by admin | Jun 27, 2016 | News and Updates
Over the past 50 years there has been a gradual regulatory encroachment. This has had the effect of stifling competition, discouraging entrepreneurial endeavors, and keeping many people out of the labor market. It might sound like the expansion of federal agencies such as the EPA or NLRB. However, these detrimental policies have been a mostly state and local agenda, and shockingly have been identified as one of the current White House administration’s priorities to tackle: occupational licensing.
Only a half a century ago, one in twenty workers required a license to perform their jobs. Today, in the United States, it’s approximately one in four. There has been a significant cost to this expansion of licensure over the years.
This explosion of licensure over the last several decades is not just highly technical professions such as medical doctors and attorneys, but includes many lower to medium income jobs, which do not pose the same threat to public health or safety. Instead, the licensing of hair dressers, preschool teachers, sign language interpreters, and funeral attendants (just to name a handful), represent a run-away trend for professions to regulate themselves.
The reason for this is quite simple. Licensing allows an industry to depress the number of professionals in their field. Costly fees, continuing education, and exams, serve as barriers to entry. As a result, fewer people will pursue their trade or professional passion. Fewer persons supplying a service, while maintaining the same demand, will put upward pressure on prices. This isn’t just theoretical economics, several studies demonstrate an average of 15 percent higher income earnings in professions that are licensed compared to comparable professions that are not. Though that might be good for those keeping out potential competition, it means an increase in services for the consumer and a less opportunity for others seeking work. In fact, according to this same study, licensing across the country is responsible for 2.85 million fewer jobs and $203 billion to consumers.
The 2015 White House report, the U.S Bureau of Labor, and the Goldwater Institute confirm this analysis. These reports determined with compelling evidence that those most negatively impacted by licensing requirements are the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Immigrants, individuals with criminal records, minorities, low-income persons, less-educated persons, new young workers, and older workers trying to reenter the job market are all disproportionately affected by licensing. Military families, as well are included in this population because of their propensity to move across state lines so often. Because licensure requirements run the gamete across states, many of the same professions have very different requirements. Despite the relatively equal skills required to do a particular job, the regulatory obligations vary vastly and with little ostensible reason.
Arizona is considered one of the worst states for burdensome and extensive licensure regulations. According to a study done by the Institute for Justice, “License to Work,” Arizona licenses 64 out of the 102 moderate-income occupations they studied. Many of these licenses require more training than the national average – such as manicurists with 140 days compared to the 87 nationally, mobile home installers who require 2 years of education compared to just seven months nationally. Under the Ducey administration, some effort has been made to reduce the scope of Arizona’s licensure. This past session, the Governor’s office successfully pushed HB2613 which eliminates the licenses for food-packing contractors, geologists, driving school teachers, yoga instructors, assayers, and people who do cremations. Originally in the bill but amended out, was the abolition of licensure for landscape architects.
Dismantling entrenched licensure systems has proved politically exceedingly difficult, with more losses than wins across the country. Trade organizations have powerful lobbyists who are motivated, organized, and well-funded. However, the tide of the conversation seems to be shifting as several successful court cases have demonstrated the unconstitutionality of state licensing boards exercising excessive authority and anticompetitive practices. And as the data continues to prove over-licensing dampens an industry’s job growth, discourages entrepreneurship, and harms consumers more legislatures will be forced to think twice about protecting this insidious form of cronyism.
by admin | Jun 23, 2016 | News and Updates
Phoenix, AZ – The Arizona Free Enterprise Club PAC today has released their first slate of candidate endorsements for Arizona legislative races.
After a series of interviews of candidates running for Arizona State House and Senate, The Club PAC has identified several strategic districts in which they will be involved. The candidates who received endorsements share the key beliefs in free market economics, tax reform, school choice, regulatory reform, and fair and equitable tax policy.
Endorsed candidates include:
- David Stringer, District 1, House
- Paul Mosley, District 5, House
- Warren Petersen, District 12, Senate
- Eddie Farnsworth, District 12, House
- Travis Grantham, District 12, House
“We are proud to endorse these individuals for the Arizona Legislature. We are confident that they will fight hard for Arizona taxpayers.” Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi said.
Mussi continued, “We are fortunate to have incumbents Warren Petersen and Eddie Farnsworth seek another term. Both Petersen and Farnworth have been outstanding advocates for fiscal conservatism and budgetary discipline. They are respected by their colleagues and both have served as Chairs of important legislative committees.
David Stringer, Paul Mosley, and Travis Grantham will all make strong additions to the legislature as freshmen lawmakers. Mr. Stringer has already proven successful in his district defeating unnecessary school bonds and overrides. Mr. Mosley is passionate about education and ensuring parents have the ultimate choice in regards to their children. And Travis Grantham has extensive business experience and understands the importance of reforming our tax system.”
For additional information on the Club PAC’s candidate endorsements, contact Scot Mussi at info@azfree.org or at 602-508-6088.
by admin | Jun 20, 2016 | News and Updates
The “Open and Honest” elections ballot initiative is overwhelmingly unpopular with voters when they learn that not only does the initiative fund politicians’ campaigns with taxpayer money, but also support a state bureaucracy to run the program.
According to the recent poll published by the Club, a compelling 79 percent of voters were less likely to support the ballot initiative after learning their tax dollars would contribute to more government. Almost equally disdainful to voters was the initiatives mechanism for extracting the tax dollars – surcharges on traffic citations and tax credits.
“It is clear of all the areas Arizonans wish to invest – education, the economy, infrastructure – Clean Elections is not one of them,” said Scot Mussi the Club’s President. “Voters are already dubious that their money is spent efficiently by government. Taxpayers should be reticent to give new money to a state bureaucracy, especially one doling out funds to politicians.”
The initiative would significantly boost the amount of tax dollars political candidates would receive. For legislative races, the average candidate would receive approximately $80,000 to run for office, nearly double the amount allowable presently. An expansion of the program would necessitate an expansion of the agency itself.
Voter hesitancy is well founded as ballot initiative’s legitimacy has been called into question. Considering the initiative references state statutes that don’t even exist, it is likely it will be challenged in court if it does get the requisite signatures. Given the confusion surrounding this ballot initiative, Arizonans would be well served by simply “declining to sign” and saying “no” to their hard-earned tax dollars going to politicians and more bureaucracy.
by admin | Jun 13, 2016 | News and Updates
Currently there is a massive effort underway to get several “California-style” initiatives on the ballot in November. The Club encourages anyone approached on the street by one of these petition carriers to “decline to sign.” One of the initiatives likely to get the signatures necessary to qualify jacks up the minimum wage and mandates minimum state-wide paid sick time.
Specifically, the measure increases Arizona’s minimum wage from the current $8.05, to $10 starting January 1st, 2017 – and tops out at a whopping $12 an hour in 2020, then defaulting back to increases based upon the cost of living index. Additionally, if passed, it would mandate businesses with more than 15 employees provide 40 hours of paid sick time and 24 hours of annual paid sick time for businesses with less than 15 employees.
This voter protected act would have a devastating effect on Arizona’s economy. Minimum wage schemes set an arbitrary floor on every industry, every business, and every job – and divorces wages from the actual economic value a position creates. As a result, minimum wages do not heed any more buying power for the people they purport to help, but instead increase costs and therefore create an eventual pressure to increase prices. Mandatory paid sick leave is another invention of the left which seeks to create policies in a vacuum outside any economic realities.
However the real intent of these “worker welfare” movements is more and more obvious. The campaign “Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families” is being pushed by the union-backed organization LUCHA (Living United for Change in Arizona) who since 2013 has advocated the “Fight for $15” for fast food workers and other out-of-state union groups. The battles are for minimum wage and paid sick leave; the war is unionization of the total workforce. This is evidenced by the fact that this very initiative exempts workers under a collective bargaining agreement. In other words, we have hit a new level of hypocrisy. If this was about creating the workers’ paradise, and not about incentivizing unionization, there would be no exceptions.
As if this all wasn’t damaging enough, the initiative has another kicker, which allows cities and towns to pass more generous wage and benefit mandates. With cities such as Tempe, Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson – Arizona can expect to have a patchwork of employment laws – making doing business across city borders an arduous endeavor.
Arizonans should be wary this election season. Union groups and leftist interests are out in full force – trying to make the Grand Canyon State look more like an increasingly bankrupt California. If voters are wise, they will reject destructive ballot initiatives such as this one.
by admin | Jun 9, 2016 | News and Updates
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, June 9th, 2016
CONTACT: Scot Mussi: (602) 508-6088
Poll Shows Voters Overwhelmingly Oppose Taxpayer Money for Politicians, Proposed ‘Clean Elections’ Initiative
Phoenix, AZ—The Arizona Free Enterprise Club today released the results of our latest poll showing that a vast majority of voters strongly oppose taxpayer money for politicians and the proposed ‘Clean Elections’ initiative.
The Club’s in depth poll, conducted by the Tarrance Group, shows that 70% of voters are against using taxpayer money to fund candidates running for political office, only 25% are in favor.
Additionally, when voters know that the proposed ‘Clean Elections’ initiative requires taxpayer funding of political campaigns, only 30% of voters support the measure, while 60% are opposed.
“Voters clearly do not think it is a good idea use taxpayer money to fund candidates for political office,” Club President Scot Mussi said. “Giving taxpayer money to politicians so that people can deal with more robocalls and junk mail is a definite loser with voters.”
The results also show that a large majority of voters find it hypocritical that supporters of the initiative are advocating for new campaign finance reporting requirements that they themselves refuse to follow.
72% of respondents stated that they would be less likely to support the ‘Clean Elections’ initiative knowing that the organizations funding the measure and supporting new donor disclosure requirements refuse to disclose their own donors. To date, the three organizations financially supporting the initiative have not disclosed any of their donors for the effort, in direct violation of the act.
The live telephone poll of 500 respondents was conducted June 4th through the 6th and has a 4.5% margin of error.
###
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is a 501(C)(4) policy and advocacy group that is not affiliated with any other organization. For more information please visit www.azfree.org
by admin | Jun 9, 2016 | News and Updates
MEMORANDUM
TO: Arizona Free Enterprise Club
FROM: dave sackett
RE: key findings from a survey of voter attitudes in Arizona
regarding clean elections initiative
DATE: June 7, 2016
________________________________________________________________________
The Tarrance Group is pleased to present Arizona Free Enterprise Club with the key findings from a survey of voter attitudes in Arizona regarding the proposed Clean Elections ballot initiative. These key findings are based on telephone interviews with N=500 registered voters throughout Arizona. Responses to this survey were gathered June 4-6, 2016 and the margin of error associated with a sample of this type is + 4.5% in 95 out of 100 cases.
KEY FINDINGS
- Arizona voters are strongly opposed to the use of their tax dollars to fund candidates for political office. Only 25% are in favor of their tax dollars “being used to fund candidates for political office.” Sixty-nine percent (69%) are opposed to such an action, and only 6% are unsure. There is significant intensity to this opposition, with 48% indicating they “strongly oppose” their tax dollars being used in this fashion.
- More than two-thirds of both men and women voters, as well as voters of all ages, indicate they are opposed to their tax dollars being used to fund candidates for political office. This is also the case for 65% or better of voters in every single region of the state.
- Only one in three Democrats – thirty-three percent (33%) – favor the use of their tax dollars to fund political candidates, while 58% of Democrats are opposed to this, as are 58% of self-identified liberals. There are more than 60% of Democratic women and 18-54 year old Democrats that are opposed to having their tax dollars used to fund candidates for political office.
- Opposition to the use of tax dollars to fund political candidates rises to 69% among Independent voters, and opposition to having their tax dollars used to fund candidates for political office rises to seventy-two percent (72%) among Independent women. Fully 79% of Republicans are also opposed to this use of taxpayer funds.
- The response to this inquiry is dramatically negative among minority voters, with 76% of African American voters and eighty-three percent (83%) of Hispanic/Latino voters indicating they are opposed to the use of their tax dollars to fund candidates for public office. Among minority Democrats, fully 70% are opposed to the use of their tax dollars in this manner.
- Arizona voters also take great offense at the hypocrisy of an organization that would sponsor a ballot initiative to “require non-profit groups and organizations that support or oppose ballot initiatives to disclose their donors” but, at the same time, refuse to disclosure their own donors.
- Fully seventy-two percent (72%) of Arizona voters indicate that this would cause them to be less likely to support the initiative. Feelings on this factor are also very intense, with 55% indicating that this information would cause them to be “strongly less likely” to support the ballot initiative.
- This sentiment exists throughout the electorate, with over 70% of both men and women and over 70% of voters of all ages indicating this would cause them to be less likely to support the ballot initiative.
- Fully eighty-eight percent (88%) of African American voters and seventy-seven percent (77%) of Hispanic/Latino voters indicate that this information would cause them to be less likely to support the ballot initiative
- Just as important, this hypocrisy impacts Arizona voters in the same way, regardless of their party registration or political affiliation. Over seventy percent of both Republicans and Democrats, and 76%) of Independents, all indicate they would be less likely to support this ballot initiative based on this information.
# # #
Over the past 50 years there has been a gradual regulatory encroachment. This has had the effect of stifling competition, discouraging entrepreneurial endeavors, and keeping many people out of the labor market. It might sound like the expansion of federal agencies such as the EPA or NLRB. However, these detrimental policies have been a mostly state and local agenda, and shockingly have been identified as one of the current White House administration’s priorities to tackle: occupational licensing.
Recent Comments