Arizona: It’s Time To Grow Up And Get Our Act Together (Guest Voice)
Arizona: It’s Time to grow up and get our act together
by Marc Pascal
Arizona’s state and local governments are rapidly disappearing into the desert’s financial quicksand.
The state budget for 2010-11 is being drafted by Republicans who for years repeated their empty mantras of “more cut taxes” and “reduce government spending” in response to every situation. Faced with a billion-dollar fiscal deficit and refusing to restore temporary tax cuts, the Legislature is simply gutting all state spending on education, infrastructure, and social programs without considering what all 5.5 million Arizonans need.
Arizona’s population will continue to grow while being located principally in the two metro areas of Phoenix and Tucson. Geographically, Arizona is fortunate to be in a year-round warm, sunny location, and adjacent to California (still one of the driving forces of the U.S. and global economies). It also possesses many beautiful natural resources to ensure it is an international tourist destination for decades to come.
We cannot operate in some perpetual delusion that this State has only about 2.5 million residents to serve. The state legislature and governor must represent the best interests of all Arizona residents, whether or not they pay taxes or make campaign contributions. Rigid ideologies should be cast aside in favor of coming up with solutions that actually work.
It may be convenient to blame former Governor Janet Napolitano for everything, including not predicting the worldwide recession, for previously allowing spending to increase with the growth in Arizona’s population, and for permitting the Legislature to mindlessly cut taxes in the past. Everyone needs a scapegoat to deflect the unpleasant task of assuming responsibility.
Now that Secretary Napolitano is running the Department of Homeland Security, we can objectively realize that for more than a decade, Arizonans of both political parties have collectively created this fiscal mess by principally encouraging real estate development, not diversifying the economy, and designing a state tax system that is unbalanced and irrational.
Having lived in and traveled to many different states across the U.S. for most of my adult life until coming here in early 2006 with my family, I am amazed at the short-sightedness of some Arizona residents who vehemently complain that taxes are too high. If anything, taxes are way too low in comparison to most other states. Certainly being in the bottom 10 of states in per capita public school funding does not indicate that we are lavishing any funds on our future global competitiveness. Being one of the lowest in average weekly unemployment compensation suggests we are no where close to being a compassionate state.
Why is there a permanent and senseless fear by Republicans that businesses and people are suddenly going to leave the state for other locations if taxes go up one cent? Is that their only personal criteria for having moved to, or for remaining in Arizona?
This state’s tax system was not my major concern when I moved my family here in 2006. Businesses and households relocate here because of the entire way of life offered by Arizona. The same analysis applies to all states and countries with which Arizona competes.
Fortunately some sanity reigns at the Governor’s office and the Legislature. Unlike other conservative states, we have decided to take federal stimulus money. Now is the time to aggressively pursue those funds using our Congressional Delegation and anyone else with Washington connections to maximize the return of federal dollars back to Arizona. However, this fix should be viewed as only temporary. It should provide Arizonans the time to reorganize our permanent taxing and spending priorities into a rational format.
Arizonans must rethink our state and local tax policies from the ground up. We have to raise more revenues in good times, and actually save some for the times when revenues may go down. However, we should principally concentrate on revenue sources that retain some stability regardless of the overall economy. We have to find a rational and equitable mix of income, property, sales, excise, and business taxes. We cannot rely upon visitors to pay for public services for which all residents should bear the tax responsibility.
We have to pay for the necessary public services for a state of over 5.5 million residents, particularly if we intend to continue growing economically and collectively become competitive workers, professionals, and business enterprises in an inter-connected global economy. This means first adding the reasonable costs of our transportation, educational and energy infrastructures; the costs of public safety, government administration, and environmental protection; and new programs to encourage future growth and diversification of our overall economy. After that total amount is established, then the state taxing system has to be designed to fund those needs, and levied on those who can best afford to pay – not the other way around as is currently being pursued by the Republican Legislature.
For fiscal discipline, financial accuracy, and budgetary transparency, the state should maintain 2 budgets as do many other states: (1) An Operating Budget for the continuing expenses of state employee payrolls, the costs of public services and healthcare programs, regular purchases of supplies and equipment, and ongoing maintenance needs; and (2) A Capital Budget that covers the bonds issued for pay for new roads, bridges, schools, mass transit and governmental buildings. The necessary link between the 2 budgets would be that specific revenue sources (earmarks of certain annual tax receipts) are allocated to paying the principle and interest costs on long-term debts issued under the Capital Budget.
This recession actually provides a great opportunity for people of all political persuasions to rationally and honestly discuss what type of state we want to live in, not just for next 2 years but more importantly, for the next 2 decades. The current Arizona Governor and Legislature, with input from as many thoughtful and knowledgeable Arizonans as possible, must commence immediate efforts to reform this state’s entire tax and organizational structure to ensure we are competitive in a 21st Century global economy. Otherwise, the 2010 Elections may bring about significant changes in the allocation of political power that will no longer favor the Republican Party’s long-standing control of this state.
3/2/09 – Marc Pascal (JD/MBA) Phoenix, AZ – 602-478-8697, avenir99pm@yahoo.com
Marc Pascal has J.D. and M.B.A. degrees from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio 20 years ago. He worked for many years as an in-house legal counsel for several large business enterprises and later started 4 new ventures with partners. He now lives in Phoenix with his wife and young son. He is an independent business and management consultant who provides consulting services to various privately-held business enterprises in the Phoenix area.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
22 Responses to “Arizona: It’s Time To Grow Up And Get Our Act Together (Guest Voice)”
And what high-tax, high-spending state can you put up as a counter-example of what works? California?
The democrats see a need. 3 lilttle old ladies eating dog food. So they start a 25 million dollar agency. Hire a 1000 people. Move into a 100 buildings all accross the state to reach out and identify the 100 or 200 little old ladies on SSI who are eating dog food.
Then after they identify these little old ladies they offer them around about 100,000 dollars per year in assistance while consuming 25 million dollars of tax payer money to do this good deed.
Democrats. You have to love them. They will spend 1.75 trillion dollars to feel good about themselves.
The problem. They want to spend YOUR money. NOT THEIRS.
The Republicans see a Market, 100 of thousands of hungry uneducated children, so they start a business, they hire the kids to work in an asbestos mine, pay them just barely enough money so that they can sell them overpriced bad food at the company store.
Over the next few years the kids die in mining accidents, from malnutrition and various preventable diseases. Two problems solved by the free market, no more hungry, uneducated kids and lots of cheap asbestos on the market that can be sold to some ignorant/greedy schmucks creating a new market for Cancer treatments.
Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut, North Dakota, Utah, New Jersey.
Social Indicators: The Real Health of the States
Don You miss the entire point.
The point is that there is nothing wrong with helping these little old ladies.
The problem is government turns a 1 million dollar project into a 25 million dollar big government hand out that becomes a three headed beast conusming everything in its path and forgetting in the end what its original mission was all about.
Thus a response to Arizonas Budget problems with a parable.
DQ – do research first:
Minnesota – “the shortfall officially projected right now for the 2010-11 biennium budget is close to $1 billion, and it will almost certainly be higher…(m)any believe the deficit will be double the current projection — and a few are suggesting that it could rival the $4.5 billion deficit that loomed over the state in 2003.”
Iowa – “there is now a projected shortfall of $87.0 million in the FY 2009 General Fund budget…The General Assembly will be facing a budget gap of $779.0 million in FY 2010, as projected revenue increases are not enough to offset the projected growth in appropriations.”
New Hampshire – “What was a $200 million shortfall on Oct. 1 became a $250 million problem on Oct. 16, based on revenue already in hand, and projections through June.”
Nebraska – in relatively good shape, $40M deficits each for FY2009/FY2010
Hawaii – “The new prediction means the state has an estimated deficit of about $230 million for this fiscal year (FY2009)”
Vermont – “Vermont's state budget next year is projected to have a more than $200 million gap between revenues and spending – and that trend is expected to continue into the following years if the economy continues to dip.”
Connecticut – “State Comptroller Nancy Wyman today said the state should consider using a portion of the $1.4 billion “rainy day fund'' as part of a plan to address a budget imbalance that could reach $806.5 million by the end of the 2009 fiscal year…the independent Office of Fiscal Analysis has projected budget deficits of roughly $1 billion for 2010 and 2011.”
North Dakota – I could not find specific numbers, but they seem to be OK
Utah – overall OK, but instituted budget cuts in February (3.8%) to remain in red, even more projected later this year and next (I think they are a mandated balanced budget state)
New Jersey – “New Jersey's state budget shortfall has tripled to a staggering $1.2 billion because of the nation's economic woes, and it could soar to $5 billion for the next fiscal year, administration officials said Wednesday.”
A) 46 out of the 50 states budgets are in the red.
B) The question to be asked is which likely to come out of this depression/recession in the best shape, a state that has a good educational system, a high skill work force with access to quality health care like Minnesota or a low wage state with a crappy school system and poor access to health care Arizona, Mississippi or Alabama.
Have you researched (there is that nasty word to you again) the school systems of Hawaii, ND, Iowa, Nebraska and NJ? Health care in NJ, Hawaii, NH? And the work force of Iowa, Nebraska, Hawaii, Vermont, ND, Utah and NJ?
Obviously not. And this time i am not going to waste my time doing it for you again. You obviously don't want to let facts get in the way of your biases.
Don
There is always going to class warfare. There is always going to be the haves and the have nots.
If all are equal. Whose going to wash the dishes when you go out to eat?
Who will pick up your garbage?
Who will join the national guard and help out in emmergencies?
Who will pick up trash on the side of the road?
Who will clean the hallways at school?
If we are all college educated, who will do these things. Wont we all want to be doctors and lawyers and pillars of the community?
There will always be class warfare. There always has. There always will be. Even in Europe which is a socialist entity the countries are going bankrupt because of greed and avarice.
I know you love to think that everyone should be a brain surgeon so what do we do, flip a coin when we go out to eat and see who washes the dishes when were done, because the bus boy is a Heart Surgeon.
All are not equal!
Some people are born smarter, others are more athletic, others are handier, others are more ambitious and others just came out of the right vagina.
But the least fortunate amongst us who end up doing the dirty jobs that keep society running are still entitled to a decent wage, a life of dignity and opportunity for their children.
DQ – you seem to equate 'decent wage' with 'middle class wage'. What we consider poor in the US is beyond the dreams of 75% of the world. And you also seem to mistaken 'opportunity' with 'result', a typical left mistake. There is more opportunity for lower class and their children in the US than any other country. But not all, or most, of them can and do take advantage of the opportunity, some certainly for reasons beyond their control and effort as life indeed is unfair, but most do to some form or another of self-limiting and self-destructive behavior.
One of the absolute key differences between the left and right is that the left believes in equality of outcomes (even though that is demonstrably impossible), while the right believes in equality of opportunity, but with no guarantee of results. Because in the end, that really is all you can provide.
I haven't, but the fine people at Vassar have, and according to their criteria( Infant Mortality, Child Poverty, Child Abuse, Teenage Suicide, Teenage Drug Abuse, High School Dropouts, Unemployment, Wages, Health Insurance Coverage, Poverty, Out-of-Pocket Health Costs, Homicides, Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities, Food Stamp Coverage, Affordable Housing, Income Inequality ), the ten states I listed were the least screwed up states in the country as opposed to Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico which are the ten most screwed up states in the country.
So my guess is that pursuing the policies of the above named states is probably not what we want to do unless we want to live in North Argentina.
Define Middle Class… Until you do there is point arguing.
Moving on up? Study examines social mobility in the US
“People like to think of America as the land of opportunities,” says Dr. Kathryn Wilson, associate professor of economics at Kent State University. “The irony is that our country actually has less social mobility and more inequality than most developed countries.”
In a recent study funded by the Russell Sage Foundation, Wilson and colleagues Dr. Timothy Smeeding at Syracuse University and Dr. Robert Haveman at University of Wisconsin-Madison, examined social mobility, or the ability to move up or down the economic ladder, in the United States. Specifically, they investigated the relationship between parental socioeconomic status and offspring socioeconomic status by studying three variables: family income, education and occupation class.
Understanding Mobility in America
By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
And one more time the research shows that you are wrong!
VASSAR???
HA HA HA HA!
That explains a lot. They would rank Venezuela at the top of their 'most desirable countries to live in' list. What a load of crap you are trying to foist here and to use to justify both your and their pre-conceived notions.
As an example, I lived in Hawaii for 20 years, and the last of our relatives 'escaped' less than two years ago. I still go back on a regular basis for business. It has one of the worst economies; one of the worst public school systems; horrible, degraded infrastructure; an unbelievably corrupt state and local government; an ignorant, lazy work force; rampant alcoholism and ice (meth) addiction; and some of the LEAST affordable housing in the US. It is derogatorily known as the People's Republic of Hawaii for very good reason.
I have lived in Texas for the past 10 years (Austin, duh). The central Texas corridor has one of the healthiest economies in the US; we have not had a housing bubble or crash; we have NO state income tax; our public schools rival private schools elsewhere (one of the main reasons we moved here 10 years ago in fact); our housing prices are very affordable, etc.
So any report that claims Hawaii is a leader and Texas is at the bottom of the list is obviously useful only for wiping one's own ass.
But I think it is to stop arguing with a tree.
I understand that their stats are not quite as good as that of Rush, but just for my amusement and your education I went out and looked at some of the easier ones to find.
Life Expectancy: Hawaii 80 years ranked #1, Texas 76.7 years, ranked # 30
unemployment rate by state HAWAII 4.9% Ranked # 12, TEXAS 5.7%, Ranked # 19
teen pregnancy ratesHawaii 93 per thousand ranked #42, Texas 101 per thousand ranked # 46
<a href=”http://www.chn.org/pdf/2008/ACSchildpov.pdf”Child Poverty: Hawaii 9.4%, Texas 22.9%
So lets see, just from the stats I have looked up, we can say that a Hawaiian is likelier to employed than a Texan, likelier to live longer, and if a child am likelier to have a decent childhood.
Maybe that explains why Molly Ivins called Texas Mississippi with better roads.
But the least fortunate amongst us who end up doing the dirty jobs that keep society running are still entitled to a decent wage, a life of dignity and opportunity for their children.
Define decent wage? Fine a busboy with an 85 IQ gets 25 dollars per hour………..Great. You and I now pay 37.50 for a steak instead of 12.50.
Nothing solved except now 25 dollars an hour is a LOW minimum wage.
Molly Ivens? Again, HA HA HA HA! Now there is another source of moderate, unbiased, centralist thinking. Not. Perhaps next you will cite Fidel Castro's analysis for our edification.
As to my sources, why sill me, I went straight to each state's own government pages, and pulled up their budgets and projections. Obviously a biased source.
And you can site any left-wing report you want – talk to the people who live there (Hawaii and texas). People flee Hawaii to make a better life, and a lot come to Texas for that reason. Now, I will grant that Texas does have huge rural areas, particularly West Texas and the Piney Woods areas, along with the worst sections of Houston, El Paso and the Dallas area, plus our huge legal and illegal immigration issues, that affect the numbers very negatively.
Life expectancy in Hawaii is longer, due to the combination of a large Asian population (which has a higher life expectancy) and the lack of a harsh climate.
As of Jan 27, 2009, according to the US department of Labor's report, Hawaii's unemployment rate is 5.5, Texas 6.0. Texas's is still higher, but Hawaii's rate has increased faster, and Texas again has a much, much larger pool of immigrants to assimilate into the workforce. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm
Teen pregnancy rates – both states are bad, and the actual figures according to the CDC report of January , 2009 is 40.5 for Hawaii and 63.1 for Texas. Part of that is attributable to the much higher numbers Hispanic and Blacks in Texas, as the statistics show they have very high teen pregnancy rates compared to Whites, Asians and Pacific Islanders. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57…
But in any case, Texas does deal with a bigger problem with that than Hawaii, but how that equates back to the original discussion about high-tax vs. low tax states escapes me. Is it your position that if Texas ad higher taxes, teens would have less babies? I think not. I think that issue is more related to the attitudes and teaching of sex and sex education between the two states (again, having lived in both). And one of the reasons we picked Austin is because indeed it is a much more socially liberal city than the rest of Texas (and frankly, I would not live anywhere else in Texas BUT Austin).
Child poverty – While I readily admit the statistics are as you stated, this is again where true 'local' knowledge comes into play. In Hawaii, especially among the poorer population, multiple families living in and sharing housing is significantly more prevalent than anywhere else in the US. It even has a name, the 'ohana family, where multiple generations, and multiple sets of extended family, sub-dived the house and/or land to reduce costs. It is also not just done for that reason, but for cultural reasons as well, as the extended family is not really seen as being 'extended', but rather part of the core family in the Polynesian culture. So, while each of those families indivdually might have qualified as living in poverty, as a unit they do not. As for the Texas data, it is indeed bleak. I cannot speak to that, however, as at least where I live I have seen no evidence of almost 1/4 of the children living below the poverty level. It is easy to forget about that you do not see yourself, and that number is truly shameful, especially as due the reality of high amount of affluent areas, it must mean there is close to a 50%, or higher, poverty rate in the less affluent areas.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTSelected…
Finally, I did indeed follow the links you provided about the loss of upward mobility in the US. Sobering. It has indeed forced me to start rethinking the ability to move socially and economically in the US, and I will have to do further research into this subject.
Which undoubtedly accounts for the even longer life expectancy of the Canadians at 81.16, the French at 80.87 or the Swede at 80.74 years.
ROTFLMAO
http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/data/mvs46_1s.pdf
Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol 46, No 1 Supplement
National Center for Health Statistics
Table B: Life expectancy by age and race: Total of 7 selected
reporting States
* Small population size limits the reliability of life table values.
August 14, 1997 7
Group Life Expectancy
AmIndian 91.1 1.21
Guamanian* 85.5 1.14
AsIndian* 85.1 1.13
Korean 82.3 1.10
Japanese 82.1 1.09
Chinese 81.7 1.09
Filipino 80.6 1.07
Total 80.3 1.07
Vietnamese* 78.8 1.05
Allraces 75.2 1.00
White 75.1 1.00
Other API 71.4 -1.05
Black 68.3 -1.10
Hawaiian 68.3 -1.10
Samoan* 68.3 -1.10
We could bring the minimum wage to what it use to be in 1968 when it was the equivalent of $9.47 today. I figure that if we could afford to pay that minimum wage forty years ago when we were not as wealthy as we are today,we can afford it today.
Last but not least if your restaurant owner paid his employees a living wage, I would not have to subsidize his business and his customers by giving his employees Food Stamps and Medicaid.
Hidden Cost Of Wal-Mart Jobs
* Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.
* The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health care than the average for families of all large retail employees.
* The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.
* If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees.
Don
So if we raise the minimum wage to 9.50 cents then you are willing to get rid of food stamps and Medicaid?
I think thats an excellent Idea. Ill even grant you 10 bucks and hour and we can then get rid of all Medicaid, food stamps, Wic and save the nation about 500 billion annually. Then maybe we can balance our budget.
NO