Multiple business organizations joined together to release “Imports Work for American Workers,” an economic impact study which found that imports support more than 21 million American jobs.
Arizona imported $7.9 billion in goods and merchandise from Mexico in 2017, 38% of Arizona’s $20.6 billion in global imports.
Arizona’s exports were valued at $19.7 billion in 2020, down 20.1% over the year due to the COVID recession. In 2019 exports accounted for 6.7% of the state’s GDP.
The new study focuses on the net impact of imports on U.S. jobs — including statistics on sectors such as retail, apparel, transportation, manufacturing and consumer technology. The study also looks at how imports support jobs in states across the U.S. as well as trade policy initiatives pending before Congress and the administration with the potential to preserve or diminish import-related jobs.
Among the key findings:
Imports support more than 21 million American jobs across the country, including a net positive number in every U.S. state. The 10 states accounting for the largest number of import-related jobs are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.
Imports from key trading partners — including Canada, China, the European Union and Mexico — support a net positive number of U.S. jobs.
Import-related jobs are good jobs that pay competitive wages. Nearly 8 million of the jobs related to importing are held by minorities and 2.5 million jobs are held by workers represented by unions.
The vast majority (96 percent) of companies who import are small or medium-sized businesses.
U.S. trade policies, many now pending before Congress and the administration, have the potential to both support and hurt these jobs.
The American Apparel and Footwear Association, the American Chemistry Council, the Consumer Technology Association, the National Foreign Trade Council, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Fashion Industry Association and the U.S. Global Value Chain Coalition commissioned the study.
Votes by State Senators on three bills Thursday may have been overshadowed by the struggle to get budget legislation passed, but some legislators say the importance of those votes should not be ignored.
After its passage Thursday in the Senate, SB1074 was sent to Gov. Doug Ducey. The bill introduced by Sen. David Livingston (R-LD22) prohibits the state, as well as any state agency, city, town, county, or other political subdivision of Arizona from using public monies for and requiring an employee to engage in orientation, training, or therapy premised on any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.
The 16 to 14 vote banning what is commonly called Critical Race Theory training from government workplaces is something Sam Stone, chief of staff for Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio, applauds the Legislature for, as it stops what he calls “hate” in its tracks.
“A lot of people who aren’t familiar with it confuse Critical Race Theory with the racial sensitivity training they may have had in the past. Critical Race Theory is not that,” Stone told AZ Free News. “It is a pernicious, racist ideology that seeks to rewrite history, and asserts that every single white person is, by definition, a racist and every person of color a victim.. No one should ever be told who or what they are based on the color of their skin.”
But there is much more to SB1074 than the training prohibition.
If Ducey signs the bill, it will usher in a major change to how cities, towns, counties, and community college districts approve the financial statements related to statutorily-required audits. The approval is often conducted under the radar by a city or town council, county board of supervisors, and college board of directors through the consent agenda of a meeting.
No discussion is allowed of items on a consent agendas, leaving the public with little awareness of any problems identified during an audit. But under Livingston’s bill, Arizona’s cities, towns, counties, and community college districts would be prohibited from shielding a negative audit through a consent agenda vote.
SB1074 also requires the governing body to have the CPA or auditor who performed the audit or prepared the financial statements to make a public presentation of the results. And it must be conducted during a regular meeting of the public body which has been properly noticed.
Another bill headed to Ducey is HB2792 introduced by Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-LD12) to make it a felony for a county recorder or other election official to knowingly mail out an early ballot to a voter who has not requested the ballot. The bill is one of several put forth by Republicans in connection to election reforms, and it passed the Senate on a party line vote of 16 to 14.
One bill that did not make it to Ducey after Thursday’s vote is SB1532, which seeks to prohibit blame or judgment tenets or lesson plans, such as Critical Race Theory, from public schools. It also set rules for how educators can teach controversial topics, and includes a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per incident against a teacher who violates those mandates.
SB1532 has been the focus of many passioned comments from legislators since being introduced by Livingston several weeks ago. It passed the House earlier this month on a 31 to 29 party line vote, and would have needed the support of all 16 Republican Senators on Thursday to pass.
But it was the bill’s provision allowing prosecutors from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office or a local county attorney’s office to sit in classrooms to investigate a teacher’s conduct which led to Sen. Paul Boyer (R-LD20) voting no.
“I’ve been struggling with this bill,” said Boyer, a junior high school teacher, in explaining his vote.
The bill would have died on a 15 to 15 vote, but Livingston utilized a procedural maneuver to change his yes vote to a no vote on his own bill. The resultant 14 to 16 vote ensures Livingston has a chance to work on a possible amendment which would garner Boyer’s support on a reconsideration vote.
As the Senate-authorized audit of 2.1 million Maricopa County ballots continues, a judge announced Thursday he will hear arguments in a lawsuit about whether communications, reports, and other documents between Senators, their contracted auditors, and volunteers are public records.
Judge Michael Kemp of the Maricopa County Superior Court has set July 7 for oral arguments in the case filed earlier this month by American Oversight, a Washington DC-based nonprofit which has been trying since April to obtain records related to planning, procedures, costs, and payments for the election audit.
Several audit-related documents have been turned over to American Oversight by Norm Moore, the Senate’s public records attorney, before and after the May 20 lawsuit was filed. However, Moore has also responded that the Senate “does not have in its possession, custody or control” many of the documents American Oversight wants.
Those records are reportedly in the possession, custody, and control of Florida-based Cyber Ninjas, the company Senate President Karen Fann selected back in March to conduct the audit “on behalf of the Senate.” Cyber Ninjas is being paid through public funds, and is also believed to be receiving “donations” to cover the costs of its work as well as that of various subcontractors.
Other records are believed to be under the control of subcontractors as well as Ken Bennett, a former Arizona Secretary of State serving as the Senate’s liaison with the auditors.
The legal issue for Kemp is whether the companies and non-government employees involved in the audit are subject to Arizona Revised Statute 39-121, the state’s public records law. Attorneys for American Oversight contend the Senate’s position goes against the spirit and the letter of Arizona’s public records law which is based on a presumption of public access.
In an April 6 letter to Fann, the company noted access to the requested records “would contribute significantly to public understanding of operations of the government, including whether or to what extent partisan political considerations influenced the senate’s decision to pursue an additional audit, or guided the selection of the auditing team.”
The defendants in American Oversight’s lawsuit include the Senate as a public body, as well as Fann and Sen. Warren Petersen. It was Petersen, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who joined Fann in signing a subpoena served on Maricopa County in January to obtain access to the county’s voting system equipment, election records, and original ballots.
Judge Kemp also set a June 9 deadline for the Senate to file for dismissal of the lawsuit which, if filed, would be heard July 7 before the other arguments.
By Arizona Corporation Commissioner Justin Olson |
On Wednesday, the Corporation Commission disregarded the clear will of the voters and advanced energy mandates nearly identical to what the voters overwhelmingly rejected just over two years ago. With 68.2% voting no, Arizonans resoundingly defeated Proposition 127 that would have required Arizona’s utilities to obtain 50% of their power from renewable sources. Voters sent a clear message that they do not support arbitrary mandates that will drive up the cost of their energy bills .
While Proposition 127 was a 50% renewable energy mandate by 2030, the draft energy rules adopted by the Commission yesterday include a 50% carbon emissions reduction mandate by 2032. But that’s not all, the Commission’s rule goes far beyond Prop-127’s 50% threshold and requires a 100% ban on carbon emissions by 2070.
Two years ago, California adopted a similar 100% standard and the result has been disastrous. Californians pay 50% more for their power than Arizonans, and, what do they get for this premium—rolling blackouts. In the heat of the summer last year, Californians found themselves with no ability to turn on their air conditioning units, power their appliances or even have a light to read. There was not enough power to go around due to California’s failed policies. Why would Arizona adopt the same mandates that led to these miserable results?
During the Commission’s deliberations, I offered an amendment to the energy rules that would have honored the will of the voters and protected ratepayers. With my amendment, the mandates would only apply if the projects available to meet the carbon reduction thresholds were the lowest-cost method of meeting customers’ energy needs. Unfortunately, the Commission rejected this commonsense amendment and made it clear that these rules are designed to drive up costs to ratepayers.
When I ran for the Commission, I promised to pursue policies that will lead to the lowest rates possible while still maintaining safe and reliable services. I have sought to honor this pledge with each of my votes at the Commission and my vote yesterday was no exception. I proudly voted to respect the will of the voters and to protect the ratepayers from unwanted rate increases. It’s disappointing that a majority of the Commission did not do the same.
Senate President Karen Fann will try one more time this week to pull together the 16 votes needed to pass the budget bills, something she could not do Wednesday when one of the 30 senators did not come to work.
The Republican-majority Senate stands in recess until 11 a.m. Thursday at which time several bills are scheduled to be considered, most of which are budget-related. There was hope Wednesday that the 16 Republicans would pass the bills, but Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita’s daylong absence quashed that option.
Fann and Majority Leader Sen. Rick Gray need the entire Senate Republican caucus on board, so if it appears the 16 votes are not a sure thing Thursday then Fann can simply recess her chamber until June 10, a plan put into place Wednesday night after House Speaker Rusty Bowyers chose to recess his chamber for several days.
In the meantime, the fate of the months-long negotiated spending budget, tax cuts, and plan to transition Arizona to a flat rate income tax remains uncertain, according to budget-watchers. And that may not bode well for the flat tax plan which Republicans have sought for years.
“Right now, the flat tax proposal is still being negotiated among members to address a couple of concerns,” according to Scot Mussi, head of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “The first concern is the alleged impact on cities and towns due to revenue sharing. Cities are arguing that the tax cut will result in a massive cut in shared revenue from the state.”
But Mussi pointed out that flat tax supporters, including AFEC, believe cities are enjoying budget surpluses -in some cities quite sizable surpluses- and continue to receive a large infusion of new revenue from the taxation of online remote sales.
“The second concern was that the proposed tax package included a tranche of special interest tax breaks, which groups like ours oppose,” Mussi said. “It is our understanding that most of these tax breaks, including one for low income housing and another for wealthy investors, will be removed from the plan.”
But Mussi says groups like AFEC continue to support this year’s budget plan -minus the special interest tax breaks.
“Currently, Arizona has one of the highest income tax rates in the nation and we are uncompetitive compared to our low tax neighbors. The proposed tax plan goes a long way toward addressing this problem,” he explained.
With uncertainty over whether Fann has the 16 votes in the Senate and House Speaker Rusty Bowyers has his 31 votes, Mussi says the budget negotiations are likely not over.
“There is still a lot of horse trading occurring, much of which will continue,” he said. “Some of the demands still being made related to the budget is to rein in some of the pork barrel spending, make tweaks to the tax plan to address concerns with the cities, and to address other policy issues such as election integrity and school choice.”
And what about Fann and Bowyers trying to poach support from a few Democrats if not all Republicans are on board soon? Mussi believes the only budget bills Democrats may vote for would be the Education Budget which includes K-12 spending increases. But the legislative leaders are likely to have a hard time getting any further support across the aisle for the rest of the budget, Mussi said.
