils for the American economy, should it become law... Implementing S. 2191 would be costly in Arizona, even given the most generous assumptions."
Read this short article about how the Lieberman-Warner legislation would effect Arizona, in particular.
Read this short article about how the Lieberman-Warner legislation would effect Arizona, in particular.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
A Discussion with Senator Gould, Foe of Guest-Worker Bill
Senator Gould, never one to mince words, is featured in today's addition of the Repugnant. He points out some of the numerous flaws with the proposal (HCM 2012) and discusses his amendments.
The following Republicans have signed on as sponsors of this measure:
BURNS J
HERSHBERGER
MASON
FLAKE
O'HALLERAN
CRANDALL
MCLAIN
REAGAN
KONOPNICKI
The following Republicans have signed on as sponsors of this measure:
BURNS J
HERSHBERGER
MASON
FLAKE
O'HALLERAN
CRANDALL
MCLAIN
REAGAN
KONOPNICKI
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
SB 1450 Decades Theme Park Bill
It is will great saddness that I report the passage today of SB 1450 in the House of Representatives. The bill, which grants taxing authority to private enterprise, goes back to the Senate so perhaps we have another chance to stop this bad bill still.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
THE FISCAL NOTE
An Examination of Tax and Fiscal Matters
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Theme Park Legislation is Off Key
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Theme Park Legislation is Off Key
Senate Bill 1450 (Theme Park bill) is poor tax policy. One of the principles of sound tax policy is neutrality. Whenever possible, the tax code should be agnostic toward whatever business activity is taking place. The tax code should not micromanage the economy and should interfere as little as possible in the decisions being made in the marketplace. Private enterprise should be left to succeed or fail based on the merits of the product or service being sold, the quality of the business plan, and the execution of the plan. A private company’s ultimate success or failure should not hinge on preferential tax treatment.
On December 2, 2007, The Arizona Republic made the following additional points:
• Attendance: Decade's projections are extremely optimistic, with 6 million visitors in the first year. Only six U.S. theme parks, all in Florida, reached that level in 2006. "Nobody gets 6 million visitors their first year," says Dennis Speigel, president of International Theme Park Services.
• Market: The theme-park industry is mature, with little growth in attendance outside the Disney parks. Hard Rock Park, a similar project, is opening in Myrtle Beach, S.C., next spring. It should give an indication of whether a rock-themed park will draw crowds. Decades supporters are assuming that the $400 million S.C. park would be a complement, whetting people's appetite for a larger attraction in the West, and not a competitive threat. Meanwhile, there's competition from theme parks next door. "You've got the entire developed Southern California market just a few hours away, which markets aggressively," says Robert Niles, editor of the Theme Park Insider Web site.
Supporters point out that the new tax wouldn't replace the regular sales tax but be on top of it. They say taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for repaying the bonds. But Kevin McCarthy of the Arizona Tax Research Association sees a risk if Decades flounders. "When bonds go bad," he says, "it reflects poorly on everyone that's involved." There could be pressure for a bailout.
McCarthy also testified in Ways and Means that the legislation is likely unconstitutional because it exempts certain taxpayers from paying property taxes.
Lawmakers continue to raise valid concerns about this bill and are on solid footing as they do.
###
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization whose mission is to advance policies that promote a strong and vibrant Arizona economy. The Club believes that entrepreneurs and private enterprise are the principle drivers of our economy. The Club lobbies Arizona lawmakers in support of policies that allow the market to flourish and vigorously opposes policies that hinder private industry. Visit us at www.azfec.org.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Constituent Mail ~ HB 2573 off-highway vehicles; user fee
House Bill 2573 creates an off-highway vehicle user indicia, off-highway vehicle equipment requirements and off-highway vehicle operating regulations.
I voted "NO" on this bill for a variety of reasons (see recent post titled "Passage of HB 2573 is Criminal") and continue to work towards this bills demise. Below is an email from a constituent opposing this bill:
Thank you for trying to do the right thing by voting no on HB 2753. The law is absurd, and adding another layer of bureaucracy is equally absurd.
Families who have these vehicles I think for the most part try and protect the environment. I would go for more education on the environment and how to protect it; what to do and not do while using these vehicles. Your concern on the law itself is right on, as far as being not defining and making it a class 3-misdemeanor. I don’t know what it is with law makers, you pass laws and think that everyone is going to understand and obey them. When you try to pass a law such as this one that is opened to so much interpretation from the officers, attorneys’ and judges then the public becomes the big looser. I seriously think Arizona Game & Fish see the dollars being brought in more than anything else.
Thank you for seeing that and doing what you could do to stop it by voting “nay.”
I voted "NO" on this bill for a variety of reasons (see recent post titled "Passage of HB 2573 is Criminal") and continue to work towards this bills demise. Below is an email from a constituent opposing this bill:
Thank you for trying to do the right thing by voting no on HB 2753. The law is absurd, and adding another layer of bureaucracy is equally absurd.
Families who have these vehicles I think for the most part try and protect the environment. I would go for more education on the environment and how to protect it; what to do and not do while using these vehicles. Your concern on the law itself is right on, as far as being not defining and making it a class 3-misdemeanor. I don’t know what it is with law makers, you pass laws and think that everyone is going to understand and obey them. When you try to pass a law such as this one that is opened to so much interpretation from the officers, attorneys’ and judges then the public becomes the big looser. I seriously think Arizona Game & Fish see the dollars being brought in more than anything else.
Thank you for seeing that and doing what you could do to stop it by voting “nay.”
Monday, March 10, 2008
Passage of HB 2573 is Criminal!!
This post is a copy of a response to a heated email I received from an angry constituent when he learned of my "No" vote on HB 2573.
I stand by my decision to vote against this bill (HB 2573) and will continue to do all that I can to make sure this bill never sees the light of day. It is unfortunate that you did not call me as I requested. I am extremely confident that I would have made myself clear when explaining why Jerry Weiers and all who voted for this bill did the hunters, sportsman, and nature-lovers a grave disservice by supporting this horrid piece of legislation. I do not think that the bill would have had as much support if Jerry Weiers did not mislead other legislators by telling them that the NRA was going to “weight” the bill & use it on their legislative scorecard. I found this to be untrue when I spoke with an NRA rep who was aware of the false information being spread by Mr. Weiers.
While I do have my doubts that licensing fees generated will actually be used for their intended purposes, I can live with this portion of the bill. I have two ATVs and ride regularly around LHC, both on and off road with friends and family and have little qualms about paying these fees and applaud their purpose. If Jerry Weiers bill stopped there, more than likely, I would have voted yes. But, Weiers bill venture far into dangerous territory and it is unconscionable my colleagues voted for its passage.
The text of the bill states that criminal action includes:
Damage to the environment: excessive pollution of air, water, or land.
Abuse of the watershed, cultural or natural resources.
Impairment of plant or animal life.
In another portion of the bill, the text includes:
Damage to:
Wildlife habitat
Riparian Areas
Cultural or Natural Resources
Property or Improvements
Now, this sounds great, right? I agree that it does. We need to preserve our beautiful desert landscape, our natural resources, the flora and fauna. I cannot argue that but...what constitutes damage? What constitutes abuse of a watershed? When, as a lawmaker, I vet bills as great as they sound and as much as I agree with the bill's intent I must ask questions. One of the questions almost always asked is "are the terms defined?" Will a sportsman who is out enjoying a ride be able to ascertain if he/she is breaking the law? Under the provisions of this bill, I do not think so. No one I spoke with could. Even testimony from Game and Fish representatives brought to light that they could not define these terms but that they "would know it when they see it."
The enforcement of this bill would be entirely too subjective for me, especially when times are tight and every agency budget is fighting for cash. I was elected to protect the rights of citizens. This bill undermines those rights by not providing enough information so that law abiding citizens can continue to remain law abiding citizens. I can only imagine when budget times continue to tighten that enforcement agencies will step up efforts to ticket & fine unsuspecting, otherwise upstanding individuals in order to pad their budget. I will not let that happen. You find that disappointing? I am disappointed you think so.
D***n, I hope that you can remember the reality that my name is on almost every pro-2nd Amendment piece of legislation sponsored since I took office in 2004. I am an NRA member with an A ranking as a legislator, a member of Arizona State Rifle & Pistol Association, I believe that I am even a member (or have been in the recent past) of the M%# S&*^%n Club. If you let one vote sway you, if other club members let this vote sway them, I regret that but so be it. I did not vote no on this bill arbitrarily but because that, although there is some good there is too much bad. I will regret losing your support but will not regret voting my conscious.
Most sincerely,
RepGroe
I stand by my decision to vote against this bill (HB 2573) and will continue to do all that I can to make sure this bill never sees the light of day. It is unfortunate that you did not call me as I requested. I am extremely confident that I would have made myself clear when explaining why Jerry Weiers and all who voted for this bill did the hunters, sportsman, and nature-lovers a grave disservice by supporting this horrid piece of legislation. I do not think that the bill would have had as much support if Jerry Weiers did not mislead other legislators by telling them that the NRA was going to “weight” the bill & use it on their legislative scorecard. I found this to be untrue when I spoke with an NRA rep who was aware of the false information being spread by Mr. Weiers.
While I do have my doubts that licensing fees generated will actually be used for their intended purposes, I can live with this portion of the bill. I have two ATVs and ride regularly around LHC, both on and off road with friends and family and have little qualms about paying these fees and applaud their purpose. If Jerry Weiers bill stopped there, more than likely, I would have voted yes. But, Weiers bill venture far into dangerous territory and it is unconscionable my colleagues voted for its passage.
The text of the bill states that criminal action includes:
Damage to the environment: excessive pollution of air, water, or land.
Abuse of the watershed, cultural or natural resources.
Impairment of plant or animal life.
In another portion of the bill, the text includes:
Damage to:
Wildlife habitat
Riparian Areas
Cultural or Natural Resources
Property or Improvements
Now, this sounds great, right? I agree that it does. We need to preserve our beautiful desert landscape, our natural resources, the flora and fauna. I cannot argue that but...what constitutes damage? What constitutes abuse of a watershed? When, as a lawmaker, I vet bills as great as they sound and as much as I agree with the bill's intent I must ask questions. One of the questions almost always asked is "are the terms defined?" Will a sportsman who is out enjoying a ride be able to ascertain if he/she is breaking the law? Under the provisions of this bill, I do not think so. No one I spoke with could. Even testimony from Game and Fish representatives brought to light that they could not define these terms but that they "would know it when they see it."
The enforcement of this bill would be entirely too subjective for me, especially when times are tight and every agency budget is fighting for cash. I was elected to protect the rights of citizens. This bill undermines those rights by not providing enough information so that law abiding citizens can continue to remain law abiding citizens. I can only imagine when budget times continue to tighten that enforcement agencies will step up efforts to ticket & fine unsuspecting, otherwise upstanding individuals in order to pad their budget. I will not let that happen. You find that disappointing? I am disappointed you think so.
D***n, I hope that you can remember the reality that my name is on almost every pro-2nd Amendment piece of legislation sponsored since I took office in 2004. I am an NRA member with an A ranking as a legislator, a member of Arizona State Rifle & Pistol Association, I believe that I am even a member (or have been in the recent past) of the M%# S&*^%n Club. If you let one vote sway you, if other club members let this vote sway them, I regret that but so be it. I did not vote no on this bill arbitrarily but because that, although there is some good there is too much bad. I will regret losing your support but will not regret voting my conscious.
Most sincerely,
RepGroe
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Sure Could Use a Little Good News Today
For now, Greg Patterson's post about the state of the state will paint the bloody picture of our budget woes. Follow the link.
I promise a post on the House proposed budget, the budget process and the bad news, bad budget, bad bills blues that are wreaking havoc at the capitol, causing many a member stressful days and sleepless nights. I am struggling to find the good in this situation we face and praying that, in attempting to address the crisis, we lawmakers don't do more harm, than good. The task tonight feels weighty and my shoulders worn. I am grateful I know a lighter yoke and for the respite it provides. May today's stumbling blocks be tomorrow's stepping stones.
And, along those lines, may tomorrow's bills have plenty of amendments, to make them palatable, at the very least. There is a reason "they" say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I promise a post on the House proposed budget, the budget process and the bad news, bad budget, bad bills blues that are wreaking havoc at the capitol, causing many a member stressful days and sleepless nights. I am struggling to find the good in this situation we face and praying that, in attempting to address the crisis, we lawmakers don't do more harm, than good. The task tonight feels weighty and my shoulders worn. I am grateful I know a lighter yoke and for the respite it provides. May today's stumbling blocks be tomorrow's stepping stones.
And, along those lines, may tomorrow's bills have plenty of amendments, to make them palatable, at the very least. There is a reason "they" say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Friday, February 15, 2008
Controversial Bill Alert ~HB2833 Bullet Serialization
House Bill 2833, introduced by State Representative Martha Garcia, (D-13), would require that all handgun and “assault weapon” ammunition manufactured or sold in Arizona to be coded with an individual serial number, and entered into a statewide database at the time of sale.
Encoded ammunition would be registered to the purchaser and would include the date of transaction, the purchaser’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number, and the serial number of the ammunition.
This dangerous legislation could be bound for a hearing this legislative session if a handful of anti-gun legislators have their way. Similar legislation failed several years ago in California and just today Hawaii failed to pass one of two Senate versions after NRA and the Hawaii Attorney General testified against the measure.HB2833 seeks only to harass law-abiding gun owners as criminals are not likely to purchase their ammunition through legal channels. Please take a moment to contact your State Legislators and voice your opposition to House Bill 2833.
Bullet serialization efforts are making their way across the country looking for a foothold and it is vital that Arizona not be the first!
Encoded ammunition would be registered to the purchaser and would include the date of transaction, the purchaser’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number, and the serial number of the ammunition.
This dangerous legislation could be bound for a hearing this legislative session if a handful of anti-gun legislators have their way. Similar legislation failed several years ago in California and just today Hawaii failed to pass one of two Senate versions after NRA and the Hawaii Attorney General testified against the measure.HB2833 seeks only to harass law-abiding gun owners as criminals are not likely to purchase their ammunition through legal channels. Please take a moment to contact your State Legislators and voice your opposition to House Bill 2833.
Bullet serialization efforts are making their way across the country looking for a foothold and it is vital that Arizona not be the first!
Saturday, February 9, 2008
SB1482~Temporary Guest Worker Program
Howard Fischer's article in the Arizona Daily Star provides a few more details on the proposterous piece of proposed legislation that is Senate Bill 1482.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Arizona Temporary Worker Program
Friends, this is proposed legislation that you soon will be hearing about...I believe there is a press conference scheduled for Monday around 11:00 on the Senate lawn. Read the details of this bill & make your voices heard. Whether you support or oppose this legislation, please let me know.
Elements of the Arizona Temporary Worker Program:
1. The program is contingent upon authorization by Congress for an Arizona-only, state-administered temporary worker program.
2. Employers who state that they have a labor shortage and are unable to find local workers with the skills needed will submit an application of request to the Arizona Industrial Commission, which will administer the program. The employers will pay an application fee. The fees will fund the administration of the program.
3. Only citizens of Mexico will be eligible for the program.
4. Employers will recruit workers in Mexico with the skills they need. Workers will submit applications, and photographs and fingerprints will be taken, at Arizona State Offices within Mexico. The employer will submit the names and background information to the Arizona Industrial Commission. The names will be criminal background checked by the Department of Public Safety in cooperation with federal agencies, and a criminal background check will be done in Mexico through agreements with the Department of Public Safety and the appropriate law enforcement agency in Mexico .
5. Tamper-proof Legal worker cards will be printed by the Arizona Department of Transportation and delivered to the requesting employers. A second fee may be charged for the cards. Employers will send their recruiting agents to Arizona State Offices within Mexico to deliver the cards to the selected workers. Employers are charged with verifying that the worker who is issued the card is the same person that submitted the application.
6. Legal workers possessing an Arizona Temporary worker card will be legally able to enter the United States through ports of entry on the Mexico border (upon authorization by Congress) and return through these ports.
7. The Arizona Temporary Worker legal identification card will allow a non-citizen from Mexico to work in ARIZONA ONLY. Employers are required to explain to the workers they recruit that the card does not allow them to work in any other state, and if they are absent from work their card will be revoked and reported to law enforcement authorities.
8. If a worker does not show up for work for fourteen days and the employer is unable to locate him or her, the employer is required to notify the Arizona Industrial Commission, and the Department will cancel the legal worker card and notify the Department of Public Safety that that person no longer has legal authorization to be in the United States. The Department of Public Safety will notify appropriate federal agencies. If the employer offers vacation time, the worker is required to provide an address where he or she will be located.
9. The Arizona Temporary Worker program cards will be issued for a two-year period and will be renewable if the employer files another verification of need and application for foreign labor.
10. The intent of the program is to recruit needed foreign labor from our neighboring country of Mexico. Many agriculture workers currently live in Mexico and work legally during the day in Arizona, returning to Mexico every night. The program is limited to Mexico because that country will be able to conduct a criminal background check within their boundaries and coordinate with the Arizona Department of Public Safety and appropriate federal officials.
11. Industries included in this program may include but are not limited to: agriculture and meat producing industries; hotel and hospitality industries; contractors, homebuilders and subcontractors such as roofing and landscaping; hospitals and nursing homes; and other businesses that are in need of foreign labor.
12. Temporary workers with a criminal record in the United States or in Mexico are ineligible from the program.
UPDATE: More details should be forthcoming after the bill sponsors hold their press conference Monday morning at 11:00 am on the Senate Lawn. Hopefully, they will make time for legislators, including myself, to ask questions. Please feel free to forward me your questions and concerns and I will attempt to garner additional information on both the intended and unintended consequences of the passage of this bill.
Elements of the Arizona Temporary Worker Program:
1. The program is contingent upon authorization by Congress for an Arizona-only, state-administered temporary worker program.
2. Employers who state that they have a labor shortage and are unable to find local workers with the skills needed will submit an application of request to the Arizona Industrial Commission, which will administer the program. The employers will pay an application fee. The fees will fund the administration of the program.
3. Only citizens of Mexico will be eligible for the program.
4. Employers will recruit workers in Mexico with the skills they need. Workers will submit applications, and photographs and fingerprints will be taken, at Arizona State Offices within Mexico. The employer will submit the names and background information to the Arizona Industrial Commission. The names will be criminal background checked by the Department of Public Safety in cooperation with federal agencies, and a criminal background check will be done in Mexico through agreements with the Department of Public Safety and the appropriate law enforcement agency in Mexico .
5. Tamper-proof Legal worker cards will be printed by the Arizona Department of Transportation and delivered to the requesting employers. A second fee may be charged for the cards. Employers will send their recruiting agents to Arizona State Offices within Mexico to deliver the cards to the selected workers. Employers are charged with verifying that the worker who is issued the card is the same person that submitted the application.
6. Legal workers possessing an Arizona Temporary worker card will be legally able to enter the United States through ports of entry on the Mexico border (upon authorization by Congress) and return through these ports.
7. The Arizona Temporary Worker legal identification card will allow a non-citizen from Mexico to work in ARIZONA ONLY. Employers are required to explain to the workers they recruit that the card does not allow them to work in any other state, and if they are absent from work their card will be revoked and reported to law enforcement authorities.
8. If a worker does not show up for work for fourteen days and the employer is unable to locate him or her, the employer is required to notify the Arizona Industrial Commission, and the Department will cancel the legal worker card and notify the Department of Public Safety that that person no longer has legal authorization to be in the United States. The Department of Public Safety will notify appropriate federal agencies. If the employer offers vacation time, the worker is required to provide an address where he or she will be located.
9. The Arizona Temporary Worker program cards will be issued for a two-year period and will be renewable if the employer files another verification of need and application for foreign labor.
10. The intent of the program is to recruit needed foreign labor from our neighboring country of Mexico. Many agriculture workers currently live in Mexico and work legally during the day in Arizona, returning to Mexico every night. The program is limited to Mexico because that country will be able to conduct a criminal background check within their boundaries and coordinate with the Arizona Department of Public Safety and appropriate federal officials.
11. Industries included in this program may include but are not limited to: agriculture and meat producing industries; hotel and hospitality industries; contractors, homebuilders and subcontractors such as roofing and landscaping; hospitals and nursing homes; and other businesses that are in need of foreign labor.
12. Temporary workers with a criminal record in the United States or in Mexico are ineligible from the program.
UPDATE: More details should be forthcoming after the bill sponsors hold their press conference Monday morning at 11:00 am on the Senate Lawn. Hopefully, they will make time for legislators, including myself, to ask questions. Please feel free to forward me your questions and concerns and I will attempt to garner additional information on both the intended and unintended consequences of the passage of this bill.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Texting While Driving?
State Representative Steve Farley, a Tucson Democrat, introduced a bill in January to prohibit driving while texting. The bill did not make it out of the Transportation Committee because Chairman Andy Biggs said that we already have bills in place (reckless driving legislation) that address this issue. I agree. Though I use a hands-free device to return phone calls in my car, I am not one who texts while driving...can't imagine being able to do so with all of those tiny buttons on my phone.
According to a recent article in the Arizona Capitol Times, Representative Farley promises to bring the proposal back and perhaps even make it stricter. Last session's bill can be viewed by clicking the title of this post.
What's next...laws against eating while driving, putting on make-up while driving, talking with your hands while driving? What about changing the radio station while driving? Where does it end? How about focusing on enforcement of the current law against reckless driving instead of passing new legislation?
As O'Rielly asks, "What say you"?
According to a recent article in the Arizona Capitol Times, Representative Farley promises to bring the proposal back and perhaps even make it stricter. Last session's bill can be viewed by clicking the title of this post.
What's next...laws against eating while driving, putting on make-up while driving, talking with your hands while driving? What about changing the radio station while driving? Where does it end? How about focusing on enforcement of the current law against reckless driving instead of passing new legislation?
As O'Rielly asks, "What say you"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
