Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
I have previously written here about the Grover Norquist "no tax" pledge that "[Lawmakers] have violated their oath of office by pledging their undying allegiance and loyalty to a corrupt K Street lobbyist, which for them takes precedence over their oath of office, and any accountability to the constituents who elected them. Anyone who signed this pledge is unfit to serve in public office."
Today the Arizona Daily Star joins us with its editorial opinion Are no-new-tax state lawmakers merely puppets?:
Our View: Legislators beholden to Norquist pledge don't deserve their jobs
What's wrong with this picture? State legislators elected to represent the people of Arizona are receiving direction from Washington-based, uber-conservative, anti-tax gadfly Grover Norquist.
Let us pause here to note that, to our knowledge, Norquist has no skin in Arizona's game. He is not an Arizona taxpayer. He is not registered to vote in Arizona. His children do not attend Arizona public schools.
But he's a player, nevertheless.
As Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services reported on Saturday, Norquist "gave his permission" Friday for Arizona lawmakers who signed his "no tax" pledge to vote to send a measure to the ballot asking Arizona voters to temporarily raise the state sales tax.
Patrick Gleason, state affairs manager for Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, said Norquist would not consider such a vote a violation of the Arizona lawmakers' pledge.
Budget negotiations in Phoenix were at a standoff last week because the GOP could not lasso enough votes to approve Gov. Jan Brewer's proposal to ask voters for a sales-tax increase.
Thirty-eight of Arizona's 90 lawmakers and Brewer herself signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge vowing to "oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes." No Democrats signed.
Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, is a signatory. So are GOP Reps. Frank Antenori and David Gowan of Tucson.
The pledge has been an albatross on the back of policy-making throughout this legislative session. Lawmakers who signed it have essentially refused to consider revenue-raising measures to help close the state's gaping deficit and to avoid deep cuts in basic services.
But there's more.
Norquist made his approval of the sales-tax vote contingent on lawmakers voting for the tax cuts that are in the stalled budget deal.
The deal includes a 30 percent cut in corporate income taxes and a 6.6 percent cut in individual income-tax rates, both effective in 2011; it also repeals the now-suspended state property tax, which would raise $250 million a year.
Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, told Fischer he decided to go along with the sales-tax referral after speaking "at length" to someone at Americans for Tax Reform.
"They made it abundantly clear to me that, based on the structure of that bill, it's a net positive and would, in no way, shape or form violate the pledge," Seel said.
Way to represent your constituents' needs, Rep. Seel.
Gleason said Norquist believes the tax cuts compensate for any tax increase voters may approve.
If voters approve the sales-tax increase, it would raise $2.5 billion, but eliminating the property tax would save $1.25 billion over five years and the 2011 income tax cuts would save another $1.6 billion.
"We'll take that," Gleason said.
Americans for Tax Reform may be willing to take that. But what about the citizens of Arizona?
Norquist has a hard-line agenda that he is applying to Arizona without regard to the nuances of our state's tax structure, economy or residents' needs and preferences.
This is from the Americans for Tax Reform Web site (www.atr.org): "Americans for Tax Reform opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle. We believe in a system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible and lower than they are today. The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized."
We believe there's more to taxation than control, much more.
The government's ability to improve our lives — and remember, we are the government — also derives from its ability to tax.
Taxes pay for police and fire protection. They pay for our schools and universities. They provide health care for the poor and elderly.
So we disagree with Americans for Tax Reform. But even if we agreed, we would object to high-handed, ideologically rigid dictation of Arizona policy from afar.
Here is what Gleason told Capitol Media: Lawmakers must vote on the cuts and the referral to the voters on the same day, and both must be in the "same budget package."
Our complaint is that many pledge signers in Arizona appear more dedicated to adhering to their pledge than to serving their constituents.
At some point during seven months of tortuous budget negotiations in Phoenix, a lawmaker who is truly committed to his constitutents would have said, "Look, I took the pledge in good faith, but it cannot work for Arizona at this time. To take care of our problems in Arizona, we need new sources of revenue, perhaps even a new tax."
Policy for Arizonans should be made by elected officials who should study the state's needs and problems and listen to all views before making up their own minds.
Arizona lawmakers who allow an ideologue more than 2,000 miles away to guide their work in shaping a budget for Arizonans are failing their constituents and their state.
Voters, take note. The Republicans who signed the no-tax pledge and who cleave to it despite this state's budgetary crisis are not putting Arizona's needs first.
Remember that come election time.
Here is a handy dandy list from The Arizona Republic of Lawmakers who signed Americans for Tax Reform pledge:
Senate:
Sylvia Allen, Snowflake
Bob Burns, Peoria
Pamela Gorman, Anthem
Ron Gould, Lake Havasu City
Chuck Gray, Mesa
Linda Gray, Glendale
Jack Harper, Surprise
John Huppenthal, Chandler
Barbara Leff, Paradise Valley
Al Melvin, Tucson
Russell Pearce, Mesa
Steve Pierce, Prescott
Jay Tibshraeny, Chandler
Thayer Verschoor, Gilbert
House of Representatives:
Kirk Adams, Mesa
Frank Antenori, Tucson
Ray Barnes, Phoenix
Nancy Barto, Phoenix
Andy Biggs, Gilbert
Tom Boone, Peoria
Judy Burges, Skull Valley
Sam Crump, Anthem
Adam Driggs, Phoenix
David Gowan, Tucson
Laurin Hendrix, Gilbert
John Kavanagh, Fountain Hills
Bill Konopnicki, Safford
Debbie Lesko, Glendale
Steve Montenegro, Litchfield Park
Rick Murphy, Peoria
Warde Nichols, Gilbert
Doug Quelland, Phoenix
Carl Seel, Phoenix
David Stevens, Sierra Vista
Andy Tobin, Paulden
Jerry Weiers, Glendale
Jim Weiers, Phoenix
Steve Yarbrough, Gilbert
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David,
First, I never said Republicans. I said conservatives. Believe it or not, there is a difference!
Second: It seems you left off a rather important part of the Google study that determined liberals give ‘more’ to charity if you eliminate church/religious based donations. It is true that the dollar amount is higher. However, what you left off is that, even subtracting religious donations, conservatives STILL donate a higher percentage of their income to charity.
Now, I throw this additional info in here only because I haven’t been able to find any data disputing it. If you can, please let me know. This is from the author of “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism”, Arthur Brooks.
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
Two things.
First, Melvin was incorrectly put on the No Tax Pledge list by the Republic at the beginning of the legislative session, and the label has stuck. He didn’t sign the pledge this year because he voted for local taxes to fix our roads. He signed previously. I see the Star has put a correction on its website.
Second, Brice, if you look more carefully at that “Republicans give more to charity” stat, you find some interesting things. If you get rid of people on both sides who are church members, liberals are the more generous. Because church membership is a charitable deduction and conservatives are more likely to be church goers than liberals, it skews the results. I won’t argue about the relative merits of church dues as a charitable donation to other places you might give, except to say this. A church membership gives the donor many services which, if they weren’t related to a religious institution, would certainly not be tax deductible since they are something of value in exchange for the donation. Someone who contributes to the Food Bank gets nothing of value in return except the feeling that comes from knowing he/she has put food on some people’s tables.
Francine, overall I agree with your sentiments.
There is a key phrase though. Those who have more, give more. This is not necessarily true. Are you aware that conservatives give far more to charities than liberals? I don’t know why that is, and I don’t pretend to know why, it just is. Conservatives are willing to give. It’s when liberals want to TAKE that it becomes an issue. You aren’t asking us to give more, you’re telling us you want the government to take more. That’s a big difference!
For comparison: If a man walks up to you on the street and asks you for $5 followed by why he needs it, you might give it to him. If you do, you’ll probably feel pretty good about it.
If the same man walks up and sticks a gun in your face and demands the same $5, how are you going to feel?
That’s the difference. The government sticks a gun in our face and demands the money. We can’t say no, even if we would have given it if asked.
How Grover Norquist got such a following, I haven’t got a clue! But I have a different thought that I would like to share.
I believe that this country is a community. Three hundred million people is quite a community, I agree – but we live in states, which create subcommunities. Communities provide for their members. Those who have more, give more – those who need help can get it from the community. Taxes are the dues I pay for living in this community. I am willing to pay my fair share – I am not willing to see tax breaks going to wildly avaricious corporations whose only plaint is that they don’t get enough tax breaks. Unlike Grover Norquist (and in the words of my dear, departed mother – who died and left him boss?), I don’t want to shrink government until it can be drowned in a bathtub – neither do I want government to be an end – rather than the means to an end. I want a government of the people, for the people and by the people which benefits ALL of the people. And that’s what I think this country can and should be about. I can expand – if anyone is interested – but those who feel as I do will “get” what I have said. The others have a very different view of our world
Sorry GOP Spartan, the Dems voted against this budget package not just because of the regressive sales tax but also the “sweetener” of tax cuts added to the package to get Republicans to vote for it. The tax cuts will nearly offset the projected revenue from the temporary sales tax, and over time entirely negate it. Hence the “Sham-Wow!” aspect of this terrible budget.
The Republicans were in constant contact by text message with Americans for Tax Reform seeking guidance and permission for what they can do, a “daddy may I?” situation. In 30 years in politics, I have never witnessed anything like this.
Moreover, this “Sham-Wow!” budget deal enacts the tax cuts now without any vote by the voters, but the sales tax increase is subject to a vote. And the Republicans who are cynically voting for the tax increase intend to campaign against it to defeat it, so they can take their knives to the budget even more. Russell Pearce has made his cynical intentions very clear.
Leaving out facts? I think this is your problem, my friend.
I bet Grover is even more excited seeing what astronomical budgets deficits the JLBC says we will be looking at if the tax cuts go through. All part of the ‘starve the beast’ approach to governance.
The flaw in the Star’s logic as well as yours is that Melvin, Gowan Antenori and most of the GOP caucus voted for the sales tax referral. Oh, and every single Democrat voted against it. So who is really adhering to the no tax pledge?
So it seems funny, the people you and the Star are complaining about actually voted for a possible tax increase. True to form, the Star neglects to point out this minor “fact” and instead continues to fabricate an alternate reality using boogie men and lies.
Keep up the good work; soon the Star will be laid to rest next to the Citizen – R.I.P.