by admin | Jan 5, 2017 | News and Updates
President Obama’s legacy is littered with sweeping Executive Orders, unprecedented levels of federal government expansion and the diminishment of state primacy. However, as the President prepares to vacate the White House, many of his hallmark policies face a dubious future. One such policy is the Clean Power Plan (CPP) written and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The CPP rolled out in August of 2015 and it hit the states like a lightning rod. The plan requires states to meet specific carbon-cutting targets by 2030, based upon the levels of greenhouse gases they released from producing electricity in 2012. For Arizona, the EPA calls their goal “moderate,” however the target is to reduce 10 million short tons of emissions a staggering 25 percent.
Most of this reduction will come from coal. The draconian targets will require many states to plug smokestacks and decommission coal burning plants.
The U.S Energy Information Administration (EIA) has conducted its own modeling on the CPP. Their analysis predicts the CPP alone would force nearly 60 coal plants to close nationwide. Coal plants which since the 1990s have sunk $130 billion into upgrading their facilities. Following significant EPA rules in 2005, 67 percent of the coal fleet in the U.S had retrofitted some system for scrubbing, with momentous and positive results.
Thousands of jobs will disappear as a result of coal plant closures. But perhaps more saliently, energy production will be displaced and costs will increase to consumers. Arizona enjoys relatively low energy costs, a fact that makes the state attractive to big employers and affordable to residents. A new report by the Pacific Research Institute illustrates the CPP burden on consumers by state.
With almost a third of Arizona’s resident electricity being produced by coal, Maricopa County residents could see their electricity costs increase by 10.3 percent. Poor families will be hit disproportionally hard with costs that could equal 11.32 percent of their income. The Electricity Price Index has continued to rise with the coal losing more market share. With 48-50 million Americans in poverty, energy poverty will force many families to choose between climatizing their homes through brutal winters and summers or putting food on the table. This is why immediately following the roll out of the CPP, 28 states filed a suit against the EPA.
As the litigation and political fallout continues from these regulations, the question now is what will the Trump administration do with the Clean Power Plan? Given that the new proposed head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, was one of the first attorney generals to sue the EPA, the hope is that the plan will be quickly dismantled. Couple that with Trump’s appointment to the Supreme Court, it is possible that we might see the EPA’s power grab struck down. Elections do have consequences, which means the future for energy freedom and state’s rights looks just a little bit brighter.
by admin | Dec 15, 2016 | News and Updates
It has only been a month and the recently approved minimum wage initiative, Proposition 206, is already inflicting permanent damage on Arizona’s Economy, hardworking taxpayers and our most vulnerable and needy residents.
Similar to previous proposals, Prop 206 was sold on the idea that Arizona could raise its minimum wage to $12 an hour (adjusted for inflation every year thereafter) and require employers offer mandated paid sick leave to employees without any negative repercussions. Reading the fine print of Prop 206 exposed this fraudulent claim; as the funders of the initiative (California Unions) exempted collective bargaining agreements from critical components of the initiative. If this was so good, why exempt themselves from it?
Now the debilitating impacts of Prop 206 are being felt, and they are far more widespread and catastrophic than even the opponents of the initiative realized. While it wasn’t a secret that Arizona businesses would face hard choices in order to comply with the wage hike, some of the worst hit organizations will be those that serve the neediest and most vulnerable populations in our state.
Currently in-home care services, many of which aid fragile and feeble seniors, range from $20-$24 an hour. These services will go up; pricing out many of these seniors on fixed-incomes from receiving the care they desperately need or force more individuals onto state welfare rolls.
The developmentally disabled in our community will also be devastated by Proposition 206. According to the President and CEO of the Centers for Habilitation and member of the Arizona Association of Providers for People with Disabilities, some providers will be forced to close operations as soon as January 1, 2017.
Some of these providers have contracts with the State of Arizona that set the reimbursement rates. This means the state will be forced to allocate more taxpayer money to cover the higher costs. If the state doesn’t cough up more tax dollars to address these needs, thousands of developmentally disabled in Arizona will be left without vital care.
It only gets worse from here.
Many subdivisions of the state such as school districts will also be deeply impacted by the voter mandate. Positions such as cross walk guards cafeteria workers and bus drivers, many of which are part time positions, represent a significant aggregate cost to schools; costs which were neither anticipated nor planned for by districts or the state.
For Chandler Unified School District, Prop 206’s passage represents a $1.1 million hit to their budget. Agua Fria Union High School District in the West Valley, $123,500. Peoria Unified District – $1.1 million by 2020. And Sahuarita District in southern Arizona $907,576. These are tremendous costs which will necessitate the diversion of other resources from teachers and students or require more monies from taxpayers.
And although the law does not apply to state or federal agencies, many government departments will still be on the hook. The State of Arizona has expenditure obligations for school districts as well as private contracts through AHCCCS (Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment Center System). But the legislature has already passed a budget for 2017. These additional costs were not included in the state’s budget.
Many voters that supported Prop 206 were not aware of the harmful effects this initiative would cause. Yet unlike bills proposed and passed at the legislature, there was no independent review, hearings, or public comment process of the initiative language to inform voters of these inevitable issues.
Now, even if voters wanted these issues fixed, Prop 206 can’t be modified because Arizona initiatives are bound by the strictest voter protection law in the country. Once a measure is passed at the ballot, it can’t be changed unless it is sent back to the voters, and that can’t happen for two years.
As the saying goes, “elections have consequences.” We suspect that the consequences of Prop 206, however, are not what Arizona voters signed up for.
by admin | Dec 8, 2016 | News and Updates
Amid some discussion by Republican leaders to thwart President-Elect Trump from moving to completely repeal Obamacare, it is clear Republicans must have a definitive plan to not just repeal, but replace the current disastrous healthcare law.
And at this point, with millions of middle class Americans facing sky-rocketing premiums, narrow networks, and shoddy benefits, something must be done quickly. Perhaps the most comprehensive plan to address the healthcare system has been offered by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Ryan’s general approach is to loosen the grip of central federal control and return power to the states to improve the flexibility, efficiency, costs, and quality of healthcare for their unique populations.
Unfortunately, many states (including Arizona) expanded their Medicaid rolls to take advantage of federal matching subsidies, and will face an extra layer of complexity following a repeal. Without precedence, this Medicaid expansion was extended to include able-bodied adults who are 138 percent over the federal poverty line (FPL). This represented an additional 63,000 beneficiaries in Arizona alone. Repealing Obamacare poses a significant problem for these states as they will either be left with huge state budget deficits to make up for the loss of federal funding, or potentially be forced to kick tens of thousands of people off the health subsidies.
But there are common sense solutions to address this problem and others.
The current process for states to reform their Medicaid program is to go to the Federal Government on bended knee and apply for a waiver. As expected, these waivers have been granted with mixed approval and endure a lengthy and oftentimes politicized process. In the meantime, states struggle to shoulder increasing costs and face uncertainty whether they will be able to hedge those costs.
A critical component of Ryan’s plan is to reform the waiver process and divest more power in the states. This includes creating a set of predictable parameters, fast tracking requests that meet those parameters, and then not requiring a renewal of such waivers. The plan also requires that Medicaid waivers be federal budget neutral as a way to reduce costs and protect taxpayers from states looking to game the system.
Another key component of reform is to address the issue of able-bodied adults on Medicaid being completely insulated from the true costs of healthcare. It is critical that any reform allow states to charge reasonable premiums, offer more limited benefits, and allow waiting lists and enrollment caps for non-mandatory populations. Additionally, those states that currently have a waiver for managed care that have been previously renewed twice would be grandfathered in and not have to seek another renewal. Obamacare has incentivized able-bodied adults to remain dependent instead of self-sufficient; empowering states to make these common sense and well proven reforms is a step in the right direction.
The last key component is identifying a way to contain the spiraling costs of Medicaid. Currently Medicaid represents 15 percent of all federal healthcare spending and is growing fast. The program is unsustainable, and states must be weaned off this open ended entitlement program. One such proposal is for the federal government to allocate money to states in the form of “block grants.” Going to a block grant would mean that each state would receive a defined amount of funding for a base year and assume the state is transitioning non-mandatory populations into other coverage over time. If states are working toward streamlining costs, any savings realized could remain with the state instead of federal coffers.
Obamacare has come with a great deal of cost and pain for individuals, families, businesses, and state governments alike. It is unlikely that the transition away from it will be painless either. However, not reversing course cannot be an option for Republican leaders in Washington. Now is not the time to get cold feet. After all it should not be impossible to imagine a healthcare system driven by free market principles and individual choice rather than government mandates and punishments.
by admin | Nov 17, 2016 | News and Updates
Voters be warned: Establishment insiders are already fighting to save Obamacare.
The election is a week old, and reports are already surfacing of backroom meetings by Republicans to convince the Trump administration to scrap repeal and only make cosmetic changes to the law.
One of the ringleaders of this effort is former Governor Jan Brewer, who was key in implementing key provisions of Obamacare in Arizona. Under Brewer, Arizona became one of 32 states to support the vast expansion of Medicaid, funded through federal dollars and a massive and potentially unconstitutional bed tax. Adding insult to the process, the entire package was rammed through in the middle of night under complete suspension of House and Senate rules.
In what should be a go
lden opportunity to repeal Obamacare and replace it with bold patient centered reforms, insiders are lo
bbying to maintain the status quo. Most people that voted for President-elect Trump (and even some who didn’t) hope a
Even more troubling, Brewer is telling Trump to look to Arizona (a State he highlighted as the poster-child of Obamacare failure) as the “gold standard” for Obamacare/Medicaid reform to be followed across the country.nd expect that he will deliver on his campaign promise to repeal Obamacare. Yet people are already lining up to convince the President-Elect to crumble on his commitment to voters.
The reality is just the opposite. Arizona’s Medicaid expansion is not a model for the rest of the country – but is the most inefficient and costly mode of delivering healthcare services possible. Not only has the costs of new ACA enrollees far exceeded the initial predictions, but a study conducted at MIT found every $1 the federal government spends on Medicaid, recipients receive only $0.2 – 0.4 of benefits.
Other Republican leaders in the state should be warned: any position other than a strong and swift call for Obamacare repeal will elicit a colossal backlash from voters. It is without question that Republican success at the ballot box was a direct and enraged reaction to the healthcare disaster. And voters have held Democrats accountable. So, what is left to defend now for Republicans?? Arizona has seen 116% increases in their insurance premiums, providers dwindle down to 1-2, and the quality of their plans completely fail them.
The argument is over. Obamacare is broken. Medicaid is broken. If our elected officials and insiders choose to stand in front of the repeal train in an attempt to save Obamacare, they deserve to be run over by it.
by admin | Nov 15, 2016 | News and Updates
Presidential candidates did not discourage Peoria and Mesa voters from filling out their down ballots. Both cities had proposed 0.4 percent sales tax increases which were handedly defeated last Tuesday.
Peoria’s “Forever Tax”
Proponents of Peoria’s Proposition 400, dubbed the “Quality of Life Tax,” tried to make the case that the tax increase was needed to fund much needed public safety priorities and park ranger positions.
The truth is Prop 400 was designed to fund a lavish wish list of non- essential projects such as river trails, upgrades to neighborhood parks, a new recreation center, a new city pool, beautification of Old-Town Peoria, and a brand-new library in North Peoria (even though 12 already exist in the city). It also included funding for an aquatic center that would compete with several private swimming locations already in Peoria.
The public safety claims were such a sham that even the Peoria Police Officers Association urged a NO vote on the initiative.
What made Prop 400 even more egregious was how city elites actively used tax payer money for electioneering on behalf of the proposal. City officials plastered garbage trucks with Prop 400 signs and printed extensive materials to “educate” voters; for good reason, this is illegal.
But in the central planning paradigm, the ends justify the means. Current City Mayor Cathy Carlot argued it was the legislature’s fault that Peoria was in this unfortunate position of having to extract more money from residents. She cited the state’s changes to city impacts fees. Indeed, reforms were made to stop cities from being able to charge exorbitant impact fees on new developers to fund massive city wide projects (like libraries and aquatic centers.) Developers are still required to pay impact fees, however, those fees are meant to pay for direct and legitimate city services and infrastructure to the degree that development puts additional demand on those service. They’re NOT meant to subsidize whatever grand projects the city craves and sees the opportunity to dump onto new growth.
Proposition 400 was defeated by more than 13 points. It is clear Peoria voters sent a loud message to their elected representatives in the City – that message was a resounding ‘NO.’
Public Safety Ploy Fails in Mesa
Meanwhile in Mesa, the city was also asking voters to pass an additional 0.4 percent increase, again claiming it was necessary for public safety improvements. While this tax hike did allocate more funding to public safety than its Peoria counterpart, it was coupled with other special interest giveaways that voters couldn’t stomach.
Specifically, $15 million of the $38 million anticipated annually would have been dedicated to fund debt service on an Arizona State University satellite campus and an expansion of Benedictine University. Spending $127 million on a questionable downtown campus was simply not palatable to voters–the measure was defeated by a solid 7 points.
At the end of the day voters are getting wise to the tactics of city governments. It is no longer enough to pay lip service to public safety or use it as a Trojan horse to fund other lavish non-essential ideas. In a world where citizens are getting crushed by high insurance premiums, ever-increasing property taxes, and a diminishing purchasing power, they are demanding more accountability for their tax dollars.
Every jurisdiction in Arizona should take notice of Peoria’s and Mesa’s failures to convince voters, and think twice before asking their residents to increase taxes.
Recent Comments