Archive for March, 2009
March 27th, 2009, 10:54 am by Le Templar
The Arizona Department of Revenue has announced the start of a two-month amnesty period to encourage people who haven’t paid all of their taxes in the past few years to turn themselves in. The state typically does this during an economic downturn as a way to raise more money. Apparently, the weight of guilt and fear of the tax man or woman prompts many people to come forward when they are offered a chance to avoid some of the penalties and interest.
But for the first time, I really understand why some people get upset about tax amnesty programs. Recently, I was notified by a state tax auditor about a mistake in my 2004 income tax return which resulted in an unintentional underreporting of what I owed the state. No question the mistake was my fault and, under normal circumstances, the longer you wait to pay up, the more expensive it gets.
So earlier this month, I sent the state a check for nearly $500, ouch! You can imagine my angst when I learned today that if I had waited just a few weeks, I might have saved up to $100 in interest (the state already had waived the penalty).
Interestingly, state lawmakers seem to have undercut the effectiveness of the amnesty program before it even began. Revenue Department director Gale Garriott recently testified that budget cuts to his agency likely will cost the state $54 million in unpaid taxes this year and $125 million in the next budget. I guess fewer auditors means fewer opportunities to catch innocent mistakes that could bring in big bucks.
Posted in: Arizona government • tax amnesty | Post a Comment »
March 26th, 2009, 2:47 pm by Le Templar
The Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a grassroots political group that lobbies for lower taxes, decided to spend some money to find out if there’s any public support for Gov. Jan Brewer’s call for a $1 billion temporary tax increase to help balance the state budget. It’s turn out that the people questioned don’t really want to do anything to solve the budget crisis.
In the polling survey of likely voters in Phoenix and Glendale, a majority opposed just about every idea on the table at the state Capitol. That includes tax increases, relaxing voter-mandated protection for key spending programs, and selling off state buildings and other assets such as the Grand Canyon Airport.
The only option that the poll respondents did support was allowing slot machines, blackjack and poker at the horse and dog tracks. I certainly don’t have a problem with that, but the poll question didn’t mention that changing state law to approve such gambling would immediately free the state’s Indian tribes to offer any kind of gambling they wanted with no outside limits. That’s why there’s no chance the Legislature will relax the current rules for the racing tracks.
So, voters don’t want to increase revenue or to reduce expenses to solve a deficit that makes up about one-third of the General Fund budget. I guess the only choice left is to borrow into oblivion just like the federal government is doing.
Based on the poll’s result, AFP-Arizona director Tom Jenney did have some advice for state lawmakers: Voters are going to hate them no matter what they do, so they might as do the right thing and hold their heads high. Of course, to Jenney, the right thing means cutting the budget as much as possible and under no circumstances entertain the notion of raising taxes.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Governor • Americans For Prosperity • budget deficit • Tom Jenney | 3 Comments »
March 24th, 2009, 3:39 pm by Le Templar
THE MESA CITY COUNCIL HAS DECIDED RYAN COLEMAN WON’T BE ALLOWED TO OPEN A TATTOO PARLOR AT DOBSON AND BASELINE ROADS (Tribune file photo).
I don’t have any tattoos, never wanted any. But several members of my family do. None of them are gang members or are living a life of crime. And all of them would fit comfortably into the lifestyle of west Mesa’s Dobson Ranch subdivision.
So I am thinking of my own family when I say I’m shocked that only Mesa Mayor Scott Smith seems to understand the troubling discrimination behind the CIty Council’s rejection of a new tattoo shop at Dobson and Baseline roads. Tattoo artist Ryan Coleman met all of Mesa’s zoning requirements and he seems quite sensitive to the seedy reputation of his industry, as he pledged to not ink gang or racist tattoos on anyone.
But the Dobson Ranch Homeowners Association is adamant that allowing one more tattoo shop next to a massage parlor, a hair salon and a manicurist would drive their community into a tailspin. Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh focused on the “nearby” locations of two other tattoo shops, ignoring the fact that Mesa has a 1,200-foot buffer zone in part to avoid an undue concentration. Should tattoo parlors be kept a mile apart instead, or maybe five miles apart? Maybe Mesa finally would be “safe” if we allowed only one shop in the entire city.
The Angel Tattoo case seems ripe for a winnable lawsuit, given that the City Council approved another tattoo shop in 2006 that was within 1,200 feet of a school, of all places. The Goldwater Institute already is going after Tempe for adopting a similar “just say no” attitude.
A Tribune editorial on the subject points out that tattoos are a popular cultural phenomenon, not a perverted habit better kept to the shadows. If government can get away with refusing to allow this legitimate business to operate because of public pressure, I just hope that your neighbors don’t come to hate what you do for a living or your business could be next the target.
Posted in: Uncategorized • Goldwater Institute • Mesa City Council • tattoos | 6 Comments »
March 18th, 2009, 3:44 pm by Le Templar
One of Arizona’s most popular Democrat blogs has captured an interesting moment from state Attorney General Terry Goddard’s appearance Tuesday before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., accidentally referred to Goddard as the Arizona governor. Goddard quickly corrected Specter, but he did drop in this side remark, “Aspiring, perhaps.”
Political observers have long assumed that Goddard is manuveuring to campaign for governor next year. In fact, he’s the presumed Democratic front-runner in many circles. But Goddard has scrupulously avoided the topic, if only to avoid triggering Arizona’s “resign to run” law. With the 2010 election season just around the corner, Goddard’s next move appears to be at the forefront of everyone’s mind, including his own.
Posted in: Arizona government • Election issues • Governor • 2010 election • Terry Goddard | Post a Comment »
March 17th, 2009, 12:23 pm by Le Templar
It’s hard for a lot of people in Maricopa County to understand why there’s so much national consternation about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his tactics for arresting illegal immigrants. I suspect one reason behind the gap between local and national views is because we are simply so close to the issue. “Illegal immigration is a huge problem here. Sheriff Arpaio is trying to do something about it. What more do we need to know?”
Well, I came across a story over the weekend that provides an analogy for why it’s important to not simply take Arpaio at his word and to independently determine if the rights of American citizens and foreigners are being trampled under the guise of cracking down on illegal activity.
Tenaha is a tiny town of 1,046 on the Texas-Louisana border that appears to have an official policy of forcing black travelers to turn over their money and their vehicles to the police to avoid facing drug charges. The Chicago Tribune reported on a federal class-action lawsuit filed against the town. The leading lawyer says only about one in four cases did Tenaha actually charge someone with drug possession from 2006 to 2008. Nearly three-quarters of the time, the police seized anything they could put their hands on without finding any drugs, or at least without charging the “suspects” with a crime.
The police tactic described is particularly chilling. Imagine traveling by motor vehicle to a distant part of the country. You are carrying extra cash, maybe because you are going to gamble at a casino, or maybe you just don’t trust credit cards. You are pulled over in a small town by the local police and they come up with a reason to search your car. Then, you are shocked when told they found some drugs hidden under the seat or in the trunk. You are facing felony charges and potentially serious jail time.
The police say if you will “voluntarily” turn over your money and some other possessions, they will let you go and the justice system will look more favorably on you if this eventually goes to court.
You know the police are lying about finding any drugs. But if you say “no,” you have to come up with bail money and you will be fighting this dark cloud far from home for months. Say “yes” and you lose your belongings, but at least you can walk away.
Officials in Tenaha say they are using state drug forfeiture laws as a tool to challenge a large amount of drug trafficking that passes through their community.
“We try to enforce the law,” Mayor George Bowers told the Chicago Tribune. “We’re not doing this to raise money.”
So, do you buy the mayor’s explanation? I sure don’t.
Add in the fact that police have pre-printed forms because they handle this type of “transaction” so often, and the evidence that blacks seem to be targeted beyond all rational proportions, and it seems like something sinister is going on.
The Tenaha mayor’s explanation has some eerie similarities to what the sheriff’s office said when it tried to convince Tribune reporters last year that deputies weren’t violating anyone’s civil rights while making illegal immigration stops, despite what those reporters saw with their own eyes.
It’s good that the federal government is taking a close look at what Arpaio is doing. What kind of long-term success can we hope to achieve against the dangers of illegal immigration if we have to sacrifice liberty and freedom from police abuse in the process?
Posted in: Immigration • Maricopa County sheriff • Chicago Tribune • Joe Arpaio • Tenaha | 7 Comments »
March 13th, 2009, 2:27 pm by Le Templar
TODD LANG, ARIZONA CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION
The top administrator of Arizona’s system of campaign public funding has responded to a post I wrote a week ago that predicted a slow demise of Clean Elections after a federal judge voids future matching funds as unconstitutional. Here is Todd Lang’s full commentary:
Le Templar’s latest piece on Clean Elections deserves some praise. After all, the Tribune’s editorial staff has been consistently calling for the end of Clean Elections for more than a decade now, and Templar manages to stay on message despite the overwhelming success of Clean Elections in Arizona.
Some measures of that success: More than 65 percent of all candidates were participating candidates in 2008. At a time when Arizonans disagree on numerous issues, 80 percent of voters surveyed by Behavior Research say that Clean Elections is somewhat or very important. In addition, 70 percent of all currently sitting officeholders used Clean Elections for at least one race. Many of the legislators who no longer participate used Clean Elections to get into office.
As Templar observes, once in office, incumbents have no problem raising money from lobbyists. The important thing is that even opponents of campaign finance reform are able to run for office because of Clean Elections.
Clean Elections lets good candidates run, regardless of their viewpoint. It gives voters real choices and a real opportunity to vote for candidates with which they agree.
Some argue that we should return to the time when interest groups like the chamber of commerce or newspaper editorial boards decided who wins the primary. We believe that the people are the most qualified to choose who will represent them. In other words, our democracy is run by the voters, not special interest groups. That some newspapers and other organizations resent this success is no surprise.
What does come as a surprise is that Templar believes that matching funds are a problem. After all, matching funds let the voters hear “both sides of the story” — something most editorial boards value.
The complaint about matching funds boils down to a simple principle: The plaintiffs would prefer that their political speech stand alone without any form of rebuttal.
Of course we would all prefer to speak with no possibility of rebuttal — debates are much easier to win that way. But the foundation of the First Amendment and our democracy is a robust “marketplace of ideas” in which voters can hear all points of view and all sides of the debate.
Matching funds allow candidates to respond to their opponents — so that voters are exposed to both sides of the debate and, as such, can make a meaningful choice at the ballot. Matching funds also provide a candidate the opportunity to respond to the nasty, misleading attack ads by unknown independent expenditure committees that we all see on occasion.
Thus, matching funds result in more information and better information for the voters. The First Amendment and our democracy is well-served by matching funds.
Templar’s reference to the trio of candidates who misspent funds in 2004 is an obvious red herring. Templar fails to mention that the Citizens Clean Elections Commission caught those candidates, obtained repayment agreements, and the leader of the trio is currently in jail. Because of strict enforcement of the Citizens Clean Elections Act over the years, these sorts of problems have not recurred.
The commission works closely with candidates in order to help them comply with the statutes and rules and to help identify and eliminate possible abuses. Candidates and voters find that Clean Elections is important, effective, helpful and successful.
The commission will continue to implement rules and policies that improve the act, and it welcomes public suggestions, comments, and participation. Clean Elections will continue to serve Arizona and provide opportunities for candidates to run for office and for voters to receive complete information and be encouraged to participate in the political process.
—
Todd Lang is executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
Posted in: Arizona government • Courts • Election issues • Clean Elections • Todd Lang | Post a Comment »
March 13th, 2009, 11:24 am by Le Templar
REP. JOHN KAVANAGH (File photo by Capitol Media Services)
Calling it “the lesser evil,” a key state budget writer says Arizona will have to take on millions of dollars in additional debt to avoid any tax increases this year.
I had the privilege of taking part of a media panel discussion Thursday night at the monthly meeting for Republicans from legislative District 8 (Scottsdale and Fountain Hills). After the discussion, Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, participated in a traditional legislative update. As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Kavanagh went straight to the issue on everyone’s mind — the budget negotiations with a projected $3 billion in deficits next year. Kavanagh said he expects a spending package covering the next two fiscal years will be unveiled in a little more than a week. Despite a call from Gov. Jan Brewer for $1 billion in temporary new taxes, Kavanagh said budget negotiators have focused on “short-term borrowing” to avoid cutting so much spending that critical services are disrupted.
Kavanagh didn’t provide details. But former Gov. Janet Napolitano suggested a numbers of ways to spend now and pay later including selling off future proceeds from the state lottery and tobacco company payouts, delaying payments to the state unversities for a few weeks and so forth.
The irony is key Republicans steadfastly refused to consider Napolitano’s ideas before she left for Washington. But now borrowing doesn’t seem so bad to them when a Republican governor says the only other alternative is to hike taxes during a recession.
In an attempt to limit that debt, Kavanagh added lawmakers are considering the sale of some sproperty such as the Grand Canyon airport, one or more state prisons or the state fairgrounds in Phoenix (the State Fair would be moved to undeveloped land owned by the state in the far West Valley).
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Governor • budget crisis • Jan Brewer • John Kavanagh | 2 Comments »
March 12th, 2009, 5:12 pm by Le Templar
Ever wonder what your city might look like if it was governed solely by the fundamental principles of this country’s founders? The Goldwater Institute has just published a road map to such a vision with its “10 Rights to Restrain Government and Protect Freedom.” While couched in language that invokes the original Bill of Rights, the document outlines a entire new constitution for local governments that would significantly limit their powers to interfere with our lives and protect the right to use our property as we see fit.
Author Nick Dranias paints a picture of how the American view of government — with a separation of powers and hefty barriers to imposing new regulations — simply does not apply to local governments in Arizona. Most power flows downward from a single governing board that frequently usurps authority to dictate the actions of specific individuals. As a result, Dranias argues, local governments have enjoyed explosive growth in the past two decades that can’t be sustained because they are so expensive to operate.
So Dranias offers a set of sweeping reforms in a Local Liberty Charter that would radically change the organization and practical impact of counties, cities and other local governments. Some of the provisions include:
- A codified presumption of liberty, that everyone “is free to
act peaceably and honestly,” and government should interfere with that freedom only when there’s an clear, immediate threat to public safety or health.
- Require the automatic repeal of all regulations unless the government can prove a specific regulation meets a limited number of transparent standards.
- Eliminate all zoning laws and rely instead on private covenants and property-owner associations, similar to how land-use management works now how in Houston.
- Clearly separate legislative, executive and judicial functions at the local level.
- Force police departments to reduce crime by meeting certain benchmarks, or contract with another jurisdiction to do the job instead.
- Limit spending growth to the rate of population growth plus inflation. And,
- Reject all federal funds that come with any mandates or strings attached, which is just about every dime that Congress doles out.
As is common in think-tank reports, Goldwater focuses on principles and good theories while ignoring the political realities. For example, libertarian purists always point to Houston as their ideal but no other American city has ever dropped its zoning laws to try that model. And for a few years in the 1980s, the Prescott City Council rejected federal funds that are sought routinely sought by other municipalities. That policy lasted until Prescott found itself at risk of running out of water supplies to support development. (Federal grants are available for water treatment and accessing new water sources).
Still, the Goldwater report provides a new prism to use as the public examines what local government is doing, and what might be a better approach to promote liberty and a free people.
Posted in: Arizona government • Goldwater Institute • Libertarian values | 3 Comments »
March 9th, 2009, 3:44 pm by Le Templar
ARIZONA’S COPPER DOME (original photo on Arizona Capitol Museum’s Web site)
Today is supposed to mark the halfway point of the regular session of the Arizona Legislature. Senate and House committees have finished their work on the original bills assigned to them and have moved on to measures that started in the other chamber. Lawmakers are engaged in high-minded debate related to hot button issues such as abortion, climate change, protecting gun ownership, right-sizing government and complying with constitutional principles … Huh? What? Oh, sorry. I must have dozed off for a moment and was having the most interesting dream.
Today is supposed to mark the halfway point of the regular session of the Arizona Legislature, and not much is happening at the state Capitol — except lawmakers from all sides continue to heap criticism on Gov. Jan Brewer’s still undefined plan to resolve the state’s budget crisis. Bills are going nowhere, and gambling types are taking odds that lawmakers will be at their desks in August. Things are so quiet that one of the Legislature’s more prominent and active Democrats is taking the week off to travel to the Middle East.
Personally, I’m tempted to declare Brewer’s budget agenda all but dead. Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, said today he can’t support a special election this spring on either a $1 billion temporary tax increase or on repealing portions of the 1998 Voter Protection Act so that lawmakers would have more flexibility to adjust spending formulas for K-12 and early childhood education and health care for the poor. The main hesitation I have is Burns and the rest of Republican leadership have yet to publicly present a budget proposal that eliminates a projected $3 billion deficit without either of those alternative tools. So Brewer’s GOP colleagues possibly still could come around, maybe.
However, Burns has stayed firm to his committment not to allow any bills to be heard in the Senate until the budget problems are solved. So it seems Brewer and anyone who thinks like her (is there anyone at this point?) will have to somehow work around him. That means a budget deal is still weeks or months away. How much can I bet that the session will last until Sept. 1?
Posted in: Arizona government • Governor • Arizona Legislature • Bob Burns • Jan Brewer | 2 Comments »
March 6th, 2009, 12:22 pm by Le Templar
The Arizona Guardian recently answered a question I have been wondering about for a few months: state politicians are swearing off the use of public campaigns in droves as a federal judge is about to permanently remove a key provision of the system and make private alternatives more attractive.
The Citizens Clean Elections Act was originally passed as an voter initiatve in 1998 in reaction to claims that politicians were too beholden to special interest money. Basically, the law created a state agency to hand out campaign money raised from surcharges on traffic tickets and criminal fines. In return, participating candidates must promise to abide by strict spending limits and raise only a small amount of money privately, primarily through individual $5 donations. While participation is technically voluntary, several provisions of the law are designed to compel candidates for statewide and legislative offices to take the public campaign funding.
The most significant provision is the use of matching funds. Clean Elections candidates can receive additional state money above the official limit if a privately funded opponent spends above that limit, or if an outside group campaigns against the Clean Elections candidate. The result is every time a privately funded candidate raises a dollar, he or she automatically raises a dollar for publicly funded opponents as well. So it’s generally easier to just take the state money unless a privately funded candidate can raise huge amounts of campaign funds.
Various candidates have found ways to manipulate those matching funds. In 2004, three so-called Libertarian candidates for the Legislature took advantage of the system to use more than $100,000 in state money for a months-long party. Last year, Sam George was a Democrat running for the Arizona Corporation Commission. George pumped in more than $248,000 of personal and private funds during the primary, which automatically provided matching funds to two other Democrats with whom he was running as team. The result was the three had $750,000 in combined funds for their coordinated campaign that carried over into the general election (Ironically, George was narrowly defeated while his two partners were elected in November).
George’s shenanigans helped to fuel a new federal lawsuit against the whole matching funds scheme from several candidates represented by the legal team at the Goldwater Institute. While the case is far from over, there are strong indications that U.S. District Judge Rosyln Silver will outlaw matching funds as a violation the U.S. Constitution. That outcome would mean any future Clean Elections candidate would stuck with lowest spending limit, and privately funded opponents would have a much easier time of outspending them by wide margins.
Todd Lang, executive director of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, did his best to sound optimistic about the future of public campaign funding in a column published by the Arizona Guardian (sorry, the site is subscription only). But the Guardian’s reporters found that incumbent politicians from both major parties are preparing for private fundraising efforts not seen in at least eight years.
For 2010, I would expect most incumbents to move to private fundraising because it’s easier for them to tap lobbyists and business interests, while many challengers will try to use public funds to avoid that challenge and focus on talking to voters. In most cases, those challengers are going to find state funding is far too meager to compete without access to matching funds.
For future election cycles, it’s likely Clean Elections participation would dwindle to a handful of candidates. Opponents of public campaign funding will finally get their desired result after a decade of trying to repeal or overturn the state law.
Posted in: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
|
|
Twitter