HB2826 would consolidate elections so that all elections occur in even number years on a regular election day. That’s a good idea. Opponents of the bill, including Rep. Cecil Ash, argue that local governments should be allowed to have their elections whenever they wish. Looking at turnout numbers city elections vs congressional elections, one can understand why local government elections are often called “invitation only” elections.
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Phoenix) is sponsoring a bill that would from here on out prohibit the Arizona Corporation Commission from establishing policy – in most cases energy policy – and instead leave the policy making duties to the legislature.
Opponents of the bill state that establishing utility rates is, after all, the duty of the Corporation Commission. They are right. However, opponents of the bill also state that establishing the fee consumers must pay in order to obtain a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources falls within the commission’s rate-making ability.
They are wrong. Crafting expensive energy policy and the rates consumers must pay is backward. After all, the rate would not be higher if the commission didn’t establish the expensive energy policy.
Even without this bill, however, the legislature has options. If the commission insists on doing the legislature’s job, the legislature could force them to do so with less funding from the state.
They are at it again. After multiple bad reports, and a program that ended (yes, a government program that actually ended), the film tax credit proponents are back. Only this time, instead of a silly five-year program, this time they want to make it 30 years.
This time, the refundable tax credit will cap out at $70 million a year . . . for 30 years. Refundable. No tax liability? No problem. The state will just cut you a check.
Proponents have argued that if this program doesn’t come back, Arizona will no longer be a mecca for movie-making.
Here’s what the Department of Commerce’s Annual Report says on that note:
“A thriving film industry in Arizona has always existed and the future continues to be bright, as evidenced
by the significant number of productions – beyond those participating in MOPIC – that were produced
here. However, it is unlikely that activities directly associated with the level of existing MOPIC tax credits
can reach revenue neutrality.”
Check out the ad we made (without a film tax credit) to help defeat this proposal last year.
I watch MSNBC. I watch Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Matthews, the Ed Show – yes, I watched Olbermann when he was on MSNBC. Don’t really know why, but I suppose it has more to do with a desire to see if the Left’s best and brightest can strike a chord with swing voters, and make me think . . . “yeah, how should conservatives respond to that?” But there is an entertainment value to these shows, as well. O’Donnell’s dramatic cadence, Maddow’s often convoluted and lengthy conspiracies, Ed’s “man of the people” shtick, Matthews’ . . . well that’s tough to narrow down. That guy is pure entertainment.
Nevertheless, adding to the entertainment value of the shows’ hosts are the commercials featuring the hosts. You’ve seen them; they are the Lean Forward commercials. They’re great. The network has an entire campaign around it, and Fox and CNN have their own ads that mock the Lean Forward tagline (Fox: We don’t lean, we move).
The content of the Lean Forward ads make for good fun and easy targets.
Maddow: “We have pursued economic policies now, for a generation, that ONLY benefit the richest people in the country.” (Her emphasis.)
Her definition of “generation” is different than mine. President George W. Bush reduced taxes for lower and middle income workers in 2001. He created a 10% tax bracket, increased the per-child tax credit to $1,000 (and made it refundable), and mailed rebate checks to every taxpayer in America. Although these policies didn’t have much impact on the economy, no one can argue that Bush didn’t reduce taxes for the middle class.
What makes this Maddow commercial worse is another Maddow commercial where she says, “Doing [news] right takes rigor, and a devotion to facts that borders on obsessive.”
In another sign that voters are becoming tougher critics on proposals to raise taxes, voters in Colorado overwhelmingly rejected an income and sales tax increase designed to direct additional money to public education.
The proposal would have raised the state’s flat tax about 8 percent (from 4.63% to 5%). The sales and use tax increase would have moved from 2.9 percent to 3 percent.
The measure lost 64% – 36%. Democrats in Washington, DC should take notice.
Can’t someone on the “This Week” roundtable bring this up?
Stan, I’m afraid you’re heading down a blind alley. You cannot hold pre-NYT Economist Paul Krugman up to the current version. You’ll just go mad. Sallie James pointed out the problem with Columnist Paul Krugman, when it comes to the concept of competitveness.
But my favorite example was well chronicled by our friend James Taranto last year. When Sen. Jim Bunning held up an extension of unemployment benefits, Krugman lamented “the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties”
Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. …
But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”
Krugman added, “To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe. And the difference between the two universes isn’t just intellectual, it’s also moral.”
Intrigued, Taranto went out to investigate what “textbook economics” says on the matter. He went to, of all places, Paul Krugman’s textbook (co-written with Robin Wells, AKA Mrs. Krugman) Macroeconomics. It says:
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
Now Krugman’s extended moralizing about helping the unemployed is not invalidated by his hypocrisy, but his pose of astonishment that anyone could agree with what his own textbook says is hard to square with claims of consistency or good faith.
Recent Comments