by admin | Mar 1, 2019 | Elections, News and Updates
Every American, no matter their political party, should have a significant interest in the wholesale integrity of the election process. And yet the business of ensuring citizens voting is honest, clean and untampered with, has been a fiercely partisan issue, dividing Republicans and Democrats into two camps: the party for election integrity and the party against “voter suppression.”
The integrity of the elections systems is two-fold: ensuring there are legal and procedural safeguards to maintain clean and accurate voting rolls and preventing, discovering and deterring fraudulent activity.
One would think that maintaining up to date voter rolls would be an innocuous issue. After all, neglecting to do so all but guarantees records will be cluttered with deceased persons and those who have moved out of state. In a 2012 study, the Pew Research Foundation found that 24 million voter registrations in the United States were either invalid or significantly inaccurate – that is one in every eight registrants. This vast vulnerability directly dovetails into susceptibility of election fraud.
The issue of election fraud is as old as elections themselves and take form in a variety of ways including – double voting, ineligible voting, and voter registration fraud, etc. Yet, this type of crime is notoriously difficult to catch, document, and enforce, which makes the problem significantly underreported.
Following the Arizona general elections of 2018, many voters voiced concerns over how specifically the Maricopa County recorder’s office conducted operations. And given the thin margins in many of the state-wide races, a little bit of fraud can have a big effect.
As a result, several Arizona lawmakers have introduced legislation to insert more practical checks into the system to both scrub voter rolls and fills cracks where the system is susceptible to fraud.
The best batch of election integrity bills have been introduced by Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R) and include:
- SB 1046 requires voters who receive a ballot by mail to return that ballot by mail. If they do not, they may vote in person on election day with a standard ballot. Practically, this bill helps prevent the illegal practice of ballot harvesting.
- SB 1072 requires voters to show identification when voting at an early voting location. This makes the identification requirements consistent across all methods of in-person voting. And although Democrats want to claim the basic function of showing I.D is burdensome to voters, 76 percent of Americans believe such requirements should be mandatory.
- SB 1188 requires a county recorder to remove a voter from the permanent early voting list and cease sending them early ballots if the elector has not voted in two consecutive primary or general elections.
- SB 1090 requires electors voting at an emergency voting center to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that they did in fact suffer an emergency. Also requires the County Board of Supervisors to sign off on location, quantity and hours of emergency voting centers.
Given the reasonable proposals being suggested, one might be surprised by the very vocal fidelity of the left to the notion that 1. Fraud doesn’t exist, 2. When it does it is insignificant, and 3. Any legal framework that inserts predictable rules and guidelines into the system disenfranchises voters.
This is less surprising when you consider the bills drafted by Democrat legislators this year which take a free-for-all approach. Their philosophy seems to be the more votes cast the better – even if those votes are duplicative, unverified, or non-citizens. These bills include repealing the prohibition of ballot harvesting, same-day voter registration, and automatic restoration of voting rights for felons.
These election integrity bills are important steps to shore up weakness in Arizona’s election process. Despite the left’s effort to diminish the relevance of the election integrity issue, the real disenfranchisement of voters comes from diluting the votes of honest electors. Allowing for the erosion of the system casts doubt into the minds of citizens as to if their vote even counts – and that is true voter suppression.
by admin | Feb 15, 2019 | Corporate Welfare
Every legislative session, lawmakers are duped by rosy tax credit programs, sold as either robust jobs programs or silver bullets to our social woes.
This year HB2365, sponsored by Representative Ben Toma, is being sold as both. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is a federal program by which qualified investors are incentivized to build housing projects for low-income persons with generous income tax subsidies.
How it works.
It is a sweetheart deal for banks, insurance companies and investors. The Arizona program allows for $12 Million a year of tax credits that can be matched with the subsidies offered through the federal program. The bills mirror the federal LIHTC percentages and can be carried over for 10 years.
To illustrate the business model, a $10 Million project qualifies for 9 percent tax credits. That is $900,000 a year and $9 Million over the course of the 10 year carry forward period. Banks sell these credits to other investors who make up a pool to finance the project. Some projects are even able to bridge financing gaps with other government programs. But not only are almost the entire project costs subsidized by the taxpayer, another $2.2 Million is generated through tax write offs from real estate losses, depreciation and interest expenses.
This mechanism is supported by many layers of middlemen who add to the cost of building these projects. As a result, the program is lucrative for investors, and very costly for the taxpayers.
How it actually doesn’t work.
For several years now, this program has been sharply scrutinized by various parties including the Office of Government Accountability (OGA), think tanks, and the media.
The overarching theme: this is a costly and inefficient program, susceptible to fraud and dubious in its impacts to shelter low-income Americans.
Much of the gamesmanship of the program revolves around the submittal of construction costs which the OGA determined varied drastically from state to state and project to project.
The average LIHTC project cost $218,000, yet only $9,400 of it was the cost of the land; a ratio observably out of whack. This is par for the course for a program which in the past has been scandalized by construction kick-back schemes. The program has been gamed in other ways. Just last Fall, Wells Fargo made an over $2 Billion settlement with the Department of Justice for nation-wide collusion to devalue the tax credits. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been siphoned from the program in these ways resulting in far fewer units being built for the poor at a great cost to taxpayers.
Neither at the state nor federal level, did necessary oversight exist to ferret out inflated budget projections and fraud. In fact, only seven of the 56 agencies around the country awarding these credits has been audited in the program’s 30-year history.
And yet the feds continue to soak increasing dollars into the program each year, though the actual number of units being constructed dwindles. According to an investigation conducted by NPR, the $9 Billion LIHTC program is producing fewer units than it did 20 years ago yet taxpayers are paying 66 percent more in tax credits. Aside from the fraud, another factor likely being the many syndicators, consultants, and financiers that work in their margins into the complicated process.
What else this reveals.
The OGA’s report on the vast cost variations in building state to state, reveal another critically important truth. Jurisdictions with onerous and restrictive land use regulations drive the high costs to build there. These incentive programs in fact reward states that cause their own affordable housing crises and fleece taxpayers all at the same time. A report issued by the National Association of Homebuilders and the National Multifamily Housing Council estimated that 32 percent of multifamily costs were attributable to regulation.
In fact, studies of housing prices have shown costs have directly increased with land use regulations. As a result, federal housing affordability spending is almost two times higher in the most regulated states than the least regulated states.
There are better ways.
It is long-time policymakers address affordable housing for American families by addressing the root of the problem and tailoring assistance programs that serve those in poverty, not only those seeking a profit.
Under the new federal administration, director of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Ben Carson, has looked to do just that. Instead of continuing to reward bad behavior by local governments, his agency has discussed attaching HUD grants to regulatory reforms proven to lower housing costs. HUD’s position that they won’t continue to aid in the affordable housing problem by subsidizing it – is also a signal to states that they should look to curb their own contributions to the problem instead of simply seeking more federal handouts. In Arizona, one of those factors is the residential rental tax – which disproportionately impacts low-income individuals.
Reforming land regs is a long-term endeavor and won’t solve the immediate need for low-income people in unaffordable housing markets.
But there are better ways to structure programs than the convoluted LIHTC program. One such proposal with bipartisan support are “Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV).” Instead of incentivizing profiteers to supply housing – HCVs empower individuals and families to access housing in places they desire to live.
This approach allows low-income families to move to higher income places which often gives them access to better jobs and school districts and affords children of low-income families’ greater opportunities to succeed. Because the LIHTC programs provide greater incentives for building in designated areas of greater poverty, it has the direct effect of actually concentrating poverty and segregating poor people.
Arizona lawmakers should help poor people and protect taxpayers.
The expansion of this 30-year-old failed federal program in Arizona would be a big mistake. The bill being pedaled this year is not being backed by advocates for the poor; but by those who stand to gain the most – insurance companies, investors and banks. If lawmakers truly care about the poor – and the taxpayer – they will resoundingly reject HB2365.
by admin | Jan 30, 2019 | Free Market, News and Updates
The individual health insurance market has been a roller coaster for consumers since the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Last year, the average ACA plan rose 34 percent – pricing out many of the individuals who do not qualify for federal subsidies. Additionally, many counties across the country have lost insurers, with only one option or even no options for consumers. Younger, healthier Americans have been forced into high-risk pools to subsidize the high-costs associated with pre-existing conditions and other benefits they are likely not to need. As a result, many have opted out of full coverage at all and risk incurring the Obamacare tax penalty for not carrying insurance.
After a failure of the Senate to repeal these disastrous policies, the Trump Administration has had few options for fixing our health insurance system. However, a year ago, some progress was made on this front.
With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017, Congress included the repeal of the tax penalty for individuals without medical coverage for policies beginning in 2019. Then in February of 2018, Trump issued an executive order allowing for the appropriate federal agencies to amend their rules regarding short-term duration health insurance.
Short-term duration insurance is not meant to qualify as full medical coverage, but instead is another insurance product available to help individuals through different periods of transition. Trump’s executive order overturned the Obama Administration’s directive to limit these plans to only 90 days. Instead they are now allowed to be issued for less than a year and may be renewed for up to three years.
These short-term plans will likely cost Americans half what the traditional ACA plan costs and the administration predicts around 600,000 people will choose these plans this year. Of the over half a million people, no more than a third are likely to leave their ACA plan; with most enrollees coming from individuals without any insurance at all.
Opponents argue the reversal of this rule will poach enrollees in the individual market. Obama’s rollback of short-term duration policies was meant to increase enrollment in the exchange. But it didn’t work. Instead, enrollment in the ACA plans decreased by 10 percent following the year of the rule change; which may have had something to do with premiums increasing by 21 percent that year.
There is a want and a need for more affordable policies that do not have all the bells and whistles of a traditional plan. Under the Obama 3-month cap of short-term policies, enrollees would have to reapply every 90 days, forcing a reset of their deductibles or sometimes a cancellation of their policy altogether. Given the short time frame, many customers would not be able to access full coverage insurance for months, until another enrollment period opened.
This rule change is good for consumers. It will dramatically expand choice and opportunity for coverage to hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Now it is up to the states to ensure these options will be available to their constituents by amending their laws to allow for greater regulatory flexibility of short-term duration plans. In Arizona, Representative Nancy Barto is sponsoring legislation to do just that. We encourage lawmakers to support this common-sense bill and allow more Arizonans to access affordable coverage.
by admin | Jan 23, 2019 | News and Updates, Tax
For over a year, the Club has been urging policymakers to address the looming tax conformity crisis. After the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in Congress in 2017, it was realized that Arizona taxpayers could pay as much as $300 million more in FY2020 as a result of how Arizona conforms with the Federal tax code. It was never intended that federal tax reform would result in higher state income taxes, and is why a conform and reform plan must be adopted to stop the tax increase.
Yet with tax season now upon us, the legislature and Governor Ducey have still not agreed on a plan. Instead, there have been overtures on identifying ways to justify keeping the windfall, including spending on new programs or sticking the money into the ‘rainy day’ fund. Make no mistake, any plan that does not include returning the money to taxpayers is a tax increase and should be rejected.
With time running out, crafting a conform and reform plan should be at the top of the legislative to-do list. Senator J.D. Mesnard (LD 17) has consistently shown leadership on the issue, and has introduced legislation that would conform Arizona with the federal tax code while forestalling the tax increase.
Under Mesnard’s SB 1143, each income tax bracket would be reduced by 0.11 percent for the 2018 tax year, a rate cut that would hold taxpayers harmless in the short term while not disrupting the filing process currently underway. This would also give lawmakers some additional time to consider a more robust conform and reform plan, similar to what has been adopted in states such as Idaho, Georgia or Utah. The Club believes that conformity provides a great opportunity to improve and simplify Arizona’s tax code, but if an agreement cannot be reached on a reform package, returning the money to taxpayers is still better than any plan to keep it.
Following the implementation of a new higher-than-expected VLT fee, trust is thin with Arizona taxpayers. The Legislature needs to rally around a conform and reform solution and not try to sneak another tax increase through the back door.
by admin | Dec 7, 2018 | News and Updates, Tax
Lawmakers can’t say they weren’t warned. Last year, when the Arizona legislature proposed giving their taxing authority away to the Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), we fought hard to stop what the Club considered one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent history.
Now those chickens have come home to roost.
At the beginning of the month, ADOT decreed they will be imposing a $32 license tax on every privately owned registered vehicle in the state of Arizona. The new fee is 50 percent higher than what was estimated when the tax increase was being debated last spring. The fee is supposedly set at the value necessary to fund Highway Patrol, which was previously paid for through the gas tax, VLT revenues and the state general fund.
Why is the fee much higher than originally thought? After the ADOT Director was granted unilateral authority to set the fee, the budget to fund Highway Patrol came in $37 Million higher than originally estimated. They also discovered that they were poor at counting cars and that the pool of taxable vehicles was smaller than originally thought. The result: an $185 Million-dollar tax increase.
Now many lawmakers who voted for the bill are outraged by the Director’s audacity to levy a tax that is higher than they believe it should be. What did they expect? This is what happens when you farm out core governmental functions to bureaucrats. They empowered the Director to enact the tax and now lawmakers are upset that he is doing exactly what they told him to do.
This likely won’t be the only sting taxpayers feel from the new car tax if it is not repealed. Nothing in the law precludes the ADOT director from raising this fee every year. There are no controls in place to stop bloated budgeting or gaming the numbers to generate revenue for other purposes. Nothing to stop this fee from being assessed arbitrarily, making it higher for certain types of vehicles i.e. imposing a “climate change” tax for gas guzzlers. And no protections exist for low-income individuals who are less able to afford the fee.
Policymakers thought that by handing off fee authority to the ADOT director that they could quietly raise taxes without having to take responsibility for the new fee. They were wrong.
Voters know a tax when they see one, and they won’t be very sympathetic to bureaucrat-blaming or assertions that this is a user fee. They will be further incensed by the sneaky maneuvers used to skirt the constitutional requirement of a 2/3 majority vote to enact a new tax.
Hopefully the same lawmakers that are having buyer’s remorse will do the right thing and repeal this absurd tax from the books.
Recent Comments