Republican lawmakers have moved this year to repeal domestic partner benefits for state employees, a policy unilaterally adopted by former Gov. Janet Napolitano. Tucked into the massive budget package is a proposal to retain domestic partner benefits for existing employees but to drop such benefits for future hires.
Rep. Matt Heinz, D-Tucson, just made a motion to remove this section from the related bill, making the argument that this move would restore the domestic partners’ benefit program. Shockingly, all Republicans on the committee voted for his motion. They must believe removing that section would do something different than Heinz expects, perhaps revoking domestic partner benefits across the board?

Debate in the House Appropriations Committee has been derailed for a while by a sudden clash of values related to single parents. The original issue actually dealt a budget proposal to allow the state Department of Health Services to raise licensing fees for daycare centers. But Rep. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, raised a question related to a separate proposal to limit how often parents can receive state child-care subsidies. Murphy said he’s happy to help a young, single woman who “made a mistake” and needs help to get her life on the right track. But Murphy wants to stop supporting parents who use state subsidies on and off for years.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, immediately challenged Murphy’s description, saying she knows many people who either choose to be single parents or once were married and then become single parents through divorce.
After some back and forth, Murphy said Sinema had unreasonably seized on his single example. But he added that people who “choose” to be single parents should do so only if they have the right resources, and not rely on state aid.
Committee chairman John Kavanagh finally managed to get his colleagues to focus back on the bill at hand.

Rep. Steve Court, R-Mesa, responded to the parade of teachers protesting budget cuts by explaining why Republicans believe they have no choice but to reduce funding by $175 million.
“Education is 50 percent of the budget. We are down 30 percent of our revenues. It’s hard to hold education harmless.”
Rep. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa and chairman of the House Education Committee, added the bills are written in a manner to make clear the education budget cuts are temporary, and the state can elevate funding again once (or if?) state tax revenues rebound.
“There are many teachers who understand we all have to sacrifice,” Crandall said.

A number of school teachers have been attending the daylong budget hearing and testifying against it. Most teachers are protesting the size and number of education funding cuts while also permanently repealing the statewide property tax (bringing the tax back at its prior rate would bring in $250 million a year). But Mesa teacher Joe Thomas testified he believes there’s some anti-union politics going on as well, with new rules such as waiving the annual early deadline for notifying teachers if they are going to be fired.
“You can go after the union if you want, but you’re being sloppy about it,” Thomas said. “You’re going to be hitting a lot of people who aren’t in the union. … The result is you are going to be driving more people to join the union.”

One big change in the proposed budget deal is to drop a three-year suspension of local government impact fees charged on new construction. Municipalities such as Queen Creek and Gilbert had claimed this proposed moratorium pushed by home builders would decimate the ability to pay back existing bond debts and force additional local budget cuts. Instead, the budget deal calls for a two-year “freeze,” cities and counties couldn’t raise their current impact fees nor could they impose new versions.

I mentioned earlier the Arizona Senate couldn’t act on the proposed budget deal because a critical vote of Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, is out of town this weekend. The Senate is still meeting today to consider some bills, and in fact, nine of the 30 senators are absent. That is putting supposed “safe” bills at risk of being voted down if any opposition emerges. One “victim” was HB2336, a bill that was intended to allow counties to create special districts for reducing property taxes for solar manufacturing plants.

Unable to ignore the rumbling of my stomach, I slipped away from the budget hearing to grab a late lunch from Pei Wei’s at Seventh Avenue and Thomas Road. As great minds think alike, I ran into top House leadership there — Speaker Kirk Adams, Republican floor leader John McComish of Ahwatukee Foothills, and assistant floor leader Andy Tobin, R-Paulden. I took my food with me and hot-footed it back to the Capitol, so I don’t know what they ordered. It turns out Adams and the others were relying on insider information, as the House Appropriations Committee also recessed for lunch shortly after I left.