by admin | Oct 17, 2018 | News and Updates, Tax
Proposition 126 is arguably the most difficult proposition to contend with on the November ballot for conservatives.
On the one hand, the initiative shuts the door on a potential tax grab in the future – taxes on services. It creates predictability for businesses in the service industry. And it is finally an example of a citizen’s ballot initiative that curbs taxes rather than doggedly seeks to increase them permanently.
Yet, Governor Ducey, the Maricopa Republican Party and taxpayer watchdog organizations such as Americans for Prosperity and The Arizona Free Enterprise Club are urging their bases to vote ‘No’ on Prop 126.
Why? Not because they want to see services taxed in the future…
Limitations on Taxation Should be Broad-Based and Inclusive
One of the core arguments in favor of Prop 126 is taxpayers should support any measure that prevents future tax increases. Though this is a laudable goal, the problem with this strategy is that when those limitations are narrowly targeted to benefit a particular group, it leaves everyone else exposed to future tax hikes.
That is the fundamental flaw with this service tax initiative. If stopping future service taxes is a good idea, why not apply the prohibition to the entire tax base? Fortunately, we already have a broad-based solution on the books—Proposition 108. Approved by voters in 1992, this constitutional amendment requires any tax increase by the legislature have a 2/3 vote, including taxes on services. If there is a concern of future tax hikes, then a better approach would be to clarify and expand this taxpayer protection rather than creating a new one.
Prop 126 Impedes Comprehensive Tax Reform and Actually Threatens More Tax Increases
Our organization is unapologetically in favor of eliminating the state’s income tax in the future. A mountain of research exists demonstrating states without an income tax and with a lower income tax burden consistently economically outperform states with an income tax or a high-income tax burden.
If Prop 126 passes, it increases the likelihood that we will have to become MORE DEPENDENT on income and property taxes in the future. The reason for this is because our current sales tax base built on taxing goods is shrinking. When our current tax code was shaped over 80 years ago, services made up only a small fraction of our economy. Now it is approximately half and is expected to become a larger share throughout the next century. If the current sales tax base continues to erode, the only option will be higher taxes on our income and property.
How We Cut Taxes Matters
Just as important as ensuring Arizona has as low a tax burden as is possible, is the method by which we craft tax policy. Prop 126 is a Constitutional Amendment that if passed by the voters, could not be changed, tweaked or amended without sending it back to the ballot box.
Simply put, rifle-shotting tax policy into Arizona’s constitution is not how a representative government should function. A more prudent method of governance is the legislative process. The initiative process gives voters a binary choice: vote for this specific policy or reject it. The legislative process in contrast, allows for changes, compromises and inherent checks.
Also, although the citizens’ initiative process was contemplated as a separate and coequal branch of the government and a check on the legislative branch – what it is today is far from that. Rather than initiatives being reflective of the “will of the people” they are banked rolled and run by the machines of special interest groups – Prop 126 is no different.
The Economy Changes, and so Should the Tax Code
The evolution of technology and therefore our economy necessitates changes to our tax code. The revolution in transportation technology on the horizon will dramatically change our economy.
It is conceivable that as ride sharing becomes so affordable and autonomous cars so efficient, that transportation becomes another great commodity by which people subscribe to a monthly service and opt out of purchasing their own car.
Self-driving cars and affordable ride-sharing services has already created a huge disruption in the automotive industry. Most cities in Arizona rely heavily on sales tax and of those revenues a huge portion consists of the taxes generated from car sales.
Car ownership is already in decline, especially among younger generations who are opting out of even getting a driver’s license. Predicting what this phenomenon will look like in 10 years, let alone 50 years is impossible.
Arizonans Could Seriously Regret Passing Prop 126 in the Future.
Despite its ostensible appeal, the actual benefits to Arizona taxpayers’ if they pass Prop 126 are superficial. Yet the manifold downsides are deep, long-lasting and may even create the opposite effect of what many voters wish to accomplish with its passage. For these reasons we encourage voters to take a second look at Prop 126 and Vote No.
by admin | Oct 16, 2018 | Elections, News and Updates
Phoenix, AZ (October 15th, 2018) – Today the Arizona Free Enterprise Club announced its final slate of endorsements for the General Election.
The endorsed candidates represent individuals who align with the organization’s principles and key policy goals. Club President Scot Mussi stated, “It is critical Arizona has leaders and policy makers who are able to articulate and stand up for free market principles and pro-growth policies. This slate of candidates has proven they can and will.”
Additionally, the Club has endorsed the two Arizona Supreme Court Justices up for retention this year. “Justices Bolick and Pelander have been independent Justices and have consistently ruled to uphold the Constitution and textually interpret the law. That’s exactly why Arizonans should retain them on the judicial bench.”
US Senate
Martha McSally
Arizona Supreme Court Retention
Justice Clint Bolick
Justice John Pelander
Secretary of State
Steve Gaynor
State Legislature
Nora Ellen LD 17 House
David Gowan LD 14 Senate
Michelle Ugenti-Rita LD 23 Senate
Jay Lawrence LD 23 House
John Kavanagh LD 23 House
Doyel Shamely LD 7 House
Walt Blackman LD 6 House
Leo Biasiucci LD 5 House
Maricopa County Community College School Board
Kathleen Winn (at large)
Debi Vandenboom – District 3
Jean McGrath – District 4
The rest of the Club’s endorsements for 2018 can be viewed at https://www.azfree.org/club-candidates/
by admin | Oct 9, 2018 | Elections
With early ballots scheduled to be mailed later this week, the Free Enterprise Club has released our recommendations for each of the statewide initiatives on the November ballot. There are a total of five measures on this year’s ballot, three of which are proposed amendments to Arizona’s constitution.
We believe that our recommendations are consistent with the Club’s mission of promoting economic freedom, limited government and a strong and vibrant economy in Arizona.
Prop 125–Vote YES
Amends the state constitution to allow for additional legislative reforms to the Correctional Officers Retirement Plan (CORP). While they are limited in scope, the proposed legislative reforms will reduce future liabilities and pension debt for taxpayers.
Prop 126–Vote NO
Would amend Arizona’s constitution to prohibit any future changes to Arizona’s tax code related to service taxes. While the Club opposes higher taxes, we do not support locking our sales tax code in the constitution into perpetuity. Additionally, taxpayers are already protected from future tax increases under Prop 108 (which requires a 2/3 vote to raise taxes).
Prop 127–Vote NO
Tom Steyer backed initiative that would insert a 50% renewable energy mandate into Arizona’s constitution. The Club opposes sweeping changes to our Constitution that will raise costs and picks winners and losers (SRP and other government utilities are exempt from the mandate).
Prop 305–Vote YES
Referendum that will expand Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program to allow parents to send their child to a private school of their choice. The ESA program is capped at 30,000 students and includes transparency and accountability measures in the program. The Club supports expanding choice and opportunities for parents and students, and Prop 305 is a step in the right direction.
Prop 306–Vote YES
In 2016 it was discovered that candidates that finance their campaign with taxpayer money funneled over $100,000 of those funds to political parties. Instead of fixing the problem, the Clean Election Commission codified the abuse, and even expanded the rule to allow public funds to go to political special interest groups as well. The Club urges a YES vote on Prop 306, which would prohibit any taxpayer funded candidate from giving those funds to political parties or special interest groups.
by admin | Sep 19, 2018 | Elections, News and Updates
Since the 1970s, Arizona has appointed judges to the state Supreme Court based upon a merit selection system. An independent body of citizen-appointees recruit, interview, evaluate and select candidates for these higher courts and forward that slate of candidates to the Governor when a vacancy occurs.
This system is often lauded by both sides of the aisle because it ensures a much higher quality bench, keeps judges separate from the influence of politics, and limits the amount of money in judicial retention/rejection elections.
But some groups quickly abandon these tenets as soon as they receive a ruling they simply don’t like.
In August, the Arizona Supreme Court issued separate rulings that barred two propositions from the November ballot. The court concluded that Prop 207/Invest in Ed created “a significant danger of confusion or unfairness” by not accurately describing the increased tax burden on affected classes of taxpayers as well as failing to reference the elimination of the bracket inflation indexing. The Outlaw Dirty Money initiative simply lacked enough signatures to qualify.
Following the rulings, a group of angry activists came together to call for a rejection of two Justices whose terms are up for retention on the ballot: Justice Clint Bolick and Justice John Pelander.
Since their appointments, both Justice Bolick and Pelander have been fair-minded judges that have demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding and protecting the Arizona constitution. They have even reached decisions that have displeased both sides of the political aisle. One example of their independent streak occurred in 2017 when a coalition from the business community–led by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce–sued over the constitutionality of Proposition 206, the minimum wage law. Both Bolick and Pelander ruled against the plaintiffs, a decision that was cheered by many of the same liberal groups now seeking their ouster.
The importance of protecting the impartiality of the judicial branch cannot be understated. The good news is that both Justice Bolick and Pelander have proven to be unafraid to honor their duties to uphold the constitution and strictly interpret the law as written – despite whatever the political backlash may be. And given the partisan political campaign now being waged against them, it is all the more reason why Arizonans should vote to retain Bolick and Pelander.
by admin | Sep 13, 2018 | Elections, News and Updates
If more evidence was needed to support the idea of donor privacy and anonymous speech in elections, the reaction by the left against the ‘Invest in Ed’ and ‘Outlaw Dirty Money’ court rulings should settle it.
It’s been two weeks since the Arizona Supreme Court barred both ballot measures from appearing on the ballot, and the backers of both measures are now waging a campaign to target and harass anyone that supported the legal challenge.
Angry activists and various labor unions began a coordinated effort to protest outside of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and any other private group that participated in exposing the legal flaws and signature issues with both measures. Appropriately named “Fightbacknews” chronicles on their website how these protests were designed to go after not just the private non-profit entities, but to “out” every business or individual that dared to oppose their agenda.
Social media groups supportive of Invest in Ed and Outlaw Dirty Money have been openly discussing strategies to expand their intimidation campaign, both now and in the future. And since the issues they are championing—education funding and donor disclosure—are generally supported by the establishment/liberal media, news outlets have ignored the deployment of these thug tactics to target political free speech. This is especially ironic, since anonymous speech has been the cornerstone of almost all reporting (and even entire books) by the mainstream media since Donald Trump became president.
None of this is really new. Efforts to target people for their political beliefs has intensified in recent years, often with an assist from government officials and politicians. Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich was forced to resign after furious attacks against him for his support of Prop 8 defining marriage between one man and one woman. Prosecutors in Wisconsin launched a corrupt investigation targeting conservative donors that was finally shut down by the Supreme Court last year. And no one should forget the IRS targeting of conservative groups that finally ended with a large payout to victims and an apology from the agency.
That is what makes efforts such as Outlaw Dirty Money so dangerous. Private citizens should have a right to support causes and issues they believe in without fear of harassment, intimidation or retaliation. Donor privacy is crucial to free speech, and is essential to promoting open dialogue on critical issues. If government or angry social media mobs are allowed to dictate the terms of “debate”, it will lead to far worse outcomes than not knowing the identify of a donor to an organization with whom you might disagree.
Rather than looking to target individuals or businesses engaging in political speech, a better approach would be to encourage more speech and let voters make decisions for themselves. Since corporate and individual political spending is evenly split between the two parties, it’s not as if either side has an unfair advantage. Let’s look to promote our 1st Amendment rights, not target people who try to exercise it.
Recent Comments