PHOENIX – Retiring U.S. Representative John Shadegg of Arizona has joined the Goldwater Institute as a Senior Fellow, where he will help fulfill its mission of economic freedom and limited government.
Congressman Shadegg is stepping down from public office after 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He originally was elected as part of the freshman class of 1994 that ushered in the Contract with America and a major overhaul of the welfare system that put more people to work. He represents Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District and announced his retirement from Congress in January 2010.
Phoenix, AZ – A Maricopa County Court official issued a legal restraining order against the spokesperson for a group opposing Proposition 107 on Friday after he sent a public message threatening to physically attack Ward Connerly, a pro-Prop 107 leader.
Anti-Prop. 107 spokesperson Steve Russell was ordered to stay more than 100 feet away from anti-affirmative action leader Connerly after Russell publicized his threat late Thursday night.
Proposition 107 would ban race and gender based affirmative action in Arizona. Connerly is nationally known for opposing government race and gender preferences and was participating in a debate on Prop. 107 hosted by the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. Russell is a designated spokesperson for a group calling itself ‘Protect Arizona’s Freedom’, which supports Arizona’s existing affirmative action programs and opposes Prop. 107. Russell was not part of the Goldwater debate.
Maricopa County Justice of the Peace Clancy Jayne issued Friday’s court order after Russell sent out the threatening electronic message late Thursday evening following the debate. Russell announced publicly on his Twitter account that he “would not hesitate to punch connerly [sic] in the face if I saw him…”
Glendale’s city attorney hit the send button this week on an e-mail he probably wishes he could grab back.
City Attorney Craig Tindall delivered an out-and-out slam of an attorney for the Goldwater Institute — “play with her” or “ignore her,” Tindall wrote — but Tindall inadvertently sent the e-mail directly to the Goldwater attorney, Carrie Ann Sitren.
12 News obtained a copy of the e-mail exchange over the past week between the city attorney’s office and Sitren. You can find the full exchange at the end of this blog.
Sitren was seeking more information on Glendale’s deal with the National Hockey League for the city to cover up to $25 million in Phoenix Coyotes losses over the next year. Goldwater’s threat to sue the city over potentially illegal cash giveaways to the team has loomed for months.
At 1:10 p.m. Tuesday, hours before the City Council unanimously approved covering the losses, Tindall told Sitren in e-mail there were no draft documents of the deal with the NHL.
But that response to Sitren came 5 minutes after Tindall had sent an e-mail to Sitren that was likely intended for his deputy, Nicholas DiPiazza.
In that e-mail at 1:05 p.m. Tuesday, Tindall gave these instructions regarding Sitren’s request:
“That not a valid question. I’d play with her or ignore her.”
Goldwater Institute Daily Email
Until recently, state and local government interaction with the federal government seemed to consist mostly of local and state officials asking D.C. for more money. As a result, many states, counties and cities have ended up on their backs, hog-tied by federal mandates. What James Madison called our “compound republic” cannot stand unless state and local governments recognize their obligation to join with the people in resisting federal overreach.
Fortunately, several bills before the Arizona Legislature would let local officials stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Arizonans in fending off expanded federal regulations. For example, SCR1050, the “Freedom to Breathe Amendment,” seeks to amend the state constitution to resist federal regulation of harmless carbon dioxide emissions. Senate Bill 1098 and House Bill 2307 would authorize in-state firearms manufacturing and sales under state regulations that are far less burdensome than federal rules. HB 2337 challenges the federal government’s effort to ban the in-state manufacturing of incandescent light bulbs. And SB 1398 would mandate that counties, cities and towns use their existing rights under federal law to require federal agencies to reduce the burden of any new regulation.
Adapt and overcome. This is part of a Marine Corps mantra born of a resource scarcity the service suffered when its equipment consisted mostly of hand-me-downs from the Army. This is exactly the kind of can-do spirit that we need from government officials today.
The Arizona economy has lost more than 300,000 jobs. Tax revenues have plummeted at every level. We cannot afford to continue funding government at its former levels. Unfortunately, officials with the City of Phoenix have demonstrated an unwillingness to adapt to changing circumstances.
Phoenix says it has eliminated 500 positions, but that’s only about 3 percent of the city’s 14,000 employees. Due to attrition, the actual number of layoffs will be less than 50, or around three-tenths of 1 percent. The City Council did eliminate an administrative assistant position that paid $95,000 a year. That’s a start, but it begs the question of how many other high-dollar assistant positions have been preserved. And, it lends credence to the assertion that the average cost of a city employee is $100,000.
Residents of Phoenix were told that the city needed to impose a 2-cent food tax to protect police and fire services from budget reductions. But on a recent episode of Sunday Square Off, Mayor Phil Gordon said he was shifting police officers to other city departments whose budgets were partially funded through federal or state tax money.
So, really, the City Council has made it more expensive for people to put food on the table so that they can protect the city’s $1 million budget for “arts and culture” and the $1 million budget for “government relations,” i.e. lobbyists.
When Mayor Gordon delivers the “State of City” address next Tuesday, he will talk about all the changes going on at City Hall, all the hard choices he’s made. But the truth is, the new tax on groceries and the refusal to realign government to focus on core functions show nothing has changed and the state of the city is disappointing.
Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Phoenix food tax increase a sign of failure
City of Phoenix: FY 2010 Budget
Sal DiCiccio: Solutions for Phoenix’s billion dollar labor bubble
12 News: Sunday Square Off with Phil Gordon
Last week, the House Committee on Natural Resources and Rural Affairs approved HCR 2040, a measure that would refer yet another tax increase to Arizona voters. The proposal would require every Arizonan to pay an additional $12 for each license plate registration. The money would be directed to the state parks agency in an attempt to reopen some sites and to fund improvements at others.
HCR 2040 would establish this new tax at a time when few can afford the luxury of paying for other peoples’ recreation. Not everyone benefits from the state parks any more than everyone benefits when my family dines at a restaurant.
This new funding mechanism would place state parks in a position of unaccountable financial independence somewhat similar to the state transportation department and the new Early Childhood Development & Health Board. Self-funded agencies often are not particularly responsive to those they are supposed to serve.
One of the biggest complaints from legislators as they work on the state budget this week revolves around Proposition 105, the 1998 initiative that protects voter-approved spending. The repeated excuse for failing to respond to falling tax revenues has been that much of the spending is off-limits to legislators.
HCR 2040 would make this problem worse, placing more of a financial burden on Arizonans that cannot be easily offset and would further erode our tax-paying capacity. Tax revenues should be spent according to current circumstances and constitutional limits, not momentary whims that later become inflexible mandates.
There is another solution on the table to keep parks open: let private companies manage them and pay the state for the privilege. Last week Fox News commentator Glenn Beck interviewed a local business owner who wants the opportunity to keep our parks open. Until the legislature gives this idea a fair shake, a tax increase shouldn’t even be discussed.
Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Private companies can manage state parks
Arizona Republic: Cost to close parks eats into savings
Arizona Legislature: HCR2040
Follow all current bills on the Arizona ALIS system.
Visit the Life, Liberty and Freedom website.
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4480
In January, U.S. District Court judge Roslyn Silver ruled in favor of the Goldwater Institute and struck down the matching funds portion of Clean Elections, calling it “unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” However, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to put Silver’s ruling on hold until it acts on the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court won’t block the state from giving extra funds to publicly funded candidates to match big-spending privately financed foes – at least not yet.
In a two-sentence order Tuesday, the justices rejected a request by the Goldwater Institute to immediately enforce last month’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver that the matching-funds provision of the Citizens Clean Elections Act is unconstitutional.
But they said that doesn’t mean they won’t eventually intercede. Goldwater attorney Nick Dranias was told to come back if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t ruled by June 1.
The Goldwater Institute Watchdog Report is a periodic publication intended to identify government corruption and waste and to hold politicians and public agencies accountable to taxpayers.
As the matching funds portion of Arizona’s Clean Elections law dangles by a legal thread, the state agency that hands taxpayer funds to political candidates is preparing to spend more than $2 million to convince voters and legislators it is doing a good job.
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission recently approved a budget that allocates $2 million for public relations and advertising, and another $78,000 for an outside lobbyist. That is in addition to the $2.9 million the agency will spend to print and distribute voter education pamphlets and to host candidate debates.
Spending so much money on a public relations campaign to tout the state agency is a waste, said Lori Daniels, the lone member of the five-person commission to vote against the spending plan. Daniels said the expenditure is particularly excessive as the state struggles to close a shortfall of around $1.5 billion in the current fiscal year.
“I think we should have a bare-bones budget this year because that’s exactly what the state is doing,” said Daniels. Commissioners “are spending more on the PR and advertising than is required by law. Right now, I feel like the state is in such a crunch that we just need to tighten our belts as much as we possibly can. And they feel like they’ve already done that.”
I recently attended a meeting with Maurice McTigue, director of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a former member of the New Zealand Parliament, and a man with wide experience in government reform. Attendance at the meeting, arranged by State Senator Sylvia Allen, should 
have been required for everyone in our state government.
Prior to comprehensive reforms 20 years ago, New Zealand was an economic mess, suffering from debt, continual deficits, and a stagnating economy. Out of desperation, New Zealand’s political leaders reduced government spending and enacted fundamental, wide-ranging reform. Since then, New Zealand’s national government has seen a single deficit; it was this year and due to the worldwide recession.
One instructive example given by Mr. McTigue concerned agriculture subsidies, which, among other things, were artificially inflating land prices. Everybody knew land prices would collapse when those subsidies ended. Some estimated 31 percent of farmers and at least seven major banks would go bankrupt. Yet, with no bailout or any other government involvement, only one-half of 1 percent of farmers went bankrupt. And not a single bank went under.
An outbreak of “spontaneous economic order,” as Mr. McTigue described it, resulted. Banks re-valued loans to avoid defaults. Farmers renegotiated payment schedules. People figured out how to navigate the changing economy without government intervention.
This example may seem most applicable to federal financial policies in response to the U.S. real estate meltdown; but, the lesson is broader. We commonly hear stories that if Arizona cuts spending on parks or education or health care, our economy will collapse. Yet New Zealand’s experience illustrates that fundamental reform, rethinking, and shrinking of government should be welcomed, not feared.
Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.
Learn More:
New Zealand Herald: Survey ranks NZ in top six for economic freedom
New Zealand Herald: Unemployment at record low as job growth surges
Doing Business: Economy Rankings
