Rep. David Bradley (D-LD28) on the state budget

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Daily Star's series continues today with Rep. David Bradley (D-LD28). Formatted for transcript format. Rep. David Bradley, D, District 28

Rep. David Bradley (D-LD28)

Committees: Banking and Insurance; Health and Human Services

The Arizona Daily Star asked the following questions of each lawmaker:

1) Lawmakers have discretion over only 37 percent of K-12 education. School districts and universities have already taken millions in budget cuts, which affects everything from the economy to demands on government programs.

Should lawmakers continue to cut money to education? What, specifically, would you do?

A: No, lawmakers should not continue to cut education. However, districts have to realize that there is no help on the way from the state in terms of money or any other practical support and should continue to reallocate their resources directly to the classroom as much as possible. This situation will continue to get worse before it gets better. The universities will have to prepare for further cuts and should be looking to merge their academic programs and focus on seeking other sources of revenue as much as possible. Likewise for the community colleges; they will have to continue to tap what has been their tour de force these many years – their creativity and flexibility. All of higher education will have to retool their missions; doing so will likely have a lasting and devastating effect on the Arizona education system.

I encourage enhancing revenue both in the short term with time-limited fixes and long term with comprehensive tax reform. I am minimally optimistic that this governor or the leadership of this Legislature is capable of achieving those goals. Therefore, the education system from top to bottom must prepare for the worst.

2) The governor's budget includes $37 million in cuts to services for the seriously mentally ill and the elimination of KidsCare, for a savings of $23 million. It also seeks to ask voters to drop 310,500 people from Medicaid by narrowing the eligibility rules.

That savings would be $382 million. Do you support these cuts? If not, how would you cover that $442 million budget gap?

A: No, I do not support these cuts. They are shortsighted and costly. The savings are an illusion, as these individuals will still require care and will just further tax the health-care system by delaying treatment and by accessing more expensive care through emergency rooms.

The budget gap at some point has to be bridged with enhanced revenue. There are many tax reform ideas that have been brought forth to bridge that gap.

3) What is your priority for budget cuts? What, specifically, would you cut first, and why?

A: Most of the budget cuts that are practical have been enacted. While there may be some reduction-in-force savings to be had, they are at this point minimal and counterproductive. There is a point of diminishing returns on savings by cutting government services; eventually commerce and livability become compromised, making recovery more difficult and lengthy.

4) What kind of revenue increases do you support?

A: There are numerous proposals to alter the tax structure of the state. I have been advocating tax reform for eight years. All the current ideas on the table are mere temporary fixes. They all have flaws and do nothing to solve the fundamental long-term problem. The governor has proposed a sales tax increase with a minimal broadening of the tax base to some services. There are many more services that could be included. Additionally, there are taxes such as those on beer, wine, spirits and soda that could be temporarily enacted to bridge our current gaps until comprehensive tax reform could be enacted.

None of these proposals will likely make it out of the Legislature. In the end, the general public will have to communicate to the Legislature what government functions it deems necessary. The legislators appear to be incapable of determining that themselves. In the meantime, people should prepare themselves for more government reductions of service. There is no help on the way.