Republic asks a bunch of conservatives what’s wrong with the state; gets a bunch of conservative answers.
Posted by: Donna
I was at the Tempe Tardeada most of the day yesterday so I didn’t get a chance to tear into the farce that was in the Republic yesterday. What happened was they “sought out nearly two dozen current and former lawmakers, lobbyists, public-policy advocates and others for their advice on what ails state government and what can be done about it.” I guess not many Democrats or progressives were available when they were doing their seeking because 15 of the 21 participants on the panel were Republican politicos or had obvious conservative leanings.
What they produced was this report. There is nothing in it that we haven’t been hearing from Republican legislators, conservative pundits, and their mouthpieces at the Republic for months now. Some of it is the same sob story we’ve been hearing from them for years:
(Problem) 3. Initiatives mandate spending
Conservatives have long bemoaned the series of voter-approved state programs and their appetite for spending in good years and bad. Specifically, voters have gone to the polls in recent years to mandate additional spending for health care for the poor and education, and growth in those two areas has played a major role in driving up state government costs.The 1998 Voter Protection Act bars lawmakers from amending laws passed at the ballot unless they have a three-quarters vote of the House and Senate and can show the changes would “further the intent” of the initiative.
Cry them a river. What they conveniently forget to acknowledge is that in 2004 voters approved a ballot measure that required all initiatives that required money to create their own funding source. For example, the First Things First initiative, passed by voters in 2006, adds a tax to every pack of cigarettes sold in the state – a tax specifically created for that program. In other words, money that would not exist for legislators to try and get their grubby mitts on in the first place were it not for that initiative. The pot of Clean Elections money that they’ve been salivating over since the program was instituted comes from contributions from donors and voters and a surcharge on traffic fines. And they put that self-funding mechanism in place before they were required by law to do so.
One of the suggestions from the panel was to get rid of Clean Elections entirely, so I guess it would be one-time money grab if that happens. But what about First Things First, and other initiatives with dedicated funding? Would the tax on cigarettes remain in place after the five to ten years “sunset”, with the money going to the general fund instead of going to help little kids as the voters wanted? The august assemblage didn’t get around to addressing how their sunset thing would work in that case.
They also didn’t get around to addressing any GOP sacred cows like tuition tax credits. No mention of how Prop 108 (1992) hobbled our state by requiring two-thirds super majority vote of the legislature to pass any increase in revenue via taxation or reductions in credits and exemptions. I was surprised that none of the five centrist Dems or lone progressive Sandy Bahr brought it up, but from the looks of the report they must have had a hard time getting a word in edgewise.
25 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Thank you for mentioning Prop 108, probably the worst thing to happen to Arizona state government, ever. If we wish to have a functioning government in this state, we need to return the tools for governing to our elected representatives. Right now, a dedicated minority led by Grover Norquist is fully empowered to stymie any budget-balancing through restoring taxes cut over the last 17 years. My corollary suggestion would be to disestablish the state religion that tax cuts are the panacea solution in good times and bad.
I’m confused. The Republicans have done done a great job with the things that are REALLY important. We now have guns in restaurants, a cool lease-back situation on most public buildings, and of course, a sweet artificial waiting period on abortion that will put Arizona on the cutting edge of expensive Federal litigation for the next decade or so.
What in hell are you complaining about?
Rooowrr, Jameson, I like your mind set.. I think the best is the county and sheriffs office suing each other at the cost of millions of dollars. Andrew “Baby Face” Thomas sure has helped with moral at the county level. Apparently you are only allowed to have a voice around here if you are a one armed chicken. A right winged one.
We need to put an initiative on the ballot that the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes can be reduced to a simple majority in times of severe budget crisis such as the present.
Why just times of budget crisis? It’s undemocratic as hell from the outset. Imagine the reaction from the wingnuts if a resolution that any law expanding the rights of gun owners had to get a 2/3 majority?
Donna said: “For example, the First Things First initiative, passed by voters in 2006, adds a tax to every pack of cigarettes sold in the state – a tax specifically created for that program. In other words, money that would not exist for legislators to try and get their grubby mitts on in the first place were it not for that initiative.”
So the First Things First initiative is a $0.80 tax per pack of cigarettes that goes to schools. Great right? Somewhat. So people smoke and schools get money. Great right? Somewhat.
What happens if people say, “smoking is too expensive” and quit? Then the schools don’t get funded. Especially nowadays where people are finding ways to pinch pennies and smoking is probably one of them. So, again, the schools lose money.
So do you agree that so long as people smoke the program is good. Otherwise, it fails? So in reality, it is not completely self-sufficent, is it?
I have a followup question for you when you answer this DHG.
Kancer, I do think that sin taxes are regressive and self-defeating – in that they discourage the very behavior they are attempting to collect revenue from – but what is your point? I wasn’t arguing the merits of the funding source of the First Things First initiative. I was pointing out that there is a dedicated funding source, and that Republicans who want to grab that money for the general fund haven’t told us how they will justify continuing those types of fees in the future.
What’s your follow-up question?
Donna: Yes, dedicated funding – so long as the source remains active. You admit this fact itself by calling sin taxes “regressive and self-defeating.”
So why fund something as important as education on something that is self-defeating?
You also avoided my other question so I will repeat it here again, “So in reality, it is not completely self-sufficent, is it?” In other words, you continually say that there is a “dedicated funding” for this but I am asking you, is it a permanent dedicated funding?
Once you answer my question directly, I will have your followup.
Uh, Kancer, I think you should ask Republican legislators who want to grab the funding from First Things First about how permanent it is. That was my question in the first place, since they’re the ones who want to put a “sunset” on all citizens intitiatives. Ask Espresso Pundit. http://www.espressopundit.com.
@Donna: Did you avoid my question yet again? I think you did. Do I have to type in capital letters to get you to answer my simple question?
This is not about Left or Right, this is a simple question, not for Republican legislators… but for you. I am here at Democratic Diva asking you a simple question about something you wrote and you are telling me to go ask a legislator or ask EP?
C’mon!
Is that your final answer – that you refuse to answer my simple question?
What is your question, Kancer?
Comment by Konfusing Kancer on October 12, 2009 10:36 pm
I find it amusing that you blast Julian for having bad grammar but you can’t even find a question that I’ve asked, not just once, but twice.
Perhaps it’s because you haven’t asked the question in a way that a person who speaks English could comprehend it? What, for God’s sake, is the question?
It is fully comprehensible Donna. Read my comment on October 12, 2009 10:36 pm and you will clearly see it.
In fact, I asked two questions on there.
Have fun.
If you still cannot find it, then I will type it out again, for the third time, in capital letters for you to see.
Deal?
Based on your posting from 10:36, I will tell you: Ask the people who based the funding on First Things First on a cigarette tax. For your second question: Ask the Arizona Legislature. For the umpteenth time, I do not have the answers to those questions. Goodbye.
@Donna: Well, well, well… so it appears that we are mad/upset at something in which we do not understand.
It appears that you are mad that schools are potentially de-funded. However, my question all along has been, have they ever been funded if it was never based on a permanent source? And furthermore, it was funded on a source of taxation that you yourself call “regressive and self-defeating.”
But all you can do is to tell me to go talk to someone else. Why? This is your blog and I am discoursing with you. Do you only want your cheerleaders to come here?
If I am totally off in left field, then what exactly is your blog post about? What do you want out of it? What is your goal?
Lastly, there are a few other blog posts of mine that you have been conveniently ignoring.
Stay out there with the sheep, Kancer.
@Donna: How does me asking you questions about something you wrote make me a sheep?
Actually, you’re right, it doesn’t make you a sheep. That would be an insult to sheep.
@Donna: Enough with the name calling and personal attacks – they do not work with me. Debate the subject not the debater, please.
I came here to debate something in your blog and you refuse.
You have yet to make a coherent point or ask a direct question, Kancer. Do either of those things and you will get the debate you seek. Unless and until you do, I and my commenters will laugh at you.
Here’s something for you to chew on, Konfusing Kancer, as you ponder your next missive to me. From the Arizona Constitution:
Does that clear it up for you a bit?
@Donna: I am not asking you just about schools. I am asking you about using “regressive and self-defeating” taxes to do things such as help fund education. I want to know if you think that is a good idea. My above questions seem to be pretty clear.
Who’s laughing? According to some of my readers, you are the one being laughed at.
Donna said: “You have yet to make a coherent point or ask a direct question, Kancer.” OK, and then I said in an earlier post but you missed because you were too busy calling me names.
“If I am totally off in left field, then what exactly is your blog post about? What do you want out of it? What is your goal?”
Can you see it now? I gave you the opportunity to lay it out and instead you called me names, huh?
I think you are still under the impression that a cigarette tax passed in 2006 funds the schools, despite my having shown you the section of the AZ Constitution, enshrined back in 1910, that fully explicates how the schools are to be funded. Sale of federal trust lands and taxation. It’s not that hard to figure out, Kancer. They didn’t say you had to agree with the method of taxation. They said we could tax people in Arizona to pay for the schools.
@Donna: According to this site here…
Arizona’s First Things First initiative plans to spend $91 million in its first full year on various projects to improve health and education programs for children younger than age five.
Are you avoiding my question or not?