Corp Comm Charging Station Mandate is a Subsidy for the Rich

by | May 7, 2019 | Uncategorized

There has been an important policy debate stirring in Arizona over a proposal to mandate the construction of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations by utility companies.  The current proposed policy would benefit a few select companies and electric vehicle car owners at ratepayer expense.

Surprisingly, this conversation has not been happening in the transparency of the state Capitol amongst the state’s elected lawmakers – but by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) – whose primary charge is to set utility rates.  This is inappropriate. 

Voters expect policies of such sweeping state implication to be the purview of the Arizona State House and Senate, not the Corporation Commission.  After all, existing subsidies for electric vehicle owners such as the utilization of the HOV lane, significant reductions in the cost to register an electric vehicle, and an exemption on the first year for vehicle emissions testing are all statutory laws that went through the more public and rigorous legislative process. 

Aside from the ACC being the wrong venue for this discussion, there are deep policy flaws with the proposal. 

First, the evolution of new technology into the automotive and energy marketplace has been good for the economy, consumers and the environment. But building charging stations would inject another subsidy into the rate base that picks winners and losers among ratepayers.  Less than 1 percent of the population own and operate an electric vehicle, yet they will benefit from this program at the expense of the other 99 percent. Additionally, since most electric vehicle owners are overwhelmingly wealthy and affluent, this is a subsidy that will be paid for by the middle class to benefit the rich.  

Secondly, as cited, electric vehicle car owners already receive favorable tax treatment and do not need an additional subsidy. Currently, the majority of Arizona’s transportation infrastructure is financed through vehicle fuel taxes. There is not a comparable EV tax, which is a great deal for adopters of the technology. If the Commission moves forward with subsidizing charging stations, internal combustion car owners would be getting hit at the pump as well as through their utility bills.

The ACC proposal is simply unfair.

Thirdly, the construction of charging stations should be a function of the private sector. If the belief is that electric vehicles are the future of transportation, then there will be a market and viable business model for the construction of charging stations throughout the state. The government will only depress the cultivation of the EV charging station marketplace if the Commission moves forward with this proposal.

Finally, this proposal would set a precedent for additional subsidies to preferred constituencies. For example, if we are to build charging stations for electric cars, why not for electric scooters or golf carts? Once the Commission begins handing out special deals to one class of ratepayers, it should expect others to get in line asking for their sweetheart deal as well.

The Club understands the desire of the Commission to promote new ideas and technology, but mandating the construction of EV charging stations is not the right approach.

Arizona GOP Goes All-In on Job Killing Tax Hikes

by | Apr 29, 2019 | News and Updates, Tax

The Arizona Republican Party has decided to become the party of tax hikes. Yesterday, party Chairwoman Kelli Ward announced that the GOP is officially backing an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to impose a permanent $500 Million dollar sales tax increase for education. This is both bad policy and bad politics that will inflict irreparable harm on our state economy and sales tax code.

Arizona Doesn’t Need to Raise Taxes

As the Club has chronicled for months, there has been a steady drumbeat at the legislature by political insiders to raise taxes for education. This is despite the fact that Arizona is enjoying incredible economic growth and record state revenues.

Since the economic boom began two years ago, state revenues have increased by $1.7 Billion. By comparison, from FY 2009 to FY 2017 state revenue grew by only $1.2 Billion. This rapid revenue growth wasn’t an accident—it is a result of pro-growth reforms by a new administration in Washington, Governor Doug Ducey and a conservative state legislature.

Thanks to the surge in tax receipts, Arizona is in the process of implementing the largest increase in K-12 spending in state history. Over a billion dollars has been injected into schools for teacher pay increases, district additional assistance restoration and new school construction.  

Even with this large increase in education spending, Arizona will have nearly a $1 billion dollar surplus for FY 2020. It proves that the problem was a lack of taxpayers, not tax increases.

Amending Our Constitution to Raise Taxes?

Even if the State GOP believes that a tax hike is needed, the idea that it should be referred to the voters as a constitutional amendment is simply reckless.

If changes to our tax code are deemed necessary, the most sensible approach would be to approve a tax hike through the normal legislative process. Like our Federal Government, Arizona is a republic, which means taxing authority has been vested with the legislature. It is their responsibility to determine the appropriate levels of spending and taxation. Punting the issue to voters is nothing more than a way for politicians to avoid accountability for their actions.

But even if it was determined that the issue must go to the ballot, then it should be a statutory proposal similar to Proposition 301 that was approved nearly twenty years ago. Instead, they want to declare that the state government has a constitutional right to $500 million dollars in sales tax revenue.

Also unclear is whether the language has been vetted to ensure that it won’t lead to unintended consequences. Since this is a constitutional amendment, each word or syllable could face significant judicial scrutiny. 

One such example is the provision to dedicate “twenty percent for maintaining an in-state tuition rate” at our state universities. The drafters of SCR 1001 probably thought this was a politically clever maneuver since voters like the idea of keeping in state tuition low (knowing full well that it is a meaningless mandate).

What is not considered is that “in-state” is not defined in the measure, meaning the courts could decide how this applies to various populations, such as illegal immigrants. The Free Enterprise Club does not have a position on the DACA issue, but it is unclear whether the Arizona GOP considered such issues when endorsing this proposal. Perhaps they trust that judges won’t expand the meaning of new language being written into our constitution.  

What about the Polling?

A common response from the tax hike lobby is that voters overwhelmingly support higher taxes for education. Periodically an education group will trot out a poll showing support for a tax increase, which is then gleefully used by the political establishment to spook lawmakers into believing that they need to get on the “right side” of the issue.

It is true that most public opinion polls have voters saying they would be willing to pay more in taxes for education. But what about the only poll that matters, the one that occurs on election day when people actually vote? Are tax increases passing at the rate that the polling indicates? Let’s take a look:

  • At the height of the Red4ED movement in AZ last year, there were several education spending proposals for voters to consider. Most were in the form of bond proposals for school districts. Virtually every bond question had organized support and little opposition on the ballot. Plus, these measures can be sold to voters as a way to get more money for schools “without raising taxes.” Yet nearly half of the education bonds on the ballot were rejected by voters. If support for education funding was as high as the so-called experts claim, they should have been approved at a 9-1 clip.
  • In 2018 Colorado voters had their own version of ‘Invest in Ed’ income tax proposal on the ballot in Initiative 73, a “soak the rich” measure that would have raised taxes on the wealthy to put $1.6 billion into education. Supporters of amendment 73 claimed that polling showed voters supported the proposal, and it was heavily backed by the teacher’s union and education community. The measure was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
  • Oregon voters in 2016 had an opportunity to raise taxes on Corporations to pay for early childhood development and K-12 education. Measure 97 was another “free lunch” education spending plan rejected by voters by a wide margin 59-41.
  • In 2016 Arizona voters had an opportunity to support more spending for education with no tax increase under Proposition 123. The measure was backed by Governor Ducey, most of the education community, the entire legislature, and faced no real opposition while raising over $4 million dollars. The measure barely passed 51-49.

As the evidence shows, when November rolls around and voters actually have to make a decision, support for tax increases is much lower than what the polling indicates.

Muddled Message Heading into 2020

Now that the AZ GOP has joined the tax hike chorus, it is difficult to know what the party will stand for heading into 2020. Two days ago the AZ GOP posted a tweet declaring that “Tax Cuts Work” and that Republicans believe taxpayers should be able to keep more of their money.  How they plan to reconcile their support for the Trump tax cuts while pushing for tax hikes on the Arizona ballot should make for some entertaining political gymnastics.

It will also be interesting to see how various GOP leaders respond to the new party platform. Governor Doug Ducey has been a consistent and vocal opponent to raising taxes, as well as a vast majority of the Republican legislature who know and understand how tax increases can derail our economic recovery. It is in their best interest to hold firm against this disastrous proposal so voters know that there are at least some elected officials that care about protecting their wallet.

The only reason the Republican Party exists is to help get people elected. By declaring they support SCR 1001, they are sending the message that the only way Republicans can win in 2020 is if they support a massive tax hike at the ballot. We wish them luck on their bold new strategy to try to tax Arizona into prosperity.

AG Brnovich Tackling Corporate Welfare at ASU

by | Apr 20, 2019 | Corporate Welfare, News and Updates

For months now, the AZ Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR, the governing body for Arizona State University) have been in embroiled in a hot legal battle over taxpayer subsidies for wealthy developers.

At the center of the legal dispute is whether ABOR has violated several provisions of the Arizona constitution designed to protect taxpayers from crony capitalist giveaways.

Evidence suggests that they have.

The framers of Arizona’s constitution understood that property taxes are a zero-sum game, and that any levy assessed should be as fair and equitable as possible.  If someone pays less as a result of a special interest carve-out, everyone else will be forced to pay more.   To prevent picking winners and losers through the property tax code, the framers installed several key protections in our constitution:

  1. Uniformity Clause, “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only.”
  2. No Evasions, “no property shall be exempt which has been conveyed to evade taxation”
  3. No Exceptions, “All property in the state not exempt under the laws of the United States or under this constitution or exempt by law under the provisions of this section shall be subject to taxation to be ascertained as provided by law.
  4. No Gifts, “Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation.”

Governmental entities, including public universities, do not pay property tax.  This makes sense as the money to pay the taxes would have to be taken from taxpayers in the form of more taxes.  But for decades now, local cities as well as ABOR have devised creative solutions to exploit their exemption from property taxes and “lend” it to private developers.

ASU Projects: Research Park, Marina Heights, and Omni Hotel Are Evidence of Gamesmanship:      

“Research Parks”

In the 1980’s ASU formed a “research park” which strived to have private business and students working alongside each other in educational pursuits to launch ideas into the marketplace.  This was permitted legislatively, and the university paid the same rate of taxation as other users in the same classification but on a mere 1 percent of their property value.  It soon became quite obvious that the mission of the research park was creeping beyond the original intent of the legislation and as a result, major corporations were enjoying major tax deference for what was their normal business operations. 

Between the research parks of University of Arizona and ASU, they host approximately 50 companies in 4 million square feet.  These companies don’t pay property taxes but instead pay a “tariff” to the university as well as the city.  All the other jurisdictions, including the State of Arizona who rely on property taxes, get absolutely nothing.

Marina Heights

Marina Heights is located on Tempe Town Lake and includes the well-known “State Farm” building.   In December 2017, with a deal that captured headlines in the state, the building’s “lease-back” was sold to a business partnership that includes Arizona icon and business insider Jerry Colangelo for almost $1 Billion – one of the largest commercial land transactions in state history.

One of the most valuable assets of the property was the value of not paying taxes.  In fact, that value is approximately $12.1 Million a year of which $3.45 would be owed to the State, $6.6 to the Tempe Elementary and Tempe Union school districts, and $1.2 million to the Maricopa Community College District.  Not only do these jurisdictions have to back fill their budgets and other property owners make up that difference, but other like businesses must try to compete with a colossal tax advantage.

Omni Hotel

Brnovich’s latest suit filed in January of this year centers around a project called Omni Hotel (located on Mill Ave and University) and predominantly argues the deal included a massive violation of the state constitution’s gift clause.

In typical ABOR fashion, the Omni Hotel transaction is a sweet deal for developers and less so for taxpayers as a whole.  ASU will spend $19.5 Million to construct a conference center and parking garage and pay $8 Million to the hotel for use of that parking garage to the profit of the hotel.  ASU will only be allowed use of the conference center 7 days out of the year.

It is a 60-year lease with an express provision of evading taxes by requiring a “in lieu of taxes” payment of $1 Million a year.  The hotel is only on the hook for $85 per square foot for rent even though within two blocks there are other hotels that sold for a market rate of $212 – 216 per square foot – a seemingly $9 Million subsidy.

This major injection of corporate welfare does not even account for the $21 Million in tax incentives being given by the City of Tempe.

Justice for Taxpayers

Given the explicit intentions of the state constitution to protect the property tax base from chicanery of the system; ABOR’s long-standing history of using their tax-exempt status to shield corporate entities should not be ignored.  AG Brnovich is doing a service to every taxpayer in the state by calling for an end to this blatant illegal practice. 

Afterall, ASU is also constitutionally bound to make tuition “as nearly free as possible.”  Year after year of tuition hikes on Arizona students are certainly hard to square with hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate giveaways.

Why are Lawmakers Pushing Billions in Tax Hikes Despite Record State Revenues?

by | Mar 12, 2019 | News and Updates, Tax

An interesting paradox has developed at the legislature this year. Even though state policymakers are sitting on record tax revenues and a robust Arizona economy, they seem more obsessed with tax increases than ever before.

So far this session there are efforts by Republicans to increase the sales tax by $600 million, raise the gas tax by $750 million, increase income taxes by $200 million, impose taxes on most internet transactions at a cost of over $250 million, retain the $190 Million VLT registration fee and allow political subdivisions to increase sales taxes at the local level. All together it would amount to over $2 billion in tax hikes, a mind-blowing amount that would dwarf any previous tax increase enacted in the State.

The arguments in favor of each of these tax hikes vary, but most surround the topic of additional funding for K-12 schools. This sentiment was understandable. As Arizona stumbled through eight years of job killing policies under the Obama Administration, there was mounting pressure to find new funding sources for education to address the state’s anemic revenue growth.

Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Between the change in administrations in Washington and a consistent focus on pro-growth policies here at home, our economy has taken off. Arizona now has the 3rd fastest growing economy in the country. People are once again flocking to the state, and the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity projects that 165,000 new jobs will be created by 2020.

This has created a gusher in new tax revenue, most of which is going to K-12. Lawmakers are in the process of funding Governor Ducey’s ‘20by20’ teacher pay plan and restoring District Additional Assistance, which combined will add over $1 Billion in new dollars for public schools by next year.
When fully implemented this will be the largest increase in K-12 funding in state history, and will push per pupil funding so high that lawmakers will be forced to override the education spending limit in the Arizona constitution. This is only the 2nd time in 40 years that such an override vote will be required, a fact that should please everyone that has worried that not enough emphasis has been placed on education funding at the legislature.

And here is the best news yet—even after this large infusion of cash into the classroom, Arizona will still have a projected $1 Billion dollar surplus for FY 2020. It proves that the problem was the need for more taxpayers, not tax hikes.

Yet our political class appears ready to go all-in on job crushing tax increases that will derail Arizona’s economic recovery. While this may excite states like Texas looking to poach our entrepreneurs and job creators, it is bad news for everyone else that wants to keep prosperity here in the state.

Lawmakers instead should be looking to embrace our success, maintain the course and continue to pursue pro-growth ideas that work. Now is not the time to surrender to policies or politics that will move Arizona in the wrong direction.

New Mexico’s Film Tax Subsidy Program Continues to Take on Water

by | Mar 7, 2019 | Corporate Welfare

Lawmakers in New Mexico are in a self-imposed quandary. They’ve adopted a lucrative tax credit program for the film industry they simply can’t afford yet can’t walk away from.

The Enchantment State dolls out 25-30 percent rebates for production related expenses up to $50 Million a year. This spending cap is one of the only mechanisms of restrain in the program which is financed straight out of the state’s general fund.

Pressure to uncap the program has mounted due to New Mexico owing $380 Million in backlogged credits. If these trends continue – this debt will grow to $700 Million by 2023 – and a film claiming a credit, then wouldn’t be reimbursed for up to 14 years.

Now Governor Lujan Grisham and lawmakers want to make a one-time payment to clear this backlog as well as remove the annual spending cap so they can have the ability to throw unlimited chum in the water to lure Hollywood sharks.

Only two other states in the country have uncapped their film subsidy programs: Illinois and Georgia. The irony of Georgia’s unconditional love for Hollywood is manifold. The state’s program is rife with abuse. Warner Brothers defrauded the state by charging them $600,000 for an airplane never used in the movie “Sully.” And yet this didn’t stop an award-winning display of hypocrisy when Hollywood stars called for a boycott of Georgia when a Republican Governor was elected. For a state that calls themselves “Y’allywood,” they were harshly reminded that despite spending $200 Million a year on extra caviar money for film stars, when it comes to the real insider VIP party, they’re not on the list.

States are tripping over themselves to throw money at the rich and famous for an industry whose loyalty cannot be bought. They will happily continue to jet-set around the world anywhere the highest-bidding government will pay them for honor of their appearance. The political ridicule they throw in for free.
New Mexico lawmakers are doing their best to pretend they aren’t completely owned by their starlet masters. Their bill also includes razzle dazzle “reforms” including tightening up for what expenditures can be reimbursed (a notoriously abused standard.) And what one would think is a laugh line, requirement for better acknowledgments of New Mexico in the film credits… A little more “limelight” is what New Mexico taxpayers are getting for the promise to dole out hundreds of millions to entitled movie makers.

Despite the flop of film tax credit programs around the nation, states continue to fall for this fool’s errand. Just this year a bill was introduced by Representative Bob Thorpe at the Arizona legislature to divvy out some of the state’s business tax credits to film production. Luckily the bill didn’t get traction.

However, if there is any lesson to be learned by lawmakers in Arizona from New Mexico – it is once you start feeding the lions – they become more voracious – it becomes harder and harder to stop. And for states that think that will keep the lions from biting – think again.