by admin | Apr 23, 2018 | News and Updates
It has been a week since Governor Ducey announced his “20 by 20” plan for Arizona teachers, and suffice to say there are more questions than answers on the long-term financial sustainability of the proposal. According to the latest JLBC estimates, if the Governor’s plan was implemented to increase teacher pay (which likely won’t happen, since local districts determine teacher pay) and fully fund Additional Assistance, Arizona would be running a structural deficit of $200 Million dollars by 2021.
The Governor’s solution to this problem has been to increase the economic revenue projections for the State above the JLBC estimate and bank on continued caseload reductions at AHCCCS (Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.) Governor Ducey could be right, but this is the same exact mistake that was made 10 years ago that led to billion-dollar deficits and a decade of budget turmoil. Additionally, this doesn’t take into account another recession that is likely to occur in the next couple of years.
Rather than rely on a rosy economic outlook, policymakers should evaluate funding alternatives, budget cuts and modifications to the Governor’s education plan that would avoid putting Arizona in another fiscal crisis. Additionally, lawmakers would be remiss to pass on another opportunity to tie education policy reforms with new increases in K-12 funding.
Some possible funding options and reforms include:
- Eliminate the Arizona Competes Fund (Budget Savings–$11.5 Million)—The Arizona Commerce Authority Currently receives $21.8 Million in total funding from the state general fund, with $11.5 Million earmarked for the Competes Fund. As one of the most unnecessary and useless expenditures in the state budget, the Competes Fund would only be missed by political insiders and special interests that have access to the grants and subsidies handed out by the Commerce Authority. This is a spending cut that most taxpayers would support.
- Cut University Bonding package by 50% (Budget Savings–$13.5 Million)—Last year the legislature approved a measure to allow Universities to bond for as much as $1 Billion for new capital facilities and other projects. It was always questionable whether our three state Universities needed a billion dollars for new buildings, especially since they have secretly been in the property tax abatement business for several years without notifying lawmakers. Modestly reducing their bonding capacity to $500 Million isn’t unreasonable and wouldn’t impact their current level of operational funding.
- Reduce Urban Revenue Sharing with Cities by 10 percent (Budget Savings–$120 Million.)—Currently Arizona tax revenue from income and sales is shared with local municipalities, with approximately $1.2 Billion being diverted from the state general fund. It is one of the most generous revenue sharing models in the country, and is questionable policy as it removes accountability at the local level. And as long as cities believe that it makes sense to throw away over $100 Million a year on utterly wasteful projects such as light rail, it is clear that this is a cut that wouldn’t be missed.
- Reduce the K-12 teacher funding increase to 10 percent by 2019 (Cost Savings–$225 Million)—Though the Governor seems stuck on the 20 by 20 plan, lawmakers would be wise to instead approve a 10 percent increase and wait to see if the revenues materialize to justify a larger amount. A 10 percent increase is doable under the JLBC budget projections and would provide the capacity to substantially increase teacher pay at the local level. According to the Tax Research Association, Arizona is currently 40th in teacher pay in the US when adjusted for cost of living. If school boards decide to use the additional funding to solely pay for teacher pay raises, Arizona would move up to 22nd in the nation. This would be a major step in the right direction while keeping Arizona on a sound fiscal trajectory.
- Continue moving toward backpack funding and other school finance reforms—If parents and students are to see a more fair and equitable funding structure in Arizona, then reforms are needed to fix Arizona’s broken funding structure and do a better job of tying K-12 funding to students. Though advocates, unions and the media are more than happy to point all the fingers at the legislature and Governor for low teacher pay, local school boards and administrators continue to escape all accountability. It isn’t right that mismanaged and poor performing districts will be equally rewarded as the responsible schools that have done a good job getting money in the classroom. Lawmakers must look at every proposal to increase funding as an opportunity to empower high-performing schools and districts and stop protecting the bad actors in the school finance formula.
by admin | Apr 17, 2018 | News and Updates
Late last week the simmering dispute over teacher pay finally boiled over, and now the legislature and Governor Ducey are racing to meet the demands of angry educators. On Thursday, the Governor held a press conference announcing his commitment to fund a 20 percent pay raise for all teachers, to be implemented over two years.
The good news is that the Governor remains committed to raising teacher pay without raising taxes. The downside is that his administration may be relying on unrealistic revenue projections over the next couple of years, which if overstated could lead to a new budget deficit for Arizona. After fixing the structural deficit in his first year, it would be a major disappointment if his new proposal puts Arizona back in the same hole that Ducey inherited in 2015.
The Governor’s plan isn’t the only proposal circling the halls at the capitol. A small group of Republican lawmakers were pitching their own teacher pay plan, with one big difference—the 20 percent raise would be paid for primarily through middle-class income tax increases and an “undisclosed” tax hike in 2020.
Notwithstanding the fact that any spending plan that relies on mystery tax increases in the future isn’t a real plan, it is startling that some lawmakers support the idea to use tax conformity dollars generated through federal tax reform to pay for higher teacher salaries. Make no mistake, any revenue kept by the legislature as a result of tax conformity is an income tax increase.
Earlier this session a coalition of organizations sent a letter to the legislature and the Governor urging our elected leaders to return to the taxpayers any additional revenue generated by the State as a result of Federal tax reform. Currently the Department of Revenue and JLBC have estimated that individual taxpayers will pay between $175 to $235 Million more in individual income taxes if action is not taken by lawmakers.
Despite the wishes of politicians, this is not new revenue generated by Jack’s magic beans. This is a looming tax hike that could undo the benefits of federal tax reform if not properly addressed.
If policy makers want to implement a 20 percent teacher pay raise, they should do it through other spending cuts and reasonable projections in future revenue. And if lawmakers do want to raise taxes to increase teacher pay, then they should at least be transparent in their actions and not hide their tax increase proposals in the shadows of income tax conformity.
by admin | Apr 12, 2018 | News and Updates
In a historic vote, the Board for the Maricopa County Community College District voted to end “meet and confer” process at their meeting in February. Meet and Confer is a form of collective bargaining by which the district’s faculty association has input into faculty benefits such salary schedules, code of ethics, and workload.
The decision was opposed by the faculty association and allies in organized labor and resulted in a frivolous lawsuit claiming damages in excess of $850,000. Lest anyone confuse the faculty board’s motivation with benevolent concern with ensuring the more than 1,400 full-time faculty members of the district get a fair shake – it is important to note that each of the four executive members are claiming $150,000 worth of personal damages for each of them. The other $250,000 are claimed on behalf of the association which pays the board to negotiate on behalf of its members. That’s a lot of upside for association board members. It is less clear how the rest of the 1,404 faculty members benefit.
Although the faculty association isn’t an officially recognized union, their actions leave hardly any room for distinction. When the district board was discussing the policy change as a way to streamline faculty policy-making and save valuable county resources – the association immediately ginned up opposition by spreading fears of the worst-case scenarios. Which was a convenient ploy to boost association membership – and dues.
A bureaucratic and “labor-intensive” process like meet and confer wastes time, money and resources – all of which could be directed into better compensation for faculty members who deserve it. Many communities and political subdivisions have eliminated meet and confer, and the alternative has proved to be far superior.
Individual faculty members communicate their individual concerns, needs, and desires to their management team. Under this more tailored approach of employer-employee negotiations, compensation is based upon the merit and accomplishments of individual faculty members, not from the collective bargaining of a few well-compensated representatives who must negotiate for the lowest common denominator.
At the end of the day the board members are the elected representatives of the people and all college policy decisions are their responsibility. They must balance the use of taxpayer dollars with the optimization of educational outcomes. Eliminating meet and confer is a proven, common-sense policy decision that will better serve students, faculty, and taxpayers alike.
by admin | Mar 27, 2018 | News and Updates
What is worse than your elected legislators voting for a tax increase? Your elected legislators voting to allow an unelected bureaucrat to raise your taxes.
SB 1146 and HB 2166 would do just that. Both bills would grant the Director of Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) the authority to charge any Highway Safety Fee rate they desire as well as set the initial percentage rate of the base retail value of a vehicle that will be used to assess the car owner’s VLT.
As it relates to the Highway Safety Fee, the only ostensible constraint in the proposed legislation is the requirement that the Highway Safety Fee funds 110 percent of the Department of Public Safety’s highway patrol’s fiscal budget, minus any monies left in the fund that exceed 10 percent of the prior year’s fees. In other words, the fee must directly and fully fund DPS. However, this is not how the government appropriation process works or should work.
There is a good reason we don’t let the head government bureaucrat decide how much money they need to operate and then tell the tax payers to fork over the money. Instead, our system has representatives of the taxpayer determine priorities for funding and evaluate what the taxpayer base can ultimately afford and require the government to conform to the funds available. This proposal is an inversion of this process and circumvents these safeguards to promote spending restraint and ensure the taxpayers’ representatives are active agents in determining spending priorities.
This means depending on who is in political power as Governor, they could use their administrative appointment authority to push their policy agenda, game the State’s VLT and unilaterally pick winners and losers. They could choose to charge more VLT for “gas-guzzling” suburbans that would disproportionally harm large families. Or they could charge more VLT for non-American made cars or charge no VLT for two-door convertibles. There is no requirement in the legislation to ensure the registration fee is uniform among taxpayers.
The broad support for this type of legislative gimmickry is baffling. For years lawmakers have complained of too much power vested in the executive branch, yet here is a bill that willingly surrenders their constitutional taxing authority to the Governor.Shockingly this bill has generated a good deal of support among legislative members. SB 1146 received a unanimous vote from the members of the transportation committee and HB 2166 sailed through its committee with a vote of 6-1 and passed the House with a floor vote of 35 Ayes and 24 Nays.
Additionally, it is clear that both bills are designed to sidestep Prop 108, which requires a 2/3 vote in each legislative body to approve a tax increase. If lawmakers believe that this new registration fee is a good idea, they should identify and debate what that amount should be and set that amount in statute. But many lawmakers want to disguise the fact that they are supporting a tax increase, so bad public policy is what taxpayers get stuck with.
The only question now is how and when this tactic will be used next. Perhaps we should allow the director of Department of Revenue to set our income tax rates? An idea that would have been considered laughable a few year ago is now a real threat to Arizona taxpayers.
It would seem many of our elected leaders have accepted the premise that the ends justify the means. They so desperately want to put more money into infrastructure and roads, they care little about how it is ultimately accomplished. Because raising taxes is difficult both politically and process-wise, this tactic allows them to side step the process to raise taxes and avoid political accountability.
But lawmakers shouldn’t think they are fooling anyone. They may think this is a clever way to not have to answer to taxpayers about a tax increase. But they would be wrong.
by admin | Mar 6, 2018 | News and Updates
Each year there is a constant debate at the Legislature centered around a bevy of bills that preempt the authority of local government.
For the most part, the proponents of “local control” for cities and counties hang their hat on the explanation that the superior government is always the one closer to the people. This argument it is rarely explored, explained, or expounded upon further than a convenient slogan meant to excuse government overreach and conflate the idea of federalism with granting more power to local government.
And that is the crux of the dispute. In virtually every case when state lawmakers have decided to preempt local government, the debate has not been about how much power the state should have, but whether more autonomy and freedom should be granted to individuals, families, and businesses. Indeed, if cities were truly concerned with having the most local entity be in control, they would be fighting for the individual.
Instead, advocates for more local power continue to make the absurd claim that cities deserve the same relationship the States share with the Federal Government. This flawed argument ignores that fact that, unlike the States that created the federal government, cities and counties are political subdivisions of Arizona. Any authority that they do have has either been expressly delegated to them through state law or the constitution. Even the State Supreme Court ruled that (with one very narrow exception) local governments are not sovereign entities and must adhere to Arizona law.
Furthermore, attempting to elevate local governments in Arizona to the same status enjoyed by States in the US Constitution is a poor argument for more local power and demonstrates a philosophical misunderstanding of federalism. As expressed in the bill of rights and Declaration of Independence, America was founded on the idea that rights belong to the people, and that government remains the biggest threat to protecting those rights. If politicians decide to use their power to infringe on those freedoms, the geographic distance of that government is inconsequential. After all, is local tyranny better than state or federal tyranny?
It also cannot be ignored that in crafting a constitution of limited enumerated powers, the States granted the Federal Government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This was a wise inclusion as it was a bulwark against states implementing protectionist laws that would infringe upon the free travel and commerce of citizens throughout the country.
Arizona’s constitutional framework similarly allows state lawmakers to oversee and regulate intrastate commerce in order to protect individuals and businesses operating in different jurisdictions. It was never the intent to allow cities to create a patchwork of onerous and inconsistent business regulations on issues such as minimum wage, plastic bags or bans on no-impact home-based businesses. When these situations do arise, it is the obligation of our state policymakers to step in and intervene.
It is high time that the local control argument be unpacked and receive the intellectual scrutiny it deserves. There have been too many instances where the local control defense has been used to justify freedom crushing eminent domain abuse, suppress voter turnout, and to infringe upon our free speech rights. If we are to argue for local control, let that control be divested to individuals, families, and businesses. After all, the spirit of America is not city council-determination, but self-determination.
by admin | Mar 1, 2018 | News and Updates
A liberal San Francisco billionaire has decided to bring his radical environmentalist agenda to Arizona. Earlier this month a group called NextGen announced their plans to fund a ballot initiative to amend our state constitution requiring non-governmental utility providers generate at least 50 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2030.
Of course, this mandate won’t affect the backers of the measure, since NextGen is a California-based organization funded by liberal billionaire Tom Steyer. It doesn’t matter to him or NextGen that draconian renewable energy mandates will harm hardworking families and small businesses in Arizona. They probably like the idea that rural communities will pay a steep price as a result of sky high energy prices.
The intellectual dishonesty surrounding this measure is offensive. Though the media loves to paint Mr. Steyer as an altruistic “climate change crusader,” they continually ignore the fact that his lucrative hedge fund is heavily invested in the solar industry. It’s Steyer’s right to invest in any company he wants but forcing people to use solar through renewable mandates that pad his bottom line is corporate welfare at its worst.
Making the initiative even more destructive is their definition of renewable energy does NOT include nuclear power. This means that one of our largest, most reliable and clean sources of power (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station) would not count toward the mandate. The compliance costs to shift away from nuclear and to other energy sources is anticipated to result in an average utility rate increase of $500 per year for Arizona families.
Just as absurd, the language exempts Salt River Project (Arizona’s second largest utility) and all other governmental utilities from the energy mandate. Apparently, NextGen and Tom Steyer believe that SRP customers are ‘cleaner’ than other utility customers, and therefore will still be allowed to purchase cheap conventional power while everyone else is stuck picking up the tab. This is grossly unfair, and likely was done to reduce their political opposition at the ballot box.
The reality is this measure isn’t about improving our environment or making Arizona healthier. This is a power play by wealthy California interests that see our state as an easy target for their liberal ideas. To them, spending a couple million dollars sneaking their renewable mandate into Arizona’s constitution is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions Steyer has spent the last two election cycles throughout the country.
NextGen doesn’t have any real grassroots support, so they have brought in an out of state paid circulator firm to canvass our streets to collect the necessary 225,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. We urge Arizona residents to OPPOSE the Steyer initiative and tell NextGen to take their liberal ideas back to California.
Recent Comments