by Matthew Holloway | Sep 17, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Reformed Democrats Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard pumped up the pro-Trump crowd at Arizona Christian University in Glendale on Saturday, railing against the hyperbolically left Democratic National Committee as having become the “party of war,” “the party of censorship.”
According to the New York Post, former Presidential candidate RFK, Jr., told the rapt audience, “Today it’s become the party of war, it’s become the party of surveillance, it’s become the party of censorship.” He added, “It’s no longer the party that I recognized.”
The event, entitled “Team Trump’s Reclaim America Tour,” was attended by approximately 600 people as reported by AZ Central, with more turned away at the door due to the size of the more intimate venue. The discussion was moderated by independent journalist Jessica Reed Kraus.
Kennedy’s showstopper moment came while explaining the withdrawal of his candidacy for President saying, “The reason I terminated my campaign is because it became clear to me my remaining in this campaign was going to bring to power a candidate who I believe will be easily manipulated by the deep state, by the national security state, by the intelligence agencies, to keep us in a state of continual war and seal the destruction of the United States of America.”
Gabbard echoed Kennedy’s sentiment, the outlet reported, noting that the Harris campaign would see America mired in “continual war,” citing the endorsement of anti-Trump GOP former Vice President Dick Cheney.
She referred to the Democratic Party as an “elite cabal,” and “warmongers,” asking, “How could I […] align with a party that stands for tyranny and war?”
The former Congresswoman cited efforts by the left to target both Kennedy and President Trump via “systematic weaponization of government.”
Gabbard countered, “We the people are far more powerful than them, which is why they are trying to destroy us, but we the people will not let them do that.”
As noted by the Post, Gabbard made a clear distinction between her and Kennedy’s message and the hyperpartisanship of the election at large. She told attendees the goal of their tour is to “point out the truth that this is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about our country.’
“This is about we the people standing up for freedom. This is about we the people standing up for peace.”
When asked about the pair’s future in the Trump campaign, Gabbard quipped, “Well I think Bobby and I are going to be on the road for the next 51 days,” and explained that despite her name not being on the ballot, as most politicians are who say it, “this is the most important election of our lives.” Wistfully noting that the waves in her home state of Hawaii “are really good right now,” she emphasized that the next 51 days will be filled with “conversations like this.”
Kennedy, answering the same, said his next trip home wouldn’t be for three weeks.
Brian Hughes, a senior Trump campaign advisor said in a statement released in late August that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have been added to the Trump/Vance Transition team. He wrote, “As President Trump’s broad coalition of supporters and endorsers expands across partisan lines, we are proud that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have been added to the Trump/Vance Transition team.” What roles the two will play in the second Trump administration remain unclear.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 16, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
A new law, H.R. 3269, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, has passed the House Committee on Ways & Means and will move to the full floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. The proposed legislation would reform federal firearms laws to “account for advancements in de-escalation and less-than-lethal instruments, ensuring the continued innovation of lifesaving devices,” according to a press release from Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ).
Under the existing laws, less-than-lethal weapons such as the TASER are legally considered “firearms” under federal regulation and the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET). Title 18 of the U.S. Code applies the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax, and the National Firearms Act also imposes an additional excise tax on “sales by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of certain firearms and ammunition,” potentially stifling adoption of the less-than-lethal devices by agencies and the public alike.
In the press release, Schweikert said, “Imagine a society where law enforcement is able to effectively protect our communities, without any lives being lost. Aligning the tax code to meet the needs of our law enforcement officers and communities offers Congress the opportunity to reduce the chance of the use of deadly force and the unnecessary loss of life. Our ability to keep pushing forward to a world where such technology is available and robust has inspired this moral fix in hopes to solve part of the bigger societal issue, and I promise to continue advocating for this bill until it is signed into law.”
The new bill would define a “less-than-lethal projectile device” as a “device with a bore or multiple bores, that—‘‘(A) is not designed or intended to expel a projectile at a velocity exceeding 500 feet per second by any means; and (B) is designed or intended to be used in a manner that is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.’’
Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) observed, “We need many different tools to keep the peace and protect our communities. Unfortunately, inconsistencies in our laws and tax code have resulted in critical and innovative less-than-lethal devices such as tasers being taxed as firearms, making it costly and difficult to meet safety needs. The Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, sponsored by Reps. Schweikert and Stanton, will harmonize our tax code to ensure less-than-lethal technology is readily available and that our communities can keep pace with future innovations.”
In a post to X in April, The International Union Of Police Associations endorsed the bill writing, “The I.U.P.A. vigorously advocates for law enforcement professionals on a national level by supporting legislation that serves their interests. One recent example is H.R. 3269, the ‘Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act’.”
The bill was introduced by Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) and co-sponsored by Congressmen Andy Biggs (R-AZ), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) along with forty-three other Republicans and seventeen Democrats making it a truly bipartisan piece of legislation.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly referrred to Rep. Greg Stanton as a Republican. Rep. Greg Stanton is a Democrat. The story has been corrected.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 15, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Payson Town Council’s August decision to incur a $70 million debt via a bond measure approved without a public referendum has triggered a lawsuit from concerned residents with the assistance of the Goldwater Institute. Goldwater is assisting resident Deborah Rose to challenge the measure despite the Town’s claimed legal pretext of an “emergency” to counter efforts from the public to stop it.
John Thorpe, a Goldwater attorney representing Deborah explained, “Our leaders want our money, but not our vote. They’re trying to take advantage of legal loopholes to saddle their own constituents with tens of millions of dollars of debt, systematically stripping power from the people by ignoring laws and twisting their truths.”
As noted by the Payson Roundup, the lawsuit seeks to block the bond resolution by arguing that no legal emergency actually exists. However, the outlet reported Payson Town Attorney Jon Paladini scoffed at the lawsuit as “specious,” and claimed it would be dismissed quickly. He told the outlet, “Bottom line is that the courts are prohibited from second guessing a legislative body like the council — a slew of cases tell us that. It’s about as close to being frivolous as we’ve seen.”
The use of the city’s emergency clause with a 6-1 vote forced the bond sale into immediate effect and brushed aside the typical 30-day period voters would have to gather signatures to force a vote.
The alleged justification for the “emergency” comes from speculation that at an upcoming meeting of the Federal Reserve, the Fed is expected to reduce interest rates by a quarter or half-point which would lower the interest rates the town would pay.
Thorpe argued that, “Government officials’ efforts to time the market, based on pure speculation about financial trends, is not an ‘emergency,’” and added that this use of the “emergency clause” violates the Arizona constitutional right to organize a referendum and vote on it.
“The so-called ‘emergency’ here is nothing more than town officials’ apparent belief that interest rates might rise in coming months, and that they’ll secure slightly better municipal bond terms now than they could in 30 days if they gave residents the opportunity to organize a referendum,”
He wrote, “When the council approved the bond measure, it slipped in an ’emergency clause,’ stating that the measure would go into effect immediately, without letting residents who might oppose the measure organize a referendum and put the issue to a vote. But the Arizona Constitution guarantees the right of referendum: the right of Arizonans to circulate petitions and refer bills, ordinances, and resolutions for a popular vote. It’s a cornerstone of democratic accountability in Arizona, and it means that the people—not politicians—have the last word in state and local government.
The Payson Town Council is trying to bypass that safeguard and short-circuit the democratic process using a legal loophole: a narrow exception allowing cities and towns to enact emergency measures without waiting for a referendum when such measures are ‘necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health or safety of the city or town.’ The so-called ’emergency’ here is nothing more than town officials’ apparent belief that interest rates might rise in coming months, and that they’ll secure slightly better municipal bond terms now than they could in 30 days if they gave residents the opportunity to organize a referendum.”
Paladini maintains that the bond sale measure meets the emergency clause designation and therefore the bonds for such general town projects as “a community and swim center, hiking trails and trailheads, covered event center to lure conventions,” and “upgrades to Main Street to create a business and entertainment district,” “improvements to streets and to public facilities like the police station and fire stations,” according to the Roundup, all constitute “emergency” spending. As noted in the Roundup, nearly all bond sales rely upon the “emergency clause” to sidestep the possibility of blocking them through referendum.
Should the Goldwater lawsuit succeed, it would enforce the standard that voters can in fact challenge bond measures as intended under the Arizona Constitution.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 14, 2024 | Economy, News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Common Sense Institute of Arizona (CSI) released a report Wednesday which outlines the implications and economic impact of the City of Glendale’s far-reaching “Hotel and Event Center Minimum Wage Protection Act” (Prop 499). The act is set to be considered by voters on November 5.
The initiative, launched by the non-profit organization “Worker Power Political Action Committee,” has been challenged by the City of Glendale on the basis that it violates the State of Arizona’s “Single Subject Rule” limiting initiatives to act upon a single issue, The case is now headed to the State Supreme Court according to AZ Central.
The report from CSI Arizona details that the initiative, if it becomes law, would mandate that hotel and event center employers pay their staff a minimum of $20 per hour, and places narrow restrictions on the duties they may perform and the duration for which they may perform them. As Brunner explains, “For example, it prescribes how many square feet can be cleaned in a hotel before the employer is required to pay twice the room attendants’ regular rate of pay for each hour worked during that workday, and establishes new requirements on how Hotel and Accommodation firms treat certain revenues and records.”
The act would furthermore require the City of Glendale to create an entirely new enforcement division in order to enforce the mandate and hire staff to conduct investigations. It would also price non-union labor out of the market per the report.
The CSI found that the new law, if enacted, would, “reduce Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Glendale by between $120 million and $1.9 billion.” Given that the city’s event and accommodation industries account for approximately 8.2% of Glendale’s entire economy, the blow to the city’s tax base could be severe.
“Depending on how the industry responds to the new policies, between 1,700 and 32,000 Glendale jobs could be impacted. Impacts will range from the elimination of existing jobs subject to the new rules, to reduced work hours, to the movement of jobs outside the city. How much of each and when will determine where things fall in this range.”
In a post to X, the CSI explained, “The Minimum Wage Act would impose significant costs on the city of Glendale, requiring the creation of a new Department of Labor Standards to enforce the Act’s provisions. CSI estimates the city would need to spend $995,000 to $1.9 million annually to manage these new requirements.”
Compellingly, the CSI report referecnces similar policies put in place around the country as “instructive examples,” of the likely ramifications of enacting the restrictive law.
“This year California instituted a $20 per hour minimum wage for fast food workers leading restaurant owners to reduce staff hours, lay off part-time staffers, and limit overtime pay. Also this year, Long Beach, CA passed a ballot initiative instituting a $23 per hour minimum wage for hotel workers. On the consideration of increasing hotel and airport workers’ minimum wage to $25 per hour, the President of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association said ‘increasing the hourly wage by $6 or $7 this year alone could cost an employer about $14,000 more per worker.’ For Arizona to pass a $20 minimum wage for hotel and event center workers in Glendale, it could cost employers up to $10,756 per affected worker -through a combination of either direct increased wage costs or efficiency losses as employers mitigate the impacts by reducing staff, cutting hours, or moving business activity. Much of this cost will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices and increased fees (as has been the case in California). This may further incentivize both customers and operators to seek alternatives outside the city.”
With Glendale and the city’s businesses banking heavily on the much ballyhooed Mattel Adventure Park at the VAI Resort set to open in late 2024, according to a park representative, and the growing impact of the Westgate Entertainment District and State Farm Arena on the local economy, the impacts of this measure could be devastating.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 12, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
During its meeting on September 5th, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), led by Republican Commissioner Nick Myers, voted unanimously to approve a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) allowing the Midtown Reliability Project of the Tucson Electric Power (TEP) company to move forward.
The project is a comprehensive upgrade to the now-overloaded 46 kV high-voltage transmission lines that run through midtown Tucson to a “more flexible, higher voltage” 138 kV monopole line above ground, according to a press release from the Commission.
A major controversy unfolded with some in Tucson calling upon the ACC to select a partially underground routing that would increase the cost of the project by millions of dollars and meet the expense through an end-user fee.
Commissioner Myers commented after the vote, “I understand why some Tucson residents would want this project constructed below ground. However, constructing the project below ground is not needed for safety, reliability or other utility operational reasons; therefore, it is not acceptable for all TEP customers to shoulder the $67 million cost for undergrounding the project.”
He added, “I am pleased the Commission approved this important grid-reliability project, while at the same time protecting TEP customers from unnecessary undergrounding expenses.”
In a corresponding press release, TEP explained, “The ACC voted unanimously today to authorize above-ground construction along TEP’s preferred route for the project, which primarily follows West Grant Road, North Park Avenue, Euclid Avenue and East 36th Street to link two TEP substations to the planned Vine Substation north of the University of Arizona campus. The ACC also authorized construction along an alternative route. An interactive map of the approved corridors can be viewed online.”
The utility added a timeframe saying, “With growing energy demands nearly reaching the capacity of existing, lower-voltage facilities, TEP will work to complete the transmission line and substation by the summer of 2027 to maintain service reliability.”
Myers’ fellow Republican, ACC Chairman Jim O’Connor, told KOLD, “A big kudo to the parties for finding a solution that will enable this project to move forward. This transmission project will further enhance reliability and modernize a critical portion of our electric grid in Tucson.”
The local outlet noted that a sticking point for the project has been pushback from the midtown community and many advocating for subterranean lines. In 2023, KOLD’s Jack Cooper wrote in a post to X that the opposition to the above-ground routing were “worried about property values and want the lines buried.” However, as the ACC noted in its release, “The Commission unanimously decided to protect ratepayers from that financial impact.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
