In response to the initiative filed today that would establish a new one-cent sales tax increase (once the temporary one-cent tax expires), Steve Voeller, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club released the following statement:
“This initiative is the most egregious spending initiative in the history of spending initiatives. Not only does it earmark funds in perpetuity for government spending, it prohibits the legislature from decreasing spending elsewhere. Talk about tying the hands of the legislature. They should have included a provision to require Santa Claus to annually deliver the bags and bags of cash that will be required to keep the rest of government afloat.”
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.
“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.”
Recent Comments